Neuroscientific Insights Into Management Development

Reflective Mind-Set—The Management of Self

For many managers, the future arrives too soon and its flow is unrelenting. Time for reflection and resulting self-awareness through introspection are illusions. Yet, it is critical that managers learn to “stop and think”; it is crucial that they do not just experience passively, but learn to reflect on their experiences and develop an accurate sense of self.

Self-awareness, for the purpose of this article, is defined as “having awareness of, and trust in, one’s motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions. It includes, but is not limited to, being aware of one’s strengths and weaknesses, trait characteristics, and emotions” (Kernis, 2003, p. 13). Recent neuroscientific findings (Wagner, Haxby, & Heatherton, 2012) reveal that self-knowledge is represented and processed within the brain, specifically within the prefrontal cortex (PFC), in a manner distinct from nonsocial knowledge. Neurological systems (i.e., synaptic connections) in the human brain give evolutionary priority to social interaction (Lieberman, 2013). Figure 1 shows relevant brain regions and neural structures.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Medial view of human brain.

The neurological construction of self is not singular, rather it consists of a hierarchy of cognitions from conscious to unconscious, which at the highest level means being aware of one’s own self-awareness (Morin, 2006). Self-awareness is a uniquely human capacity that provides humankind with an evolutionary edge (Focquaert, Braeckman, & Platek, 2008). On this note, it is important to recognize that humans have a corresponding capacity for self-deception (Mele, 1997). Neuroscientific research has found that humans are biased toward positive evaluations of self and that the degree of bias is inversely related to brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex when forming judgments regarding performance (Wagner et al., 2012).

Self-knowledge is derived from introspection as to firsthand experiences (direct knowledge) as well as the interpretation of views expressed by others (reflected knowledge). A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study (Ochsner et al., 2005), which focused specifically on how the brain processes direct and reflected self-knowledge, found that neural systems (medial PFC and rostrolateral PFC) distinguish between appraisals of self based on information from close others versus appraisals of self based on information from nonclose others. The brain has a positive bias, defined in terms of cognitive salience and impact, toward information generated from within one’s in-group relative to that generated by the member of an out-group. This neuroscientific insight has important implications for management development. It generates the research proposition that managers have a neurological propensity to discount information about themselves from outsiders in favor of information from close associates.

A second insight originates from the neuroscience literature on mindfulness. Tang and Posner (2008) discuss mindfulness as a sense of self-awareness and self-observation. From a developmental perspective, mindfulness can be facilitated through the practice of learning to focus one’s attention (i.e., meditation). For example, Saunders and her colleagues (2007) trained medical students in several forms of meditation, which created greater self-awareness and capacity to self-reflect. Practicing mindfulness can assist managers to ground their thinking in the present moment, rather than relying on a more general extended sense of self over time. The ability to attend to the present is of particular value given the turbulence manifest in the modern managerial context. Farb and colleagues (2007) found evidence of two distinct neurological thought patterns for self-reference, one extended across time and the other centered in the present. They found that attentional training, an 8-week course on mindfulness meditation, enabled participants to maintain focus on their sense of self within the present moment.

A third insight under reflective managerial mind-set relates to neuroscientific findings as to how a person thinks about himself or herself. This research recognizes the human need to belong and suggests that the brain has evolved dedicated neurological processes for self-knowledge, including knowledge of how others respond to us and the detection of social exclusion threats (Heatherton, 2011; Lieberman, 2013). Neuroimaging has shown that brain circuitry when thinking about self is distinct from thinking in general as well as thinking about others. There is increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), posterior cingulate cortex, and precuneus (Heatherton, 2011).

These neuroscientific insights suggest that managers need to have developmental activities contextualized with a group (or groups) of known and trusted associates and that developmental information is biased within a neural hierarchy. Two propositions are developed in this regard:

Analytical Mind-Set—The Management of Organization

Wheatley (1999) notes management’s propensity to deconstruct systems into component parts without understanding relational intricacies and synergistic features of the whole. Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) suggest that managers require analytical capacity beyond the superficialities of obvious data. They propose that managers need to gain greater appreciation for soft data. In addition, managers need to become aware of biases in their own thinking.

