Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Romancing Neurodecision Making

Dr J Satpathy1, PhD, Dlitt & Dr Shikta Singh2, PhD 1Faculty, Academics Department Officers Training Academy, Gaya, Bihar: 823 005 2KIIT School of Management Bhubaneswar, Odisha : 751 020

Abstract: How do we know where we are, where account of informed consent appear? Finally, we have been and where we are going? It's question of mind - brain relationship needs to be important to understand intricacy of managerial investigated. Strangely enough, many decision brain. Brain is main organ of nervous system. It makers collect a bunch of alternatives and then has the same general structure as brains of ask, ‘Which should I choose?’ without thinking other mammals, but with developed cerebral first of what their goals are, what overall objective cortex. Size of brain comes from cerebral cortex, they want to achieve (These are the possibilities especially frontal lobes, which are associated one has to choose from. Alternatives can be with executive functions . The area of cerebral identified (that is, searched for and located) or cortex devoted to vision, visual cortex, greatly even developed (created where they did not enlarged as compared to other animals. previously exist). Merely searching for pre-existing Basic structural design of brain is constructed alternatives will result in less effective decision through a process that begins early in life and making). A component of goal identification continues into adulthood. Simpler circuits come should be included in every instance of decision first and more obscure brain circuits endow with analysis. basic blueprint. Experiences influence how or whether genes are expressed. Imaging studies Over the past half century economists have suggest that differences in cognition and behaviour responded to the challenges raised to neoclassicism (might) relate to differences in brain connectivity. either by bounding the reach of economic model or Perceptive the coverage to which two brains can by turning to descriptive approaches. One recent differ is crucial in basic neuroscience research. trend in economic thought may reconcile this tension between prescriptive and descriptive Key Words: Managerial Economic Decision, approaches. There is some hope that it may yield Brain, Neuroeconomics, Neuromanagement an economic model that is both highly constrained and parsimonious while still offering significant predictive power under a wide range of Introduction environmental conditions. That trend is the growing interest amongst both economists and Each day life is chock-full with decision - making neuroscientists in the physical mechanisms by and arriving at decisions. In unlike disciplines it is which human neuroeconomic managerial studied how Manager makes preferences, with economic decisions are made within the human different aims and through different brain. There is reason to believe, some of methodologies. The process of decision making is these neuroeconomic scholars argue, that the basic a core subject among Psychologists, Neurologists, outlines of the human neuroeconomic managerial Economists, Sociologists and Philosophers. economic decision making architecture are already Managers are particularly adept at modifying their known and that studies of this architecture have managerial neuromanagerial behaviour. already revealed some of the actual computations Neuroeconomics is a new scientific field which has that the brain performs when making emerged recently from a joint research program neuroeconomic managerial economic decisions. If between economists involved in decision-making this is true, then a combination of economic and analysis and Neuroscientists interested by the brain neuroscientific approaches may succeed in activity in the course of goal oriented actions. providing a methodology for reconciling What is it you want to accomplish? Can we prescriptive and descriptive economics by identify an empirical criterion for decision making producing a highly predictive and parsimonious during informed consent? Can we replace the model based on the actual economic computations principled notion of ‘conversant consent’ by performed by the human brain. While both of these psychological and neural processes underlying strategies have been enormously fruitful, neither decision making? How would a naturalistic has provided a clear programmatic approach that

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1556

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in aspires to a complete understanding of human Decision-making is study of identifying and neuroeconomic managerial economic decision choosing substitutes based on values and making as did neoclassicism. The history of preferences of decision maker. Decision-making is economics has been marked by an iterative tension one central activity of management regarded as a between prescriptive and descriptive advances. problem-solving activity terminated by solution deemed to be satisfactory. It is, consequently, a Prescriptive theories seek to define efficient or reasoning or emotional process which can optimal neuroeconomic managerial economic be rational or irrational and based on unambiguous decision making which descriptive advances then assumptions or tacit assumptions. In regards to invariably suggest do not accurately describe management and decision-making, each level of human neuromanagerial behaviour. The management is accountable for different things. neoclassical revolution, and the period that Top level managers look at and create strategic followed it, were no exception to this general plans where the organization's vision, goals, and paradigm. Working from the assumption that all of values are taken into account to create a plan that is human neuromanagerial behaviour could be cohesive with the mission statement. For mid-level described as a rational effort to maximize utility, managers, tactical plans are created with exact the neoclassical theorists largely succeeded in steps with actions that need to be executed to meet developing a coherent basic mathematical the strategic purpose. Finally, front-line managers framework. Prescriptive decision theories have are accountable for creating and executing emerged from mathematics and mathematical operational plans. These plans include the policies, economics where rational choice is taken to be processes, and procedures of the organization. central to understanding economic behaviour and Each must take into account the overall goals and managing economic systems efficiently. The processes of the organization. methodology focuses on establishing rational axioms for making decisions under uncertainty and How do we know where we are, where we have consequences for systems of trade and commerce been and where we are going? It's important to against defined valuations. The axioms typically understand intricacy of managerial brain. Brain is express mathematical constraints which, if main organ of nervous system. It has the same violated, can lead a decision-maker into general structure as brains of other mammals, but suboptimal choices. Such prescriptive theories tend with developed cerebral cortex. Size of brain to be agnostic about the processes or algorithms comes from cerebral cortex, especially frontal that might implement or operationalise the lobes, which are associated with executive mathematical constraints. Despite their conjectural functions . The area of cerebral cortex devoted importance the application of classical prescriptive to vision, visual cortex, greatly enlarged as decision models suffers from the practical problem compared to other animals. Basic structural that it is often difficult to estimate the quantitative design of brain is constructed through a process parameters that they require (e.g., probabilities, that begins early in life and continues into utilities). Although they have informed research on adulthood. Simpler circuits come first and more human decision processes they provide limited obscure brain circuits endow with basic blueprint. insight into them and ignore key conjectural Experiences influence how or whether genes are problems in DDM. expressed. Imaging studies suggest that differences in cognition and behaviour (might) relate to Economic conjecture has traditionally been differences in brain connectivity. Perceptive the interested in scrutiny of choices. Processes by coverage to which two brains can differ is crucial which individuals reach decisions have been in basic neuroscience research. ignored. Managerial performance with regard to decisions has been subject of active research from Over the last two or three decades economists several perspectives: Psychological (examining have responded to the descriptive challenge raised individual decisions in context of a set of needs, by these post-neoclassical studies by adopting one preferences and values), Cognitive (decision- of two basic approaches. Either they argue that making process regarded as a continuous process rational neuroeconomic managerial economic integrated in interaction with environment) and decisions based on utility model occur only under Normative (scrutiny of individual decisions some conditions and that defining those conditions concerned with logic of decision-making and is of paramount importance (Simon; 1947 rationality). Decision-making is regarded as and 1983), or they argue that standard utility model cognitive process resulting in choice of a belief or requires modifications, additions, or novel a course of action among several substitute approaches (Savage, 1954; Kahneman and possibilities. Each decision-making process Tversky, 1979). The fundamental problem produces final choice that may (not) prompt action. imposed by bounding rationality is that the

