Research Possibilities for OrganizationalCognitive Neuroscience

MICHAEL J.R. BUTLER AND CARL SENIOR

Organisational Cognitive Neuroscience Center, Aston University, BirminghamB4 7ET, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: In this article, we identify research possibilities for organiza-tional cognitive neuroscience that emerge from the papers in this specialissue. We emphasize the intriguing finding that the papers share a com-mon theme—the use of cognitive neuroscience to investigate the role ofemotions in organizational behavior; this suggests a research agenda inits own right. We conclude the article by stressing that there is muchyet to discover about how the mind works, especially in organizationalsettings.

KEYWORDS: research possibilities, organizational cognitive neuroscienceand organization studies

Time present and time pastAre both perhaps present in time future,And time future contained in time past.

—T.S. Eliot (1888–1965): Four Quartets, “Burnt Norton, I”1

INTRODUCTION

The study of organizational cognitive neuroscience has a short history, but apromising future. In this special issue we have sought to illuminate the varietyof perspectives that distinguished international scholars already have used toexplore this new field. Most of the contributors identify a possible researchagenda emerging from their work. We encourage the reader to follow thosesuggestions, and we will not review them here. Instead, we suggest researchpossibilities from the holistic perspective we have as editors of the specialissue.

This special issue is divided into three sets of contributions, each of whichhas a different perspective on the emotional aspects of organizing work re-lationships. The first set of papers provides a methodological approach to

Address for correspondence: Michael J. R. Butler, Aston Business School, Aston University, AstonTriangle, Birmingham B4 7ET United Kingdom. Voice: +44 (0) 121-204 3053 (Direct/Voicemail),+44 (0) 121-204 3257 (Group Administrator/Voicemail); fax: +44 (0) 121-204 3327.

m.j.r.butler@aston.ac.uk

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118: 206–210 (2007). C© 2007 New York Academy of Sciences.doi: 10.1196/annals.1412.010

206

BUTLER & SENIOR 207

organizational cognitive neuroscience; nevertheless, these papers have affec-tive insights about the workplace. The second set of papers explores the im-portance of positive emotions in the workplace, and each succeeding paperbecomes more applied in its discussion as the authors seek to relate cognitiveneuroscience to organizational well-being. The third set of papers exploreshow the workplace can become a toxic environment.

We suggest research possibilities for organizational cognitive neurosciencethat emerge out of the three sets of contributions. However, we examine theintriguing finding that all three sets of papers promote the use of cognitiveneuroscience to investigate the role of emotions in organizational behavior;the emergence of this common theme suggests a research agenda in its ownright.

COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND ORGANIZATIONALWELL-BEING

We deliberately made the call for papers as wide as possible to exploreongoing research in the field of organizational cognitive neuroscience. Thepapers we selected for publication, which broadly reflect what we received,share in common the goal of linking cognitive neuroscience with organizationalwell-being. This allies the emergence of organizational cognitive neuroscienceto another emerging new field—compassion.

Attention to compassion in organizations is relatively recent, although dis-cussions of the concept span both time and discipline.2 Frost et al. provide abrief overview of the intellectual history of the idea and draw on four litera-tures: religious, philosophical, medical, and innate human instinct.3 They arguethat possessing the innate instinct for compassion biologically underpins thereligious and philosophical literatures. It is on this last point that compassion,organizational cognitive neuroscience, and the papers in this special issue allconverge, discovering what innate instinct means for people in organizations.

In more detail, Frost et al. define compassion as a three-part process: noticinganother’s suffering, feeling empathy for the other’s pain, and responding to thesuffering in some way.3 They then offer three distinct theoretical lenses throughwhich to view compassion: interpersonal work, narrative, and organizing.

Interpersonal work is that which happens in the space between two people.4

Its success is a product of the joint qualities and behaviors of the people in-volved and consumes both cognitive effort and emotional energy.5 Such workwould not be done unless it had a benefit, for example, helping a colleaguewho has been berated by a boss so the colleague can carry on and is produc-tive.6 Narrative highlights that lived experience is captured, stored, and toldas stories.7 People express what they know and how they feel in organizationsthrough stories; in other words, people use stories and narrative to make senseof their organization.8 Organizing is a process of social accomplishment thatrequires active coordination across actors that gives rise to complex, nonlinear

208 ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

processes in the organization. These processes might take the form of networksof contact that give shape to complex processes.3

Here, we suggest a fourth theoretical lens—organizational cognitiveneuroscience—that can be deployed to research all three parts of thecompassion process. Many of the papers in this special issue are groupedaround interpersonal work; it is possible to deepen the research on interper-sonal work and also to expand into narrative and organizing.

RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES EMERGING FROM THESPECIAL ISSUE

As noted, this special issue is divided into three sets of contributions, each ofwhich takes a different perspective on the emotional aspects of organizing workrelationships. The three sets of papers are used to identify research possibilities.