Neuroscience has shown that humans have parallel systems for processing information (Lieberman, 2007). The systems can be explicit or implicit, which reflect different evolutionary demands (Geary, 2007). There exists a primitive neural network (i.e., limbic), which evolved prior to the advent of words and numbers when information essential to human survival lacked factual specificity but was nevertheless critical (e.g., the smell or sound of a predator animal). A later neural network evolved as the cortex or outer bark, with its latest evolutionary enhancement being the PFC (Schoenemann, 2006). This network is able to consciously analyze data, including facts, figures, and associations (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4). Kahneman (2011) refers to this neurological distinction as “thinking fast and slow.” He notes that one process is fast, intuitive, and emotional, whereas the other is slow, deliberate, and logical.

The neuroscience literature recognizes two separate neurological networks, one for deliberation and one for intuition. Organizational research has for a long time recognized the value of processes of deliberation but more recently proposes that intuition is important under conditions of uncertainty (Sadler-Smith & Burke, 2009). Using an array of stimuli (art, music, and poetry), Dijkstra, Pligt, and Kleef (2013) found that mode choice (deliberation vs. intuition) was not critical for novices who had little experience and little knowledge of the subjects. Nor was it critical for experts who had significant experience along with accompanying conceptual frameworks that allowed them to explain their decisions. However, intermediates, defined as those who had high experience but lacked conceptual frameworks, were found to make better decisions using intuition, albeit they may not have been able to verbalize a coherent rationale for their choice. Building from this research, it is suggested that the term intermediate may be characteristic of many managers operating within the turbulence of the modern age (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). While not novices, the demands of a generalist orientation amid the complexity of dynamic, multifaceted environments may preclude development of expertise in any one particular area.

Using two different games, one requiring the ability to consciously compute (i.e., a dominance-solvable game) and the other to intuit what the opposing player is planning for his or her next move (i.e., a coordination game), an fMRI study by Kuo, Sjöström, Chen, Wang, and Huang (2009) found that deliberation, as a function of the dominance-solvable game, produced higher activation in the frontal (middle frontal gyrus) and parietal (precuneus and interior parietal lobe) areas of the brain associated with conscious thought and mathematical reasoning. On a similar note, earlier research shows peaks of activation in frontoparietal areas associated with (a) attention, (b) working memory, (c) episodic retrieval, and (d) conscious perception (Jung & Haier, 2007). Therefore, there is evidence to suggest that conscious deliberation takes place at the front of the brain in the outer cortical regions.

However, Kuo and colleagues (2009) found that intuition, as a function of the coordination game, produced higher activation in the bilateral insulae and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) located deep in the brain’s structure using neural networks of earlier evolutionary origin. The insulae (Latin for islands) are associated with prereflective and reflective manifestations of visceral bodily functions (Craig, 2002). Similarly, the ACC “fires” when demands for innovative and open-ended responses in relation to cognitive complexity are evident (MacDonald, Cohen, Stenger, & Carter, 2000). Kuo and colleagues (2009) conclude that the insula and ACC are part of a neural network contributing to quick and flexible evaluation of complex multidimensional experiences.

The limbic part of the brain acts as a pattern recognition system based on experience. It operates below the level of conscious thought. These patterns influence intuitive judgments and are valid for decision making with one critical proviso: high probability of pattern repetition as per past experience (Kahneman, 2011). For example, it’s good practice to not consciously think about your usual driving route home every night as there is an established pattern in your brain operating at subconscious level, except when that pattern becomes invalid due to a traffic accident. Therefore, pattern identification and repetition probability are important considerations in management decision making. If an existing pattern is not valid for a pending decision (and managers need to be trained to recognize and test unconscious assumptions), then the frontoparietal region of the brain needs to be engaged in conscious, deliberate thought.

The executive part of the brain, the PFC, although impressive in its capacity to manipulate hard data, is fallible beyond the appreciation of most managers (Soros, 2013). It can be stymied by complexity as well as the requirement to analyze soft data (Mitchell, Shepard, & Sharfman, 2011). Managers need to be taught how to integrate across deliberation and intuition, including sensitivity to choosing the most appropriate cognitive approach in a given situation.