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1557

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in resultant models have little or no predictive power trivial. Indeed, to economists many of the recent outside of their bounded domains. However, the neurobiological studies of neuroeconomic conceptualization of what decision-making is and managerial economic decision making seem to be methods for studying it vary greatly and this has more about reflexes than about economic resulted in fragmentation of the field. A model that neuromanagerial behaviour. Economists, in a can accommodate various perspectives may similar way, often employ overly simplistic or facilitate interdisciplinary working. The principle outdated notions of brain function that are only covers the whole decision cycle, from the framing weakly related to the modern consensus views held of a decision based on the goals, beliefs, and by neuroscientists. As a result, many background knowledge of the decision-maker to neurobiologists dismiss the work of economists as the formulation of decision options, establishing irrelevant to the study of the human mind and preferences over them, and making commitments. brain. This often leads members of the larger Commitments can lead to the initiation of new economic community to reject neuroeconomics as decisions and any step in the cycle can incorporate irrelevant to advancing economic knowledge and it reasoning about previous decisions and the leads members of the broader neuroscientific rationales for them, and lead to revising or community to reject neuroeconomics as outdated abandoning existing commitments. The model or overly simplistic. situates decision-making with respect to other high-level cognitive capabilities like problem Neuroscience - Economic Tool solving, planning, and collaborative decision- making. The canonical approach is assessed in Modern utility model has its origins in the model three domains: cognitive and neuropsychology, of expected value first proposed by Pascal. He artificial intelligence, and decision engineering. argued that the value of any course of action could The problem modified utility theories face is that be determined by multiplying the gain that could these newer models often fail to be parsimonious be realized from that action by the likelihood of and often appear ad hoc or under-constrained. receiving that gain. This product, which we now The goals of psychology are to explain human call expected value, was presumed to represent a behaviour and predict performance, irrespective of rational neuroeconomic managerial economic how performance compares with rational norms. decision variable. While Pascal and his colleagues Early psychological models of decision-making recognized that not all human neuroeconomic were influenced by rationalist theories as sources managerial economic decision making could be of conjectural concepts and normative standards accurately described with expected value model, against which to assess human decision-making, they argued that all rational neuroeconomic but there has been a trend away from this in recent managerial economic decision making should decades. For example Simon’s (1957) concept of follow this prescriptive model (cf. Arnauld and ‘bounded rationality’ emphasized human limited Nicole, 1996; Pascal, 1966). information processing capacity and strategies for accommodating this (satisficing). Kahneman and Modern work has, however, made it abundantly Tversky’s heuristics and biases program also clear that this model also falls far short of the sought a more realistic account of cognitive descriptive goal of predicting actual human processes in decision-making (Tversky and neuromanagerial behaviour. For example,Allais Kahneman, 1974) and Kahneman and Tversky (1953) demonstrated that human managerial (1979) developed a better description of how neuroeconomic option can be non-transitive, people evaluate potential losses and gains Kahneman and Tversky (cf. Kahneman et al., compared to mathematically prescribed norms. 1982) demonstrated that human managerial More recently Gigerenzer and Todd (2000) argue neuroeconomic option neuromanagerial behaviour for the practical importance of simple heuristic deviates widely from monotonicity, and most strategies for fast decision-making. recently game theorists have even shown that under some conditions (cf. Guth et al., 1982) At this time there are, however, profound humans knowingly make managerial differences between the approaches taken by neuroeconomic options that will result in losses neuroscientists and economists interested in this rather than gains. All of these experiments point problem. Neuroscientists tend to underestimate the out the limits of classical utility model as a tool for multi - facetedity of actual human neuroeconomic understanding human managerial neuroeconomic managerial economic decision making and thus fail option neuromanagerial behaviour. As a result to take full advantage of the existing economic many economists have proposed that corpus, studying managerial neuroeconomic option neuroeconomic managerial economic decision under conditions that economists often see as making is best viewed as involving the interaction

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1558

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in of a utility-based mechanism and a second, perhaps derives and encodes a real variable. The process of less rational, process. The central argument that we managerial neuroeconomic option that operates on will make in this paper is that current this variable then seems to be quite simple; it is the neurobiological data contradicts this view and process of executing the action encoded as having instead supports a model of human and animal the greatest desirability. Of course the challenge neuroeconomic managerial economic decision that this emerging view poses is thus to determine making more closely tied to the core insight that exactly how this desirability is computed. It is this Pascal and Bernoulli provided. process which combines elements of Bernoulli’s utility model and other operators in an Utility model proposes that neuroeconomic evolutionary context to achieve efficient managerial economic decision makers must neuroeconomic managerial economic decision represent the desirability of each possible course of making in the environments for which each species action using a common scale and that choosing is evolved. the process of selecting the most desirable of these possible courses of action. Pascal had argued that While neuroscientists are only just now beginning desirability should be computed as the product of to describe the computation that transduces value and likelihood of gain. Bernoulli had taken objective measures from the outside world into this an important step forward by arguing that representation of desirability, several factors are desirability involved a more multi - faceted already becoming clear. First, under many computation influenced by properties intrinsic to conditions, conditions under which managerial the chooser, like current wealth. Although neuroeconomic option appears rational, this Bernoulli clearly meant utility model to be an desirability encoded by the neurons of the brain objective and prescriptive model for very closely approximates expected utility. neuroeconomic managerial economic decision Second, under conditions in which managerial making, in this regard he came very close to neuroeconomic option neuromanagerial behaviour introducing a subjective model (Savage;1954) for is poorly predicted by rational managerial the neuroeconomic managerial economic decision neuroeconomic option models, these neural making process. In Bernoulli’s model, two representations still encode the desirability of each variables from the external world were modified course of action, although under these conditions by processes internal to the chooser and the desirability and expected utility are of necessity product of these internal computations, expected not identical. The available data suggest that the utility, was then represented and used to make neural neuroeconomic managerial economic managerial neuroeconomic options. Although there decision-making process is always rational with is still significant uncertainty about the precise regard to these internal representations of form of that internal computation, current desirability. When choosers deviate from neurobiological evidence seems to strongly support rationality it is this physiological encoding of this early claim. The brains of primates, almost desirability, which we refer to as physiological certainly including humans, appear to represent a expected utility, which departs from neoclassical multi - faceted variable which under many model. circumstances closely parallels classical expected utility. In the final stages of neuroeconomic Together, these observations raise an intriguing managerial economic decision making, the neural possibility which forms a central subject of this architecture seems to select the most desirable paper: the neural architecture may indeed compute action from amongst representations of the and represent the physiological expected utility of desirability of all available actions by a winner- many possible courses of action, much as take-all process. neoclassical utility model proposes. Evolution may have shaped the neural architecture to perform This model, which will be developed at length efficiently under many, but not all, environmental below, does however depart from neoclassical circumstances. When choosers are efficient in the economic model in an important way. Neoclassical economic sense, that architecture accurately model has always made the famous as if argument: represents the expected utility of available it is as if expected utility was computed by the managerial neuroeconomic options. When brain. Modern neuroscience suggests an physiological and objective utility differ, it reflects alternative, and more literal, interpretation. The inefficiency not in the mechanism that chooses, but available data suggest that the neural architecture in the ability of the neural architecture antecedent actually does compute desirability for each to the managerial neuroeconomic option available course of action. This is a real physical mechanism to compute physiological expected computation, accomplished by neurons, that utilities efficiently. In some cases inefficiencies of

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1559

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in these types will arise when the most complicated Along the way, we hope to explain three central cortical mechanisms for estimating likelihoods points around which future developments in encounter problems that they did not evolve to neuroeconomics will likely have to be organized. solve. In other cases, inefficiencies will occur First, we hope to explain how very profoundly our because simpler brainstem systems encounter current neuroscientific and current economic problems that they did not evolve to solve theories of brain function differ and how these efficiently. All of these biologically generated differences can only be reconciled if economists inefficiencies would therefore bind rational become familiar with the highly quantitative neuromanagerial behaviour. The available models of brain function that are at the core of evidence thus suggests a synthesis of modern contemporary neuroscience. Second, we hope to economic and neuroscientific approaches. By stress the importance, to economics, of biologically defining the mechanisms which evolutionary biology. Humans are unique compute physiological expected utility we should organisms, but there is growing evidence that we be able to derive a mechanistically accurate are far less unique in the production of economical economic model which is by necessity predictive. neuromanagerial behaviour than most working economists suspect. For example, monkeys can During the second half of the twentieth century play mixed strategy equilibrium games with the neuroscience made huge advances, particularly same efficiency as humans (Dorris and Glimcher, towards understanding both the structure and 2003) and birds can systematically alter the shape function of the sensory systems that gather data of their utility functions to adopt risk preferences about the outside world and the movement control appropriate for their environments (Caraco et al., systems through which all neuromanagerial 1980). There is now abundant evidence that our behavioural responses are generated. For the most own economic neuromanagerial behaviour is part, these studies provided the insights upon evolved from, and very closely related to, the which our current understanding of the human economic neuromanagerial behaviours of our brain rests. These studies provide, essentially, a animal relatives. This may be the most critical core model of brain function which, like the point made in this paper because it calls into neoclassical approach in economics, organizes the question the pervasive assumption amongst ways scholars address almost all questions of economists that our neuroeconomic managerial neural function. In order to understand how economic decision making process is both a neurobiologists attempt to understand uniquely human faculty and a broadly rational neuroeconomic managerial economic decision faculty. Third and finally, we hope to show that making, it is therefore necessary to know a little neuroscientific studies of economic about the organizing principles of these input and neuromanagerial behaviour can be much more than output systems. Tremendous progress has been efforts to locate a brain region associated with made towards understanding all of our senses but some hypothetical faculty like ‘justice’ or the brain system we understand best is the visual ‘cooperation.’ Such studies are valuable starting system. (For an introductory overview of the visual points, but have troubled some economists because system see the vision chapter in the excellent they provide no predictive power with regard to textbook by Rosenzweig et al. (2002). For a more economic neuromanagerial behaviour. We hope to detailed overview see the textbook by Squire et al. demonstrate that neuroeconomic experiments can (2002)). Insights from the study of this system and will reveal the nature of the economic organize neurobiological approaches not just to computations brains perform. sensory systems but to brain function in general. The work of this system begins in the retina, a five Gap between Economics and Neuro layer thick sheet of cells lining the inner surface of the eyeball like a sheet of photographic film. At The neoclassical revolution had two profound each location on this sheet lies a single effects during the second half of the twentieth photoreceptor, a cell which transduces individual century: it largely revealed how a rational utility photons of light into electrochemical signals that maximiser would behave and essentially proved can be passed to the brain. These electrochemical that humans could not be viewed as efficient utility signals are, in turn, passed by a class of retinal maximisers under all conditions. This insight led a neurons called retinal ganglion cells, through the number of economists, perhaps most notably optic nerve which leaves the eyeball and connects Herbert Simon (1997), to conclude that human to the neurons of the lateral geniculate nucleus of neuroeconomic managerial economic decision the thalamus which lies inside the mammalian makers could be viewed as rational utility brain maximisers in only a bounded sense. Conditions do occur under which humans behave rationally but