The first set of papers provides a methodological approach to organizationalcognitive neuroscience; from these papers, two research streams emerge. Thefirst is the need for greater conceptual clarification: What do we mean whenwe use the label organizational cognitive neuroscience? A new field will notbecome accepted or established unless scholars working in that area have alanguage and a set of methods that allow them to communicate with eachother. A shared narrative will then encourage more scholars to venture intothis area.

The second research stream is the need to develop innovative methods sothat future special issues in this area include data-rich contributions and, moreimportantly, so that evidence-driven contributions engage more with the prac-tice of organizing. In other words, are staff to be brought into the researchlaboratories or can the laboratory be taken out to the workplace? This alsoraises the issue of turning current research findings into practical tools withwhich to develop business and management.

The second set of papers explores the importance of positive emotions in theworkplace. In this special issue, organizational well-being is focused on threetopics: fairness, cooperation, and corporate camaraderie as a business changeprocess. More work needs to be done on these topics; in addition, the discussionabout compassion suggests alternative directions for fruitful research.

One key research area related to interpersonal work is the investigationof variability in the expression of organization well-being across differentwork settings and, indeed, variation across different cultures, especially giventhe growth of the globalized economy. This also concerns narrative: Howdo different work settings and different cultures represent their stories aboutinterpersonal work? In terms of organizing, the question is whether differentwork settings and cultures create appropriate processes to voice well-being?

The international perspective is important. The editors have noted that allof the contributions have come from the developed world—the UK, Europe,and the USA. However, organizational cognitive neuroscience should not be

BUTLER & SENIOR 209

geographically limited because it addresses research questions fundamental toall humans.

The third set of papers explores how the workplace can become atoxic environment. This special issue focuses on four concerns: identifyingcognitive inaccuracies and then finding strategies to improve decisionmaking,overcoming gender bias in the job negotiation process, challenging the faddishapplication of two popular tools because they do not facilitate creativity, andrecognizing mental satiation with a repeated action.

Although historically psychological and organizational research has demon-strated a strong bias toward understanding negative or detrimental conditionsrather than positive or virtuous ones,9 it is still important to understand suchconditions so that they can be minimized or eliminated. This is especially truefor the paper on the application of popular business tools, because the toolsconcerned, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats and Porter’sFive Force Framework,10 are taught in virtually all business and managementschools and, as a consequence, are widely used in real settings.

Again, more work must be done to address the concerns highlighted inthis special issue. Here we have highlighted the importance of researchingthe presupposed benefits of a tool used in learning and teaching. There aremany more concerns to be addressed, which can easily be identified as we gothrough our daily routines; talk to family, friends, and colleagues; or consumethe media. One particular area for future work will be burnout, or how to helpthe helper, an area that is already recognized in the caring professions.11

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Pinker echoes the scope of the research ideas outlined above by pointing outthat we do not understand how the mind works, certainly not well enough todesign utopia or to cure unhappiness.12 What we do know may be proved wrongas future research is conducted. This is exciting; it means that there is a worldof research possibilities. Pinker classifies two types of possibility: problemsand mysteries.12 In the face of a problem, we may not know its solution, butwe have insight, increasing knowledge, and an idea of what we are looking for.In the face of a mystery, we can only stare in wonder and bewilderment, notknowing what an explanation would look like.

The fascination of organizational cognitive neuroscience is that it lies be-tween finding solutions to problems and exploring mysteries. Research projectsare designed to resolve problems, and research questions are addressed to fillgaps in an existing body of knowledge. Nevertheless, in organizational cog-nitive neuroscience, researchers conducting their research projects are alsoinvestigating the mystery of how the mind works, especially in organizationalsettings. Once we introduce the notion of compassion, the research agendaalso has a noble cause.

210 ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

REFERENCES

1. ELIOT, T.S. 1977. Four Quartets, Burnt Norton. In The Penguin Dictionary ofQuotations. J.M. Cohen & M.J. Cohen, Eds.: 151. Book Club Associates. London.

2. FROST, P.J. 1999. Why compassion counts! Jnl. of Management Inquiry 8: 127–133.

3. FROST, P.J. et al. 2006. Seeing organizations differently: three lenses on compas-sion. In The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies. S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B.Lawrence & W.R. Nord, Eds.: 843–866. Sage. London.

4. JOSSELSON, R. 1992. The Space Between Us: Exploring the Dimensions of HumanRelationships. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

5. MILLER, J.P. & I.P. STIVER. 1997. The Healing Connection. Beacon Press. Boston,MA.

6. FROST, P.J. 2003. Toxic Emotions at Work: How Compassionate Managers HandlePain and Conflict. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA.

7. BRUNER, J.S. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press.Cambridge, MA.

8. WEICK, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications. ThousandOaks, CA.

9. CAMERON, K.S. & A. CAZA. 2004. Contributions to the discipline of positive or-ganizational scholarship. American Behavioural Scientist 47: 731–739.

10. PORTER, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Free Press. New York, NY.11. COLLINS, S. & A. LONG. Too tired to care? The psychological effects of working

with trauma. Jnl. of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing 10: 17–27.12. PINKER, S. 1999. How the Mind Works. Penguin Books. London.