Neuroscience underscores the close association between attention and learning (Davachi, Kiefer, Rock, & Rock, 2010). Studies show that when close attention is paid to input at the time it occurs, then there is an increase in the likelihood that the input will be recalled (Posner & Rothbart, 2014). The relevant neural pathway involves feedback from the PFC including the ACC to the hippocampus. The hippocampus is involved in distributing and integrating information and is critical for securing the long-term storage of information. How attention acts to facilitate this process remains ambiguous, however, it seems clear that attention is an important precondition (Posner, 2012). Therefore, managers need to attend more closely to novel situations to facilitate learning and development. Managers who rely on their ability to multitask, thereby dividing their attention across several considerations at the same time, may be doing themselves a disservice.

Worldly Mind-Set—The Management of Perspectives

Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) suggest that managers need to enhance their capacity to embrace a plurality of viewpoints. This suggestion is supported in the literature by the increased prominence of stakeholder theory (Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008), which recommends that managers take into account the views of those with whom the firm interacts so as to be strategically effective. Neuroscience provides insights as to how humans perceive and interpret their environment.

Functional neuroimaging data show evidence of specific neurological pathways that enable humans to interpret their world (Posner, 2012; Posner & Fan, 2008). There is a dedicated neural network (alerting) that responds to incoming sensory data. A second, consecutive network (orienting) acts to select information from incoming data. And finally, a third network (executive attention) addresses conflicts in the information. An example of a “conflict” in the neurological sense would, for example, be reading the word red when displayed in a green font.

Neuroscientific research provides evidence of individual differences in attention capacity (Cowan et al., 2005). Enhanced attention capacity is an important aspect of management development given the degree of complexity that managers experience. Computer-based exercises that present repetitive trials of conflict-related tasks (e.g., when neurological processes diverge) have been shown to be effective in developing attention and improving cognitive skills (Tang & Posner, 2009). However, studies indicate these methods augment the attention network but do not induce changes to emotional regulation and stress reduction (Tang & Posner, 2009). Teaching body–mind balance and changing brain state are also relevant. For example, Integrative Body–Mind Training (IBMT) improves attention span, develops emotional regulation, and reduces stress (Tang, 2011).

Neurophysiological theories of development suggest that humans learn from an early age based on experiences and interactions to categorize, discriminate, and generalize as to their “worldview.” Individuals have unique internal cognitive models that represent the world in which they live. These models act as perceptual filters and influence how people behave. Schlitz, Vieten, and Miller (2010) examine worldview transformation as a means to enhance social consciousness. They present a hierarchy of five developmental levels (low to high) as follows: embedded, self-reflexive, engaged, collaborative, and resonant. At the embedded level, individuals may not even be aware of the social, cultural, and biological factors that shape their worldview. However, at the resonant level, individuals experience a deep sense of connection and sophisticated knowledge as to the dynamics of their interrelatedness.

Of relevance to management development is Schlitz and colleagues’ (2011) work on an educational curriculum designed to develop worldview. They suggest cognitive flexibilities, including comfort with unfamiliarity, appreciation of diverse perspectives, and ability to hold multiple points of view simultaneously, are critical skills in turbulent environments. Their proposed curriculum, developed from the work of Dunbar, Fugelsang, and Stein (2007), shows that the center for learning in the human brain (i.e., caudate and parahippocampal gyrus) favors theory-confirming data and will reject the unfamiliar, which is referred to as error detection, using the dorsolateral PFC and ACC to filter out anomalies. Therefore, exposure to unfamiliar ideas and novel contexts needs to be more evident in management development program design. When it comes to information that is not theory confirming, the salience and reiteration of novel concepts must be of a sufficient order of magnitude to overcome established neurological propensities. In short, management development needs to utilize more novelty, if for no other reason than the positive effects that novelty has on humans and organizations. Pirson, Langer, Bodner, and Zilcha-Mano (2012) propose that the practice of novelty-seeking produces a variety of positive organizational outcomes, including higher job satisfaction, engagement, learning, and creativity.

An important insight from the neuroscience literature is that of metacognition, the capacity to consciously think about what one is thinking. Metacognition involves not just the thought in the moment, but the processes behind the thought, including perspectives, assumptions, and possible biases. The ability to engage in metacognition is a predictor of learning capacity (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1990). Flavell (1979) introduced the concept and distinguished between metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience, and associated regulation strategies. Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, and Afflerbach (2006) provide a comprehensive review of metacognition and its implications for learning. Metacognition has important implications for enhanced workplace learning, including management development (Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell, 2003).