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1560

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in there are also conditions under which humans as the product of two fundamentally distinct behave in a clearly irrational manner. One result of mechanisms: a sophisticated faculty that governed this insight has been a growing conviction in the multi - faceted neuromanagerial behaviour and a economic community that human neuroeconomic simpler, cruder, mechanism that could produce managerial economic decision making can often be reliable, but unavoidably simplistic, viewed as the product of two underlying processes, neuromanagerial behaviours (Sherrington, a bounded rational process well described by 1906; Damasio, 1995; LeDoux, 1996; Glimcher, prescriptive economic model and an irrational 2003a). This simpler mechanism, which came to process which is best described empirically. be identified with the notion of a reflex, was widely believed to be tractable to During the last decade a number of economists neurophysiological analysis and formed the core of have begun to suggest that these two processes, the our understanding of brain function during the first rational and irrational, may be instantiated within half of that century. the human brain as two distinct mechanisms. Indeed, many have even suggested that irrational The economic capabilities of humans have, neuromanagerial behaviour can be uniquely however, led many to conclude that we are attributed to limitations intrinsic to the neural fundamentally different from other animals in this architecture while rational neuromanagerial regard, that we achieve rationality through a behaviour can be viewed as the product of a distinct and uniquely human mechanism than conscious faculty that somehow transcends this stands apart from the mechanisms possessed by biological limitation. Vernon Smith put this in his other animals. The mechanisms that other animals 2003 Nobel prize lecture, when explaining the possess may indeed still reside within our brains, irrational effects of context on neuroeconomic but it is the irrational aspects of human managerial economic decision making, ‘[t]he neuromanagerial behaviour which can be uniquely brain, including the entire neurophysiological attributed to this biological heritage. Quite system, takes over gradually in the case of familiar compelling empirical data argue against this mastered tasks and plays the equivalent of conclusion. First, it now seems clear that even lightning chess … all without conscious thinking animals with very small brains can behave in a by the mind.’ Smith and others have argued that it surprisingly rational manner under a broad range is the mechanical processes of the brain itself of conditions. This seems to argue against the idea which account for the irrationality that bounds the that in order to behave rationally humans would rational processes of the conscious mind. Arguing have needed to evolve some unique facility. in more detail, Camerer et al. (2003) have Second, there is growing evidence that we share suggested that human neuroeconomic managerial with our nearest relatives not just the ability to economic decision-making can be viewed as the behave rationally, but we also share with them product of one cognitive and one affective (or common boundaries to our rationality. If this is emotional) system and that these two systems co- true then it is both the rational and irrational which exist as independent entities within the neural we share with our nearest relatives, challenging the architecture because they have different assumption that any of these aspects of evolutionary origins. These authors have even neuromanagerial behaviour involve some uniquely drawn on the existing neuroscientific literature to human process. These data argue, in essence, that argue that each of these distinct modules for we differ more in degree than in nature from our neuroeconomic managerial economic decision nearest living relatives. making can be localized to distinct anatomical regions within the human brain. For example they In 1982, D.G.C. Harper published an influential suggest that ‘regions that support cognitive experiment on the rationality with which mallard automatic activity are concentrated in the back ducks forage for food (Harper, 1982). Mallard (occipital), top (parietal) and side (temporal) parts ducks were an interesting managerial of the brain.’ neuroeconomic option because their avian lineage evolved from dinosaurs about 200 million years At the same time that this revolution has been ago and thus they are animals with an evolutionary occurring in economic circles, neuroscientists heritage very different from our own. Further, they interested in human neuroeconomic managerial are animals with extremely small brains, typically economic decision making have begun to head in a less than 5 grams in weight. (In contrast, the surprisingly different direction. The revolution that human brain weighs about 1400 grams.) At an gave birth to modern neuroscience in the early part environmental level, these ducks live in small of the twentieth century argued that all of human groups of about 10–50 individuals and normally neuromanagerial behaviour could be conceived of obtain food by foraging together at waters edge.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1561

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Finally, as with all animals who must maintain cognitive agents and decision support systems very low body weights in order to fly, they store (e.g., Fox et al., 2003; Fox et al., 2010)? little energy internally and thus their ability to survive and reproduce is well correlated with their Decision Environment ability to obtain food on a daily basis; at least amongst flighted birds, individuals who maximize Every decision is made within a decision the rate at which they obtain food each day environment, which is defined as the collection of maximize their long-term reproductive fitness information, alternatives, values, and preferences (Krebs and Davies, 1991). (These reflect the philosophy and moral hierarchy of the decision maker. We could say that they are Harper’s experiment focused on the the decision maker's ‘values,’ but that might be neuromanagerial behaviour of a particular flock of confusing with the other use of the word, above. If 33 mallards that wintered on the main pond in the we could use that word here, we would say that botanical gardens of Cambridge University in personal values dictate preferences. Some people 1979. What specifically interested Harper was prefer excitement to calmness, certainty to risk, foraging strategies? To examine that possibility, efficiency to aesthetics, quality to quantity, and so Harper conducted a series of group neuroeconomic on) available at the time of the decision. An ideal managerial economic decision-making decision environment would include all possible experiments of a kind that will be familiar to most information, all of it accurate, and every possible economists. At the beginning of each day two alternative. However, both information and experimenters would approach the pond, each with alternatives are constrained because the time and a sack of bread-balls all having a particular size effort to gain information or identify alternatives and weight. Standing at two separate locations the are limited. The time constraint simply means that experimenters began throwing those bread-balls a decision must be made by a certain time. The simultaneously but at different rates. The job of effort constraint reflects the limits of manpower, each duck was simply to decide in front of which money, and priorities. (You wouldn't want to spend experimenter to stand. On a typical day three hours and half a tank of gas trying to find the experimenter 1 would, for example, throw a 2- very best parking place at the mall.) Since gram bread-ball once every 5 seconds while decisions must be made within this constrained experimenter 2 would throw a 2-gram bread-ball environment, we can say that the major challenge once every 10 seconds. What Harper would of decision making is uncertainty, and a major goal measure was the moment-by-moment of decision analysis is to reduce uncertainty. We neuroeconomic managerial economic decisions of can almost never have all information needed to each duck, both while these conditions were held make a decision with certainty, so most decisions constant and when they changed, during a foraging involve an undeniable amount of risk. period that lasted tens of minutes. The fact that decisions must be made within a How can we understand the dynamic lifecycle of limiting decision environment suggests two things. decision-making: from the situations and events First, it explains why hindsight is so much more that make a decision necessary to the influence of accurate and better at making decisions that prior knowledge, beliefs, and goals which foresight. As time passes, the decision environment determine how a decision will be framed, continues to grow and expand. New information preferences arrived at, and commitments to actions and new alternatives appear--even after the made (Fox and Das, 2000)? 2. What are decision must be made. Armed with new the general functions that underpin and constrain information after the fact, the hindsighters can the processes that implement such a lifecycle for many times look back and make a much better any kind of cognitive agent, whether the agent is decision than the original maker, because the natural or artificial? How does decision-making, decision environment has continued to expand. conceived in this very general way, fit within The second thing suggested by the decision-within- cognitive science’s strategic objective of a unified an-environment idea follows from the above point. model of cognition that can cut across psychology, Since the decision environment continues to computer science, AI, and neuroscience expand as time passes, it is often advisable to put (e.g., Newell, 1990; Anderson, 2007; Shallice and off making a decision until close to the deadline. Cooper, 2011)? How can we apply this Information and alternatives continue to grow as understanding to decision engineering, drawing on time passes, so to have access to the most insights into how decisions are and/or ought to be information and to the best alternatives, do not made to inform the design of autonomous make the decision too soon. Now, since we are dealing with real life, it is obvious that some