Research on the neurobiological substrates of metacognition has emerged over the last decade, starting with Shimamura’s (2000) seminal work and developing through to Fleming and Dolan’s (2012) review of the neural basis of metacognitive ability. Shimamura concludes that metacognitive neural processes comprise selecting, maintaining, updating, and rerouting. Selecting is defined as the capacity to focus attention on specific memory or sensory data. It is suggested that managers could better regulate their thinking in the face of overwhelming complexity by learning selective attention. Shimamura cites evidence that the Stroop test is instrumental in the assessment of ability to select a specific stimulus feature when facing conflicting information. See Table 2 for a description of the Stroop test and other neuropsychological tests. Maintaining recognizes the mental capacity to hold information in working memory, which is associated with activation of the frontal cortex. There are memory exercises (e.g., digit span tasks) that assess the ability to maintain information in working memory. Updating recognizes that information held in the working memory needs to be revised over time based on real-time experience. Again, there are established neurological assessments (e.g., n-Back task and FAS verbal fluency test) that can be applied to assess this capacity. Finally, individuals using metacognition need to know when to cognitively change their thinking from one process to another, which is called rerouting. A classic assessment for shifting and rerouting is the Wisconsin card sorting test. Differences across these tests will be indicative of each individual’s ability to employ regions of his or her frontal cortex.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Neuropsychological Tests.

Instrument	Description	Process	Diagnostics
Digit Span Task	A measure of verbal working memory defined as the longest span of numbers a person can repeat back in sequence	A line of numbers is presented over a short period. Participants have to repeat back the sequence. Sequence length increases with success. Task includes spans in both forward and reverse order	Indicative of an ability to retain information for the purpose of cognitive processing. Average digit span capacity develops from 3-4 (child) to 6-7 (adult)
FAS Verbal Fluency Test	Test measures phonemic verbal fluency as an indication of attentional capacity and ability to concentrate	Using the starting letters “F,” “A,” and “S,” participants are asked to name as many words as possible over a 1-min period. See also Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWA)	Psychometric scores as item counts are produced under each letter plus an aggregate sum; moderated by age and education with mean shifts of 43 to 28 as old age approaches and 25 to 45 with increasing education
n-Back Task	An assessment of cognitive capacity to address rapidly changing information	A sequence of stimuli (e.g., letters) are presented in which a focal stimulus repeats at n steps with increasing spans	Reflection of fluidity in cognitive processing in the frontal, premotor, and parietal cortices. Higher load factor n indicates fluidity
Stroop Test	Test measures reaction time to tasks involving neurological conflicts (e.g., the word red presented in a green font). It is an indication of capacity for selective attention	Participants are presented with tables of colors in text format starting with a color match between name of the color and color of the font in which the text is presented. It progresses to variations of incongruence between stimulus of the words and those of the font color	Comparative reaction times are reported. The Stroop Test activates dorsolateral frontal lobe and anterior cingulate cortex to resolve neural conflicts and catch errors. It provides a measure of cognitive capacity to block out distractions and concentrate on the task at hand
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test	Focuses on abstract reasoning and ability to exert cognitive flexibility in the face of external feedback through reinforcement schedule changes. It reflects activity in the frontal lobe, in particular, the brain’s executive function	Participants are given four stimulus cards containing shapes (e.g., circles, stars, squares, and crosses, including color and number variations) and are asked to match a fifth card. Participants are not told any match criterion but are provided with feedback whether a particular match is right or wrong. Match criteria change as the test progresses	Psychometric scores are generated, including number of trials, errors, categories achieved, and failures to maintain a set. Diagnostics indicate conceptual skill, executive function, set shifting, working memory, and task shifting. Of particular interest are preseverative errors (those that involve the preservation of a previously acquired set) as these are indicative of dysfunction to executive function (i.e., dorsolateral frontal lobe)

In a recent review of metacognitive ability, Fleming and Dolan (2012) cite evidence to suggest a hierarchical structure across human brain functions in which the PFC dominates deeper regions such as those associated with the primary senses. They distinguish between a thinking task (i.e., object-level) and the monitoring and control of that thinking task (i.e., meta-level). Their review of the neurological determinants of metacognitive accuracy concludes that mental task performance and thinking about mental task performance are separate processes and that individuals differ in the accuracy of their assessments, both prospectively and retrospectively, as to the success of their performance.

Collaborative Mind-Set—The Management of Relationships

Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) propose that managers can no longer function within the traditional bounds of established hierarchies and formal reporting relationships; too much is happening, too quickly. Rather, they must become skilled at engaging and interacting, often in networked situations in which power and authority structures remain fluid. Neuroscientific research can enlighten managerial understanding of workplace relationships. There is a subdiscipline of neuroscience that researches the correlates of social knowledge (Adolphs, 2009).

The human brain is a social brain, which reflects the imperatives of its evolution. When the brain is not engaged in specific thinking tasks, its resting focus of attention is social cognition, defined as thinking about yourself and others and the nature of your social relationships (Lieberman, 2013). Neuroscientists refer to this network as the default network. Buckner, Andrews-Hanna, and Schacter (2008) posit that the default network engages in mentalizing as to current interpersonal interactions as well as developing inferences about what other people are thinking. Lieberman (2013) suggests that social knowledge (e.g., “James is angry with me.”) is processed differently in the brain relative to nonsocial knowledge (e.g., “the driving route to my local supermarket.”). Similarly, social pain (e.g., embarrassment) is as real in the human brain, in terms of electrochemical intensity, as is physical pain (e.g., a burn; Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). Evidence of this finding is not salient in the modern workplace, where management typically does not respond (e.g., offer time off or light duties) to an employee experiencing social pain relative to one experiencing physical pain or injury.

A neuroscientific concept with relevance to management development is that of theory of mind, defined as a person’s ability to attribute mental states, including thoughts, knowledge, beliefs, emotions, and desires, to oneself and others. Mitchell (2009) posits that theory of mind is critical to effective interpersonal communication and social relationships. Heisel and Beatty (2006) studied two regions of the cortex (orbitofrontal cortex and dorsolateral PFC) related to theory of mind and found evidence that humans manifest distinct neurological patterns when thinking about the mental states of others. This mental capacity appears to be uniquely human, notwithstanding simple perception-goal causal loops in some animals (Sodian & Kristen, 2010). There is considerable research as to the assessment of theory of mind with particular emphasis on early childhood development. It may be possible to gauge the degree to which a particular individual’s theory of mind has developed through analysis of his or her interpretation of characters represented in complex and naturalistic stories (Happé, 1994).

A closely related, yet distinct, concept to theory of mind is empathy, defined as an ability to infer and share the emotional experiences of another person (Völlm et al., 2006). Empathy uses identifiable neural networks that have been mapped (Rameson, Morelli, & Lieberman, 2012). Neuroscientific research on empathy (Decety & Ickes, 2009) has important implications for enhancing a collaborative mind-set in managers. Of particular relevance to management development are the empathic processes of mirroring and emotional contagion as well as the role of mirror neurons (Decety & Jackson, 2006; Iacoboni, 2009). The mirror neuron system (MNS) is active when a person performs an action as well as in response to witnessing the actions of others. In essence, the MNS explains why a person might wince when he or she observes another person being struck. A study which examined mirror neurons and implications for workplace relationships (McMaster, 2008) concluded that emotions are socially influential, and there is literal correspondence across individual brain processes via mirror neurons. Research has shown that training on the neuroscience of empathy can develop enhanced conscious capacity for empathic behavior (Gerdes, Segal, Jackson, & Mullins, 2011).

Action Mind-Set—The Management of Change

Are managers effectually developed to take risks and enact change amid economic turbulence? Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) suggest that management thinking remains Cartesian such that action results from deliberate strategies that unfold as systematically managed sequences of decisions. They prescribe a more organic approach comprising ebb and flow between reflection and action. Neuroscience has the potential to enlighten management development with research as to how the brain processes risk and responds to change.