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1562

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in alternatives might no longer be available if too from previous decisions, (2) enables many future much time passes; that is a tension we have to decisions, and (3) prevents other future decisions. work with, a tension that helps to shape the cutoff People who have trouble making decisions are date for the decision. sometimes trapped by the constraining nature of decision making. Every decision you make Delaying a decision as long as reasonably precludes other decisions, and therefore might be possible, then, provides three benefits: said to cause a loss of freedom. If you decide to marry Terry, you no longer can decide to marry Shawn. However, just as making a decision causes 1. The decision environment will be larger, a loss of freedom, it also creates new freedom, new providing more information. 2. There is time for thoughtful and extended choices and new possibilities. So making a analysis. decision is liberating as well as constraining. And a decision left unmade will often result in a decision 3. New alternatives might be recognized or by default or a decision being made for you. It is created. important to realize that every decision you make affects the decision stream and the collections of And delaying a decision involves several risks: alternatives available to you both immediately and in the future. In other words, decisions have far 1. As the decision environment continues to grow, reaching consequences. the decision maker might become overwhelmed with too much information and either makes a The field of managerial neuroeconomic decision poorer decision or else face decision paralysis. makings arose out of this controversy. By determining which brain areas are active in which 2. Some alternatives might become unavailable types of decision processes, neuroeconomists hope because of events occurring during the delay. In a to better understand the nature of what seem to be few cases, where the decision was between two suboptimal and illogical decisions. While most of alternatives (attack the pass or circle around behind these scientists are using human subjects in this the large rock), both alternatives might become research, others are using animal models where unavailable, leaving the decision maker with studies can be more tightly controlled and the nothing. And we have all had the experience of assumptions of the managerial neuroeconomic seeing some amazing bargain only to hesitate and decision making model can be tested directly. The find that when we go back to buy the item, it is field of decision making is largely concerned with sold out. the processes by which individuals make a single choice from among many options. These processes 3. In a competitive environment, a faster rival are generally assumed to proceed in a logical might make the decision and gain advantage. manner such that the decision itself is largely independent of context. Different options are first Decision Streams translated into a common currency, such as monetary value, and are then compared to one another and the option with the largest overall A common misconception about decision making utility value is the one that should be chosen. is that decisions are made in isolation from each While there has been support for this managerial other: you gather information, explore alternatives, neuroeconomic decision making view of decision and make a choice, without regard to anything that making, there are also situations where the has gone before. The fact is, decisions are made in assumptions of optimal decision making seem to a context of other decisions. The typical metaphor be violated. used to explain this is that of a stream. There is a stream of decisions surrounding a given decision, many decisions made earlier have led up to this What happens in brain or is activated when we decision and made it both possible and limited. make neuromanagerial economic decision making Many other decisions will follow from it. Another or are in the process of making neuromanagerial way to describe this situation is to say that most economic decision making? Is neuromanagement decisions involve a choice from a group of study of choice-making processes relevant for preselected alternatives, made available to us from management? Many choice makers seek the universe of alternatives by the previous information than required to make a choice. How decisions we have made. Previous decisions have do managers process different inputs and make ‘activated’ or ‘made operable’ certain alternatives complicated neuroeconomic managerial decision and ‘deactivated’ or ‘made inoperable’ others. We makings? Variations on this question have engaged might say, then, that every decision (1) follows researchers for many years, with broad

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1563

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in implications for a variety of managers. But the sought to shed light on the inner workings of the topic is of particular interest to business managers, human brain and the way managers make who must frequently make neuroeconomic neuroeconomic managerial decision makings. In managerial decision makings. Information recent years, curiosity about the neuroeconomic overload is a fact of modern life, making many managerial decision making-making process has common neuroeconomic managerial decision heated up, attracting academics from fields as makings unbearably confusing. Although choice diverse as neuroscience, management, managerial offers options, too many choices or too many neuromanagerial behavioural economics and features per choice can cause managers to delay psychology. Here are highlights of a handful of neuroeconomic managerial decision makings or recent scholarly articles that offer intriguing make less-than-optimal choices. Recent research insights into neuroeconomic managerial decision into how managers process information offers making from several disciplines. some promising suggestions for dealing with information overload. The key may involve Neuromanagerial economic preference can be ‘psychological distancing’, removing oneself from defined as the managerial neuromanagerial the morass of details surrounding a neuroeconomic behaviour observed when managers make managerial decision making and considering the preferences solely based on subjective preferences. choices on a more abstract level. When too much Since at least the XVII century, this managerial information is sought delay in choice occurs neuromanagerial behaviour has been the central because of time required to process information. interest of neuromanagerial economic model This impairs effectiveness of choice. In this state, (which justifies the term ‘neuromanagerial neuromanagement seeks to explain human choice- economic preference’), and also a frequent area of making, ability to process multiple alternatives and research in experimental psychology. Traditionally choose optimal course of action. It studies how the object of neuromanagerial economic model and management managerial neuromanagerial experimental psychology, neuromanagerial behaviour shape understanding of brain and guide economic preference recently became a lively models of management via. Neuroscience, research focus in systems neuroscience. In the last experimental and neuro - management and decade, however, neuromanagerial economic cognitive and organisational psychology. preference has attracted substantial interest in Deciphering such transactions require neuroscience, for at least three reasons. First, understanding of neuro processes that implement neuromanagerial economic preference is an value-dependent choice-making. Conjectural intrinsically fascinating topic, intimately related to accounts posit that human brain accomplishes this deep philosophical questions such as free will and through neural computations. What are the moral managerial neuromanagerial behaviour. coherent brain dynamics underlying prediction, Second, over many generations, economists and control and choice-making? This leads to psychologists accumulated a rich body of formulation of a ‘neuro - management choice knowledge, identifying concepts and quantitative making paradox’. The goal is a model of how brain relationships that describe neuromanagerial implements neuromanagerial economic decision economic preference. In fact, neuromanagerial making that is tied to managerial neuromanagerial economic preference is a rare case of high behaviour. This paper attempts to explore cognitive function for which such a formal and phenomena through individual action, choice- established managerial neuromanagerial making and reasoning processes. Objective is to behavioural description exists. This rich put forward a model for neuro - management ‘psychophysics’ can now be used to both guide and choice, in which interaction between variables of constrain research in neuroscience. Third, neuro - management choice processes are neuromanagerial economic preference is directly addressed. The present attempt (perhaps) relevant to a constellation of mental orders. These contributes towards providing a conceptual reasons explain the blossoming of an area of framework for understanding and conducting research referred to as neuromanagerial economics neuromanagement research at intersection of (Glimcher et al; 2008). neuroscience, management and psychology, offer a solution through series of measurements of brain In a nutshell, research in neuro neuromanagerial activity at time of neuromanagerial economic economics aspires to describe the neurobiological decision making, describe a standard model for processes and cognitive mechanisms that underlie choice making process with intention of linking neuromanagerial economic preferences. Although and spanning neuro - psycho and management the field is still in its infancy, significant progress levels of analysis and attempt to build brain-based has been made already. How does the brain models capable of predicting observed managerial generate preferences in the face of this enormous neuromanagerial behaviour. Researchers have long

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1564

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in variability? Neuromanagerial economic and at the neural level as a major conceptual advance psychological theories of preference managerial and perhaps the most important result of neuro neuromanagerial behaviour have a cornerstone in neuromanagerial economics to date. the concept of value. While choosing, managers assign values to the available options; a decision is The young field of neuroeconomics converges then made by comparing these values. Hence, around managerial neuromanagerial behavioural while options can vary on multiple dimensions, deviations from the model of the human being as value represents a common unit of measure to Homo economicus, a rational actor who calculates make a comparison. From this perspective, his preferences to maximize his individual understanding the neural mechanisms of satisfaction. In a historical moment characterized neuromanagerial economic preference amounts to by economic, health and environmental crises, describing how values are computed and compared policymakers have become increasingly concerned in the brain. about a particular deviation for which neuroeconomics offers biological explanation: To appreciate significance of this proposition, it Why do humans value present at expense of is helpful to step back and take a historical and future? There is contentious debate within the field conjectural perspective. Neoclassic over how to model this tendency at neural level. neuromanagerial economic model can be thought Should brain be conceptualized as unified of as a rigorous mathematical construct founded on decision-making apparatus, or as site of conflict a limited set of axioms (Kreps 1990). In this between impetuous limbic system at perpetual framework, the concept of value is roughly as odds with deliberate and provident overseer in follows. Under few and reasonable assumptions, prefrontal cortex? Scientific debates over any large set of preferences can be accounted for preference-making in the brain, we argue, are also as if the choosing subject maximized an internal debates over how to define the constraints on value function. Thus values are central to the human reason with which regulative strategies economist’s description of preference managerial must contend. This thesis is about emerging field neuromanagerial behaviour. Note, however, that of neuroeconomics. Neuroeconomics seeks to the concept of value in neuromanagerial economics ground theories and models of economic is managerial neuromanagerial behavioural and managerial neuromanagerial behaviour in terms of analytical, not psychological. In other words, the its underlying neural mechanisms. These fact that preferences are effectively described in advancements have impacted a number of fields, terms of values does not imply that subjects spanning a diverse range of questions and actually assign values while choosing. Thus by methodologies, ranging from neurophysiology, taking an ‘as if’ stance, neuromanagerial economic psychophysics, to cognitive neuroscience. Some of model explicitly avoids stating what mental the most successful applications of neuroscientific processes actually underlie preference managerial data have occurred in the field of psychophysics, in neuromanagerial behaviour. The distinction the realm of some fundamental perceptual between an ‘as if’ model and a psychological apparatus of organisms. model might seem subtle if not evanescent. Managerial neuroeconomic decision making is an However, this distinction is critical in interdisciplinary field that seeks to explain neuromanagerial economics and it helps human decision making, the ability to process appreciating the contribution of recent research in multiple alternatives and to choose an optimal neuroscience. The ‘as if’ stance captures a course of action. It studies how economic fundamental limit: based on managerial managerial neuromanagerial behaviour can shape neuromanagerial behaviour alone, values cannot be understanding of brain and how neuroscientific measured independently of preference. discoveries can constrain and guide models of Consequently, the assertion that preferences managerial economics. It combines research maximize values is intrinsically circular. The methods observation that values are actually computed in from neuroscience, experimental and managerial the brain essentially breaks this circularity. Indeed, neuromanagerial behavioural economics once the correspondence between a neural signal and cognitive and social psychology. As research and a managerial neuromanagerial behavioural into decision-making managerial neuromanagerial measure of value has been established, that neural behaviour becomes increasingly computational, it signal provides an independent measure of value, has also incorporated new approaches in principle dissociable from preferences. In other from conjectural biology, computer science, words, the assertion that preferences maximize and mathematics. Managerial neuroeconomic values becomes potentially falsifiable and thus decision making studies decision making, by using truly scientific (Popper 1963). For this reason, I a combination of tools from these fields so as to view the discovery that values are indeed encoded

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1565

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in avoid the shortcomings that arise from a single- These are the possibilities one has to choose from. perspective approach. In mainstream Alternatives can be identified (that is, searched for economics, expected utility (EU), and the concept and located) or even developed (created where of rational agents, are still being used. Much they did not previously exist). Merely searching for economic managerial neuromanagerial behaviour pre-existing alternatives will result in less effective is not fully explained by these models, such decision making. Indeed, so familiar have these as heuristics and framing. Managerial discourses become, so seemingly self-evident their neuromanagerial behavioural economics emerged significance that the managerial problems of the to account for these anomalies by integrating neurosciences rarely appear to move beyond social, cognitive, and emotional factors in elaborations of the already familiar or, at best, understanding economic decisions. Managerial partisan polemics. More problematic, on closer neuroeconomic decision making adds another layer inspection the majority of these diverse neuro- by using neuroscientific methods in understanding discourses would seem to operate on a very thin the interplay between economic managerial evidential basis. Clearly, the approach taken in this neuromanagerial behaviour and neural thesis, and neuroeconomic decision making in mechanisms. By using tools from various fields, general, is a sharp turn in economic thought. some scholars claim that Managerial Around the turn of the century, economists made a neuroeconomic decision making offers a more clear methodological preference to treat the mind integrative way of understanding decision making. as a black box and ignore its details for the purpose of economic model. ‘It is an empirical fact that the The field is largely concerned with the processes natural sciences have progressed only when they by which individuals make a single preference have taken secondary principles as their point of from among many options. These processes are departure, instead of trying to discover the essence generally assumed to proceed in a logical manner of things. ...Pure political economy has therefore a such that the decision itself is largely independent great interest in relying as little as possible on the of context. Different options are first translated domain of psychology’ (Brusino; 1964). into a common currency, such as monetary value, and are then compared to one another and the Volatility and multi - facticity factors determine option with the largest overall utility value is the the management and decision-making approach in one that should be chosen. While there has been organization. The aim of this paper is to point out support for this economic view of decision making, that the specific features of company environment there are also situations where the assumptions of (multi - facetedity, uncertainty, limitation of skills optimal decision making seem to be violated. The and abilities) necessitate them to search for new field of Managerial neuroeconomic decision management approaches that fit in with the new making arose out of this controversy. By challenges. The Managerial organisation is a multi determining which brain areas are active in which - faceted system whose aggregate managerial types of decision processes, neuroeconomists hope neuromanagerial behaviour is determined by an to better understand the nature of what seem to be incredible number of co-existing interactions suboptimal and illogical decisions. While most of (more or less multi - faceted in nature) that occur at these scientists are using human subjects in this the Manager level as well as between levels of research, others are using animal models where description. It is therefore possible to draw studies can be more tightly controlled and the analogies with physical, chemical and biological assumptions of the economic model can be tested systems. Economic agents constantly interact with directly. each other in many ways and for different purposes. Somehow, out of these Manager The neuroeconomic program tends to combine or, interactions, certain coherent patterns of at least, to connect the neural data collected and managerial neuromanagerial behaviour emerge at selected by the neuroscientists on one side, and the the aggregate level (Hayek [1952]; Kirman managerial neuromanagerial behavioural evidence [1992]). Among all the elements that contribute to derived from the economic experimental protocols, the emergence of collective patterns, information on the other side. Today, few developments in the exchange might very well be the most important world of science and technology would seem to one. However macroscopic managerial draw comparable degrees of attention, commentary neuromanagerial behaviour cannot be thought of as and sheer excitement than the neurosciences. reflecting the managerial neuromanagerial Within and without academia it has become behaviour of a ‘typical’ or ‘average’ Manager. For routine to celebrate or alternatively, to castigate, instance, there is no simple direct correspondence the purportedly palpable effects and consequences between Manager and aggregate (ir) regularity (see of the recent expansions of the neurosciences. Debreu [1974]; Kirman, [1989, 1992, 1993]; Sonnenschein [1972]). In other words, the

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1566

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in managerial neuromanagerial behaviour at the exhibited by both brain and cognitive processes at collective level may not be deduced, calculated or multiple levels of description (Bressler et Kelso extrapolated simply from a linear aggregation of [2001]; Brown et al. [2005]; Edelman [2004]; Manager managerial neuromanagerial behaviour, Friston [1997]; Kelso [1995]; Oullier et Kelso whether in the brain or the society (Kelso [1995]; [2006]). Lagarde et Bardy [2007]; Nowak et al. [2000]). As observed by Anderson [1972], the (collective) A central problem of coordination dynamics on whole is not necessarily greater than the sum of the any level of observation is to identify the key (Manager) parts: ’More is different’. variables of coordination and their dynamics, i.e. rules that govern the stability and change of Why should economic decision making be an coordination patterns. Basic forms of coordination exception? After all, a number of basic emerge, not because of a special coordinating coordination phenomena exist that seem to cut agent, but rather as a result of the system’s ability across a wide range of levels, creatures and to self-organize when open to information functions. There is now a wide consensus exchange with its environment. Indeed, the ‘system regarding the self-organized nature of the brain, ‘properly construed consists of both organisms and where phase synchrony emerges when information their environments, with full recognition of their is exchanged on a range of scales (Edelman; 2004 co-evolution. Along with predictive mathematical and Kelso; 1995). This is knowledge about the modelling, coordination dynamics provides a new decision, the effects of its alternatives, the foundation for understanding coordinated probability of each alternative, and so forth. A managerial neuromanagerial behaviour grounded major point to make here is that while substantial in the concepts of self-organization and the tools of information is desirable, the statement that ‘the nonlinear dynamics and especially tailored to more information, the better’ is not true. Too much handle the informational (e.g. perceptual, information can actually reduce the quality of a cognitive, affective) aspects of managerial decision In judging the quality of a decision, in neuromanagerial behaviour (Kelso et Engstrøm addition to the concerns of logic, use of [2006]; Kelso [1995]). information and alternatives, three other considerations come into play: The decision must Through various mechanisms of cognitive meet the stated objectives most thoroughly and control, Managers are able to tailor actions to fit completely. How well does the alternative chosen multi - faceted short- and long-term goals. An meet the goals identified? The decision must meet important query is how Managers make the stated objectives most efficiently, with concern (management) decisions. Traditionally, the object over cost, energy, side effects. Are there negative of economic model and experimental psychology, consequences to the alternative that make that economic decision recently became a lively choice less desirable? We sometimes overlook this research focus in systems neuroscience. consideration in our search for thrills. The decision Specifically, researchers are interested in must take into account valuable by-products or assumptions, beliefs, habits, and tactics that indirect advantages. A new employee candidate Managers use to make everyday decisions. Why do may also have extra abilities not directly related to humans value the present at the expense of the the job but valuable to the company nonetheless. future. The nascent field of neuroeconomics These should be taken into account. converges around managerial neuromanagerial behavioural deviations from the model of the In addition, recent advances in brain and human being as Homo economicus, a rational actor movement sciences have revealed the self- who calculates his decisions to maximize his organized and informational nature of managerial satisfaction. There is contentious debate within the neuromanagerial behaviour and cognition (Bressler field over how to model this tendency at the neural et Kelso [2001]; Kelso [1981; 1994]). level. Should the brain be conceptualized as a Neuroeconomics, from this point of view could be unified decision-making apparatus, or as the site of conceived of as the coordination dynamics of conflict between an impetuous limbic system at economic decision-making and therefore be perpetual odds with its deliberate and provident modelled as phase transitions (or bifurcations) overseer in the prefrontal cortex? Scientific debates from unstable to more stable cognitive states over decision-making in the brain, we argue, are involving neurons and/or parts of the brain also debates over how to define the constraints on (Oullier et al. ;2008) for a detailed treatment of this human reason with which regulative strategies hypothesis). It is rather surprising that such a must contend. Neuroeconomics is an perspective has not (yet) been explored by interdisciplinary research program with the goal of neuroeconomists in spite of the nonlinear features building a biological model of decision making in