Neuroscientific evidence indicates that the human brain has evolved to minimize danger and maximize reward (Aupperle & Paulus, 2010). This evolution, manifest in the brain’s subcortical regions, predates its executive function, which is found in the PFC. A neuroscientific insight is evident in the brain’s approach–avoidance circuitry, two distinct motivational processes. Approach is defined as a drive initiated in response to stimuli that facilitate survival (e.g., reward, pleasure). Avoidance is defined as a drive initiated in response to a threat (e.g., fear, pain). There are a number of neural substrates involved in approach–avoidance processing and resultant human action. Of particular relevance are the amygdalae, two almond-shaped clusters of neurons found at the center of the medial temporal lobes (Swanson & Petrovich, 1998). These nerve clusters process emotional reactions. They were instrumental in humankind’s early fight–flight response, which is a critical survival mechanism. Neurons in the lateral nuclei, part of the amygdalae, imprint circumstances that are fearful and condition appropriate physiological responses (e.g., increased heartbeat, respiration, and the release of stress hormones). From a management development perspective, fear associated with status uncertainty, a typical threat during change management, may inhibit higher order cortical (i.e., rational) thinking, create stress and preclude positive action.

A second neuroscientific insight pertains to the structure and processes of memory within the human brain. The cognitive neuroscience of memory is complex (see Eichenbaum, 2011). In simple terms, there are distinct processes (encoding, storage, and retrieval) and distinct stages (sensory, short term, and long term) of memory. The sensory stage holds incoming stimuli for processing (1-2 s), whereas short-term memory holds a limited set of thoughts/ideas/facts, usually “7 plus or minus 2” (Miller, 1956) although the actual number of chunks depends on the nature of the information (Tarnow, 2010). Short-term or working memory fades as new information streams into consciousness, whereas long-term memory is relatively permanent and seemingly unbounded (Cowan, 2008). Memory is also characterized by that which is declarative and that which is nondeclarative. Declarative memory is consciously accessible and includes episodic (e.g., autobiographical), semantic (e.g., facts), and working memory (Tulving, 1995). Nondeclarative memory operates below the level of conscious thought and includes classical conditioning and procedural motor skills (e.g., tying up shoelaces).

Rock (2009) states that organizational change efforts are prone to fail because managers do not understand the neuroscience of memory. He suggests that traditional approaches to change management overwhelm working memory and thereby reduce the potential for novel solutions. In addition, such approaches overlook the fact that long-term habits, imprinted within the subcortical regions (i.e., basal ganglia) naturally resist change. A proposed solution is to empower those involved to pursue moments of insight (Rock & Schwartz, 2006).

Neuroscientific evidence suggests that emotionally laden information has greater memory salience with respect to both retrieval and significance (Hamann, 2001) reflecting adaptive imperatives. Ritchey, LaBar, and Cabeza (2011) suggest distinct activation patterns characterizing the formation of emotional memories. The amygdalae are instrumental (i.e., with respect to encoding) in the classification and storage of information. Events and information encoded as emotional by the amygdalae remain salient in memory. In this respect, neuroscience offers insight for approaches to change management (Chrusciel, 2006) with support for increased emotional activation versus traditional approaches reliant on the logic of rational frameworks.

An intriguing neuroscientific insight into human action pertains to the neural substrates of prediction and reward, in particular the reward prediction error hypothesis (Niv, Edlund, Dayan, & O’Doherty, 2012). There exists within the brain a series of dopaminergic circuits, commonly referred to as the brain’s reward circuitry, that connect areas of the midbrain (e.g., basal ganglia) to outer cortical structures. The neurotransmitter dopamine, which produces a sense of pleasure, is instrumental in determining preferred courses of action, lessons learned, and beliefs held. Neuroscientific research suggests that dopamine release is not a direct function of achieving the reward (i.e., stimulus), rather the brain becomes conditioned to release dopamine when situational cues alert it to the expected arrival of an anticipated reward. Caplin and Dean (2008) note that dopamine release shifts forward in response to clear prior cues rather than receipt of the reward. Similarly, if the reward does not eventuate (i.e., prediction error), then decision option weights may be revised to better reflect the reality of the situation. These insights have relevance within organizational settings. Although managerial emphasis on achievement of results will remain, increased emphasis on the anticipation of results and greater attention to predictive cues need to be highlighted. Given that expectation has reward (i.e., dopamine) value in the brain, managers need to focus on future possibility as a counterbalance to historical performance.