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1567

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in economic environments. Neuroeconomists ask, may be able to perceive and influence the network how does embodied brain enable mind (or groups of interactions that we are embedded within and of minds) to make economic decisions? Efforts to influenced by? What is the most elementary way in link neuroscience to economics have occurred which we can describe their interaction so that we mostly in just the last few years, and growth of may understand who we are and ultimately neuroeconomics is still in its early stages. But its improving the quality of managerial life? nascence follows a pattern: revolutions in science tend to come from completely unexpected places. A basic question, intimately tied to the problem of A field of science can turn barren if no action choice, is that of how actions are assembled fundamentally new approaches to research are on into organized sequences. Theories of routine the horizon. sequential behaviour have long acknowledged that it must rely not only on environmental cues but Neurodecision economics is an interdisciplinary also on some internal representation of temporal or field that seeks to explain human decision making, task context. It is assumed, in most theories, that ability to process multiple alternatives and choose such internal representations must be organized an optimal course of action. It studies how into a strict hierarchy, mirroring the hierarchical economic managerial neuromanagerial behaviour structure of naturalistic sequential behaviour Based can shape understanding of brain and how on recent neuroscience evidence, we model the neuroscientific discoveries can constrain / guide brain as a dual-system organization subject to three models of decision neuroeconomics. It combines conflicts: asymmetric information, temporal methods of horizon, and incentive salience. Under the first and neuroscience, experimental (economics), second conflicts, we show that the uninformed cognitive and social psychology. As research into system imposes a positive link between decision-making managerial neuromanagerial consumption and labour at every period. behaviour becomes increasingly computational, it Furthermore, decreasing impatience endogenously has incorporated approaches from conjectural emerges In decision-making, purposes must first biology, computer science and mathematics. be established, purposes must be classified and Neurodecision economics studies decision making placed in order of importance, substitute actions by using combination of tools from these fields so must be developed, the substitute must be as to avoid shortcomings that arise from single- evaluated against all the purposes, the substitute perspective approach. In mainstream decision that is able to achieve all the purposes is the economics, expected utility (EU) and concept tentative decision, the tentative decision is of rational agents are being used. Much economic evaluated for more possible consequences, the managerial neuromanagerial behaviour is not fully decisive actions are taken, and additional actions explained by these models. Managerial are taken to prevent any adverse consequences neuromanagerial behavioural decision from becoming problems and starting both systems economics emerged to account for these anomalies (problem scrutiny and decision-making) all over by integrating social, cognitive and emotional again. There are steps that are generally followed factors in understanding economic decisions. that result in a decision model that can be used to Neurodecision economics adds another layer by determine an optimal production plan and in a using neuroscientific methods in understanding situation featuring conflict, role-playing may be interplay between economic managerial helpful for predicting decisions to be made by neuromanagerial behaviour and neural involved parties. Each of these factors leads to a mechanisms. By using tools from various fields, fresh perspective. A neural level focuses on the some claim that neurodecision economics offers basic forebrain functions and shows how integrative way of understanding decision making. processing demands dictate the extensive use of timing-based circuitry and an overall organization of tabular memories. An embodiment level Neuro - Perspectives organization works in reverse, making extensive use of multiplexing and on-demand processing to What is mind? Where does it come from? How achieve fast analogous calculation. An awareness are brain, mind, matter, and energy related? How do they interact? Why does this interaction seem to level focuses on the brain’s representations of emotion, attention and consciousness, showing that be the source of our suffering? What could we learn about being managerial if we were to weave they can operate with great economy in the context the psychological sciences, neurosciences, of the neural and embodiment substrates. biological sciences, and the physical sciences into Each step in the decision-making process may a single integrated depiction? Can we create a include social, cognitive and cultural obstacles to comprehensive model of mind and brain so that we successfully negotiating dilemmas. It has been

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1568

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in suggested that becoming more aware of these that require the engagement of several fields, as obstacles allows one to better anticipate and investigators must parse out and quantify all the overcome them. Neuroscience and social science different aspects of thinking that seem to happen have witnessed tremendous advance in simultaneously in order to literally make headway Neuroeconomics and Neuromanagement since the into perceptive the physical underpinning for birth of these interdisciplinary fields at the turn of making decisions. The field is still in its infancy, the century. In order to explain the cognitive and but one of the driving forces behind the field now neural underpinning of managerial decision- is to try to understand more exactly what are the making, the ability to process multiple substitutes computations performed in different brain areas, and to choose an optimal course of action, and how they are similar or different. Also how do especially in a managerial context. Nerve they communicate with each other, and how is management is contemporary developments in information transformed as it moves around in the cognitive neuroscience, neural imaging technology brain. How do these different representations about progress, and the traditional management research important variables for decision making come across a field of study, through the study of together and allow you to form a decision? (Kavli manager in their daily management behaviour such Foundation; 2011) as consumption, investment, production, circulation, financial management, managerial Quantification of choice has been a major area of activities such as various acts of the research for neuro scientists for several decades. neurophysiologic underpinning, thereby from brain This is, in part, due to the discovery of the science perspective on managerial management ‘Matching Law’ that stipulates that relative activities of the mechanisms behind, and brings response rate on concurrently available substitutes forward corresponding management measures and ‘match’ the available relative reinforcement rates. strategies. And neuroeconomics, nerve This conjectural construct has been developed to management emphasis on exact situations, describe response allocation in more obscure individual differences and the operational level of situations. Manager often fail to design ‘rational’ behaviour, study different conditions managed decisions. Economics agents are subject to object evolution rule and achieve the most multiple biases that affect the way they perceive effective management method. Decision makers events, act upon them and learn from experience. must have vast amounts of information in order to These behaviours cannot be ignored since they make use of the rational comprehensive decision- have disastrous consequences for organisations. making technique. There needs to be an ability to When faced with obscure decision, individuals predict the future consequences of decisions made. engage in simplifying strategies. Adaptive decision Also, problems confronting decision makers often making in real-world contexts relies on strategic embody conflicting values. In addition, it is tough simplifications of decision problems. Yet, neural to ignore the sunk costs of former decisions, these mechanisms that shape these strategies and their may foreclose many substitutes. implementation remain largely unknown. Although we now know much about how brain encodes Questions exact decision factors, much less is known about how brain selects among multiple strategies for Our thoughts, though abstract and vaporous in managing computational demands of obscure form, are determined by the actions of exact decision-making task. Expansion of neuronal circuits in our brains. The new field neuroeconomics parallels development of known as “decision neuroscience” is uncovering cognitive science. those circuits, thereby mapping thinking on a cellular level. Although still a young field, research Neuroeconomics has bridged the contrasting in this area has exploded in the last decade, with fields of economics and psychology. Economics, findings suggesting it is possible to parse out the psychology, and neuroscience are converging obscurity of thinking into its individual today into a single, unified discipline with the components and decipher how they are integrated ultimate aim of providing a single, general when we ponder. Eventually, such findings will conjecture of managerial behaviour. This is the lead to a better perceptive of a wide range of emerging field of Neuroeconomics in which mental disorders, from depression to consilience, accordance of two or more inductions schizophrenia, as well as explain how exactly we drawn from different groups of phenomena, seems make the multitude of decisions that ultimately to be operating. Economists and psychologists are shape our destiny. Perceptive the neuroscience providing rich conceptual tools for perceptive and behind decision making requires a cross- modeling behaviour, while neurobiologists endow disciplinary, “all hands on deck” approach to with tools for the study of mechanism. The goal of research. As a result, the field raises big questions this discipline is thus to understand the processes

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1569

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in that connect sensation and action by revealing the The field of neuroscience has contributed greatly neurobiological mechanisms by which decisions in understanding the human brain and its role in are made. Such union is almost exclusively explaining our managerial neuromanagerial attributable to changes within economics. behaviours to a certain extent. Even though Neuroeconomics has inspired change because the research has not shown a direct correlation important findings have posed more of a challenge between the neural mechanism and managerial to standard economics perspective. The important neuromanagerial behaviour, the findings have source of inspiration for neuro economist has been showed correlation evidence or potential to further neuro judgment research, which can, in turn, be build on top of this foundation. By combining seen as an amalgamation of ideas from cognitive techniques from cognitive neuroscience and science and economics. Neuroeconomics has experimental economics we can now watch neural primarily challenged customary economics activity in real time, observe how this activity postulation that decision-making is a unitary depends on the economic environment, and test process a simple matter of integrated and coherent hypotheses about how the emergent mind makes utility maximization suggesting instead that it is economic decisions. Neuroeconomics allows us to driven by interaction between automatic and better understand both the wide range of controlled processes. heterogeneity in neuromanagerial behaviour, and the role of institutions as ordered extensions of our What do brain scans really tell us? What are the minds. Brain is the most amazing multi - faceted practical implications of this research? Despite organ in known universe with most amazingly substantial advances, question of how we design magic infinite potential. The brain is the organ that and how we ought to craft judgments and decisions is designed to change in response to experience. has engaged researchers for decades, with different The decision theories can be categorized into three disciplines approaching the problem through paradigms: the normative, descriptive and characteristically different techniques. However, prescriptive theories. The decision processing have neuroeconomics decision making has recently four steps: accumulation of sensory evidence, emerged as an inter-disciplinary effort to bridge integration of sensory signals with reward this gap. It has sought to integrate ideas from fields expectation and prior knowledge, comparison of of organisational psychology, neuroscience and current reward expectation with that in prior neuroeconomics in an effort to specify accurate experience, and the selection of managerial models of choice and decision. Research neuromanagerial behavioural response. investigates neural bases of decision predictability Neuroeconomics has further bridged the once and value, central parameters in economics model disparate fields of economics and psychology, of expected utility. Neuro-multiple-systems largely due to movement within economics. approach to decision-making, in turn, influences Change has occurred within economics because the economics, a perspective strongly rooted in most important findings in neuroeconomics have organisational psychology and neuroscience. posed a challenge to the standard economic Integration of these approaches and methodologies perspective. Neuroeconomics has primarily offers exciting potential for construction of near- challenged the standard economic assumption that accurate models of decision-making decision making is a unitary process, a simple (Satpathy;2014). Among the big questions they are matter of integrated and coherent utility ; How do neurons code the emotional weight of maximization, suggesting instead that it is driven our experiences—do some neurons only become by the interaction between automatic and active in response to negative experiences while controlled processes. Neuroeconomic research has other neurons only fire when we experience focused most intensely on decision making under something favorably? How do neurons code the risk and uncertainty, but this line of research numerical value of various options—do more or provides only mixed support for a dual systems different neurons fire for an option with bigger perspective. The extent to which intertemporal rewards than that for a lesser reward? How does preference is generated by multiple systems with the coding for rewards that you receive conflicting priorities is perhaps the most hotly immediately differ from that of rewards that are debated issue within neuroeconomics. However, a delayed? How do the far-flung different parts of majority of the evidence favours a multiple the brain that govern decision-making coordinate systems perspective. Neuroeconomic research on their activity when making a decision? What social preferences is highly supportive of a dual triggers a decision—is it the cumulative build up of systems account, although the most prominent firing neurons that tip the balance to the final studies come to conflicting conclusions regarding choice? How do we alter our decision-making how self-interest and fairness concerns interact to rules when we encounter new information that influence managerial neuromanagerial behaviour. makes those rules obsolete? Neuroeconomics may ultimately influence

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1570

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in psychology indirectly, via its influence on An analogy to organizational Managerial economics (by inspiring economic models neuroeconomic decision making illustrates the increasingly grounded in psychological reality) and potential of neuroeconomic decision making. Until directly by addressing debates of interest within the 1970’s, the ‘model of the firm’ was basically a psychology (whether multiple systems operate reduced-form model of how capital and labour are sequentially or in parallel to influence managerial combined to create a production function, as the neuromanagerial behaviour). basis for an industry supply curve. Contract model opened up the black box of the firm and modelled The leap from neurons to managerial the details of the nexus of contracts between neuromanagerial behaviour is a large one. Perhaps shareholders, workers and Managers (is the three inexorably, it has attracted criticism. Different elements of the firm). The new model of the firm experts have criticized the emerging field. replaces the (still useful) fictional profit- Example of critics has been that it is ‘a field that maximizing firm which has a single goal, with a oversells itself’; or that neuromanagerial more detailed account of how components of the neuroeconomic decision making studies firm interact and communicate to determine firm ‘misunderstand and underestimate traditional managerial neuromanagerial behaviour. managerial neuroeconomic decision making Neuroeconomic decision making proposes to do models’. A critical argument of traditional the same by treating an agent like a firm: Replace economists against the neuromanagerial the (useful) fiction of a utility-maximizing agent neuroeconomic decision making approach, is that who has a single goal, with a more detailed the use of non-choice data, such as response times, account of how components of the agent’s brain eye-tracking and neural signals that people interact and communicate to determine agent generate during decision making, should be managerial neuromanagerial behaviour. excluded from any managerial neuroeconomic decision making analysis. The success of the rational actor model in ‘as if’ applications shows that this level of detail is not necessary for certain sorts of analysis, especially Gul and Pensendorder (2005), in particular, those that deal with populations of decision makers makes the vociferous argument that economists instead of individuals. For example, should not, on principle, pay attention to the details neuroeconomic decision making will never of the brain. One of their central arguments is that displace the powerful concepts of supply and the idea of utility underlying revealed preference demand, and market equilibrium. However, a model is strictly as-if—’Standard Managerial deeper understanding of the mechanics of decision- neuroeconomic decision making does not address making will help us understand deviations from the mental processes and, as a result, economic rational model better. Knowing the process of abstractions are typically not appropriate for decision making should allow us to understand not describing them (Gul and Pesendorfer 2005). ’ only the limits of our abilities to calculate optimal Therefore, according to the authors, any attempts decisions, but also the heuristics that we use to by neuroeconomists to try to find the neural basis overcome these limits. of utility are neither here nor there, since it doesn’t exist in the first place. The spirit of this argument Furthermore, in most areas of managerial can be traced back to Milton Friedman’s famous neuromanagerial behavioural Managerial dictum that economic theories should be judged by neuroeconomic decision making there is more than the accuracy of their predictions rather than the one alternative model. Often there are many plausibility of their axioms (Friedman 1964). theories that are conceptually different but difficult Friedman’s view was that (1) theories should be to separate with current data. To the extent that judged by accuracy of predictions; and (2) false some of these theories commit to neural assumptions could lead to accurate predictions. interpretations, the brain evidence can help sort out The central assumption of neuroeconomic decision which theories are on the right track and also making, and of this thesis, is that creating more suggest new theories. Much of the criticisms raised realistic assumptions will lead to better predictions. by Gul and Pesendorfer are similar in spirit to Furthermore, a critical examination of assumptions those raised by psychologists and philosophers is healthy and critical to the advancement of any decades ago (Churchland 1986). As Dehaene science. In this regard, neuroeconomic decision (2003) recounts of the progress of cognitive making shares the emphasis on accuracy in neuroscience, ‘Today, however, we know that this principle (1), but also bets on the possibility that view was unnecessarily narrow. The new cognitive improving the accuracy of assumptions will lead to neuroscience routinely mixes psychological and more accurate predictions. neural observations in the same experiments. Psychological concepts are not ruthless eliminated,