Finally, with respect to developing an action mind-set, a considerable amount of neuroscientific research has been devoted to risk-taking behavior in humans (Mohr, Biele, & Heekeren, 2010). The complexity of the current economic context necessitates that managers develop more sophisticated understanding of the neural processes underlying uncertainty and risk. Neural imaging and lesion studies suggest different brain structures influence risk-taking for gains versus risk-taking for losses (Levin et al., 2011). Neurological evidence supports Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory, which posits that people are more likely to take a risk to avoid a loss rather than to achieve a gain of the same magnitude. In addition, neuroscience has shown that individual risk profiles are dynamic across situations (Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002) and across times (Doremus-Fitzwater, Varlinskaya, & Spear, 2010). One of the last neural systems in the brain to mature is that of the cognitive control system located in the PFC (Steinberg, 2008). This neural circuitry operates in dynamic balance with dopaminergic circuitry that matures 5 to 7 years earlier during puberty. This timing difference in neural maturity may explain extremes in risk-taking and novelty-seeking behavior often evident during adolescence (Steinberg, 2008). From the perspective of management development, risk needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner, emphasizing neural biases between losses and gains. Therefore, neurological research has the potential to illuminate the nature of business risk and economic uncertainty (Platt & Huettel, 2008) and demonstrate that managers are not just rational actors (Coates, Gurnell, & Sarnyai, 2010).

With respect to operationalization of the propositions, experimental design is suggested as the research methodology. For each proposition, there is an independent variable that can be manipulated (e.g., training context, source of performance feedback, presentation of a threat response), including training interventions such as teaching the process of metacognition. There is the opportunity to randomly assign a developmental group and a control group who could be offered the training subsequent to the experiment. Additional demographic data could be collected to serve as control variables. The dependent variables that tend toward performance indicators (e.g., decision making, memory retention, enhanced workplace relationships) have, in most cases, been operationalized in the literature. A good example of this proposed research methodology is a study of self-regulation on performance, which includes emotional control and metacognition as mediators (Keith & Frese, 2005). This study applies an experimental design to investigate a training intervention leading to performance outcomes.

Neural Limitations

Although humans manifest intelligence, the brain in and of itself is not intelligent. It comprises an evolutionary progression of overlapping neural processes and systems that are haphazard, including neural conflicts. Managers are often unaware of their neural biases and limitations. For example, neuroscientific research has shown the brain to be socially oriented (i.e., wired to connect), which may explain Homo sapiens’ genetic ascendance over Neanderthals. The human brain places high value (i.e., bias) on in-group information over that originating from an out-group. This neuroscientific finding calls into question the effectiveness of developmental settings that ignore in-group social dynamics, as well as traditional emphasis on anonymous performance feedback. Similarly, deliberation, although dominant as the decision process in organizational settings, has its limitations. From a neurological perspective, there are experiences and learning within the brain beyond human articulation via words and numbers. They exist in the form of elusive, yet visceral, electrochemical patterns representing the human modalities of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Neuroscientific research has found that emphasizing the requirement for explicit analysis based on known facts (i.e., activation of the PFC) can confound implicit understanding and inclination based on experience (i.e., activation of the limbic system; Wilson & Schooler, 1991). Finally, managers need to be wary of increasing pressures to multitask. Neuroscience has shown that novel situations require careful recognition followed by focused attention to become cognitively accessible.

Diagnostic Data

Beyond hard data from electroencephalogram (EEG) and fMRI technology that is currently being gathered in organizational settings (Bagozzi et al., 2013), neuroscience provides a number of diagnostics with the potential for managers to assess areas of strength as well as identify developmental opportunities. For example, managers may diagnose the accuracy of their theory of mind assumptions through interpretation of characterization embedded in complex, naturalistic stories (Happé, 1994). More recently, a sociocognitive mindfulness scale has been developed with applicability to organizational settings (Pirson et al., 2012).

Skills Development

Neuroscientific findings point to two skills that should be high on the management development agenda. The first is metacognition, the ability to pause and think about what one is thinking about. Metacognition is instrumental in self-regulated learning, a critical skill within turbulent and complex environments (Haynie, Shepherd, Mosakowski, & Earley, 2010). The second skill is mindfulness, which can be developed through a variety of traditions spanning from Eastern to Western. Mindfulness has implications for management development, including attention, creativity, and adaptability. From a Western perspective, Langer (1989) has developed a sociocognitive approach, distinct from meditation. From an Eastern perspective, Tang (2011) suggests integrative body–mind training as the means to increase neuroplasticity leading to enhanced attentional and learning capability.