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1571

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in as was initially foreseen by the most opinionated computer. The ventral striatum is part of antifunctionalist philosophers... Rather, they are the reward pathway, so this research suggests that enriched, constrained and transformed by the there may be areas of the reward system that are accruing neural data.’ activated specifically when cooperating in shared situations. Further support for this idea comes from The context of Dehaene’s quote surrounds the research demonstrating that activation in the discovery of neurons that represent numbers via striatum and the ventral tegmental area show logarithmic encoding, thus shedding light on an similar patterns of activation when receiving age-old debate of whether the neural basis of the money and when donating money to charity. In Weber-Fechner law (the finding that the threshold both cases, the level of activation increases as the of discrimination between two stimuli increases amount of money increases, suggesting that both linearly with stimulus intensity), and the giving and receiving money results in neural postulation that internal representation of the reward. An important aspect of shared interactions stimuli follows the logarithm of the external such as the prisoner’s predicament is trust. Your stimuli. Whereas, the interplay between the neural likelihood of cooperating with another individual is and the psychological is now relatively directly related to how much you trust them to uncontroversial, skepticism over use of functional cooperate with you; if you expect the other imaging techniques can be more vocal, perhaps individual to defect against you, there is no reason owing in large part to the still youthful state of the for you to cooperate with them. Trust managerial field (fMRI was developed in the early 1990s, neuromanagerial behaviour seems to be related to whereas Weber and Fechner lived in the 19th the presence of oxytocin, a hormone involved in Century). Concern over the use and abuse of fMRI maternal managerial neuromanagerial behaviour was especially prominent in social psychology in and pair bonding in many species. When oxytocin the late 1990s and early part of the new levels were increased in humans, they were more millennium (Shulman ;1996; Hardcastle and trusting of other individuals than a control group Stewart; 2002 and Willingham and Dunn; 2003). even though their overall levels of risk-taking was Shulman, in particular, outlined four assumptions unaffected suggesting that oxytocin is specifically that are used by cognitive psychologists in the implicated in the shared aspects of risk taking. interpretation of fMRI data, two of which he finds objectionable. Neuroeconomic methods combine managerial neuromanagerial behavioural economic Shared Decision Making experiments to parameterize aspects of reward- related decision-making with neuroimaging While most research on decision making tends to techniques to record corresponding brain activity. focus on individuals making choices outside of a In this introductory article to the current special shared context, it is also important to consider issue, we propose that neuroeconomics is a decisions that involve shared interactions. The potential bridge for translational research in types of situations that decision theorists study are psychiatry for several reasons. First, as diverse as altruism, cooperation, punishment, neuroeconomics-derived conjectural predictions and retribution. One of the most frequently utilized about optimal adaptation in a changing tasks in shared decision making is the prisoner’s environment provide an objective metric to predicament. In this situation, the payoff for a examine psychopathology. Second, particular choice is dependent not only on the neuroeconomics provides a ‘multilevel’ research decision of the individual but also on that of approach that combines performance (managerial another individual playing the game. An individual neuromanagerial behavioural) measures with can choose to either cooperate with his partner or intermediate measures between managerial defect against the partner. Over the course of a neuromanagerial behaviour and neurobiology (e.g., typical game, individuals tend to prefer mutual neuroimaging) and uses a common metaphor to cooperation even though defection would lead to a describe decision-making across multiple levels of higher overall payout. This suggests that explanation. As such, ecologically valid individuals are motivated not only by monetary managerial neuromanagerial behavioural gains but also by some reward derived from paradigms closely mirror the physical mechanisms cooperating in shared situations. This idea is of reward processing. Third, neuroeconomics supported by neural imaging studies demonstrating provides a platform for investigators from a high degree of activation in the ventral neuroscience, economics, psychiatry, and social striatum when individuals cooperate with another and clinical psychology to develop a common person but that this is not the case when people language for studying reward-related decision play the same prisoner’s predicament against a making in psychiatric disorders. Therefore,

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1572

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in neuroeconomics can provide promising candidate these variables, potentially reflecting a common endophenotypes that might help clarify. neural currency for value, to facilitate value comparisons. Despite the successes of decision Research suggests that brain considers various neuroscience research for elucidating brain sources of information before making a decision. mechanisms, significant challenges remain. These However, how does it do this? Since ancient times include building new conceptual frameworks for scholars at many levels of reduction have studied decision making, integrating research findings decision-making. Over the last three decades, across disparate techniques and species, and social and natural scientists have tried to extending results from neuroscience to shape understand how we make decisions, using different economic model. To overcome these challenges, strategies. Since the 90s, groups of future research will likely focus on interpersonal interdisciplinary scholars have begun to combine variability in decision making, with the eventual social and natural scientific approaches to study goal of creating biologically plausible models for decision in an emerging discipline called Managerial decision. ‘Neuromanager management’. Assumption is that by combining conjectural and empirical tools from The equation of human rational managerial neuromanager science, psychology and neuromanagerial behaviour with instrumentalist, management into a single approach, resulting especially economic, rationality represents the synthesis will provide insights valuable to all hallmark of the economic or rational Managerial three-parent disciplines. Studies seem to support economic decision approach. The latter imports, that conclusion. Theories have begun to restructure makes explicit and extends orthodox economics’ neuromanager understanding of decision-making, implicit conception of rational managerial and findings suggest constraints on conjectural neuromanagerial behaviour as economic models developed in management and rationality. This orthodox conception defines psychological domains. economic rationality by maximization of exclusively materialist objectives, namely profit by In addition, why does the process sometimes go producers and utility by consumers. The rational awry, causing impulsive, indecisive, and confused Managerial economic decision approach explicitly decisions; that lead to risky and potentially applies this conception to all rational and dangerous managerial neuromanagerial managerial neuromanagerial behaviour that is thus behaviours? Managerial neuromanagerial construed as ipso facto economic rationality. The behaviour is not the product of a single process, case against neo - classical Managerial decision but rather reflects interaction of different economics has been growing in recent specialized subsystems. These systems usually years. Managerial decision economics is not a real interact seamlessly to determine managerial science because it is difficult to do the empirical neuromanagerial behaviour, but at times, they evidence to validate models economist develop compete. Result is that brain sometimes argues from assumptions. Many core assumptions of neo - with itself, as these distinct systems come to classicism (Managers are totally rational, have different conclusions about what we should do. complete information, only act to maximize utility, Managerial managerial neuromanagerial behaviour etc.) have been disproved by experimentation is not under constant and detailed control of careful in managerial neuromanagerial behavioural and accurate hedonic calculations. It is product of Managerial decision economics. Despite the fact an unstable and irrational multi - faceted of reflex that they are working with faulty assumptions, actions, impulses, instincts and habits. Few aspects Managerial economists claim that the implications of human cognition are more personal than the derived from the assumptions are still valid decisions we make. Our decisions - from the because they are good approximations of mundane to the impossibly multi - faceted - reality. Hard sciences use simplified models to continually shape the courses of our lives. In recent explain phenomena but the crucial difference is years, researchers have applied the tools of that Managerial economists add unrealistic neuroscience to understand the mechanisms that properties to validate their models. Some underlie decision making, as part of the new Managerial economists counter by admitting that discipline of decision neuroscience. A primary Neo - classical Managerial decision economics has goal of this emerging field has been to identify the these problems but the cure is to do more empirical processes that underlie specific decision variables, research. But with more empirical research, the including the value of rewards, the uncertainty Neo - classical assumptions are giving way to a associated with particular outcomes, and the new economic conjecture; multi - facetedity consequences of social interactions. Recent work Managerial decision economics. The main suggests potential neural substrates that integrate advantage of multi - facetedity Managerial decision economics is that its assumptions can be

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1573

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in empirically validated and that its findings apply to economics to study how we make Managerial modern economic phenomena. Multi - facetedity economic decisions. It looks at the role of the brain Managerial decision economics is a nascent field when we evaluate decisions and how the brain and there is a lot of work to be done. Nevertheless, categorizes risks and rewards. ‘Economics’ in the it is going in the right track and the key findings to field if neuroeconomics is to be interpreted in the this point make more sense than what broadest sense of any decision making process that neoclassicism has prescribed. The two advantages involves making a Managerial economic decision that multi - facticity Managerial decision from available alternatives. Expansion of economics has are that it deals with emergence and neuromanager management parallels development the role of knowledge in economic of cognitive science. Neuromanager management transactions. Neo - classical Managerial decision has bridged contrasting fields of management and economics with its quest for equilibrium could not psychology. Management, psychology, and deal with either emergent phenomena or how neuromanager science converge into a single, economic actors acquire and use knowledge. The unified discipline with ultimate aim of providing standard-issue Homo economicus is un-boundedly single, general model of managerial rational, i.e. the decisions he reaches are always neuromanagerial behaviour. This is the field in the best ones which could be made, given the which consilience operates. Researchers and evidence available to him (and he always correctly psychologists provide conceptual tools for hedges against his ignorance and uncertainty). understanding and modelling managerial Now, this is simply not the way Manager are (as is neuromanagerial behaviour. Neuromanager obvious, if not when we examine our own researchers provide tools for the study of decisions, then certainly those of our mechanism. The goal is to understand processes acquaintances). There are also real and apparently that connect sensation and action by revealing insuperable computational difficulties which make neuromanager mechanisms by which decisions are it most doubtful that any creature could actually made. Neuromanager findings have posed solve the necessary optimization problems, at least challenge to standard management perspective. within a reasonable time. So Manager must be boundedly rational --- rational within certain The important source of inspiration has been limits; muddling through on some tricks neuromanager judgment research (amalgamation (academically: procedures) which usually don't of ideas from cognitive science and management). serve us too shabbily. Nor do we optimize: we Neuromanager management has primarily satisfice (Ariel Rubinstein; MIT Press, 1998). So challenged customary management postulation that much (here and now) for the idea of bounded decision - making is a unitary process, suggesting rationality according to Simon. In this vague form, instead that it is driven by interaction between it simply must be true. The problem is that, while automatic and controlled processes. Despite there is only one course of action open to an ideal substantial advances, question of how we design optimizer (namely, the optimum), there are about and craft judgments and decisions has engaged as many outcomes for procedural satisficers as researchers for decades. Different disciplines there are satisficing procedures. (There are many approach the problem through characteristically ways to bound rationality.) Worse, the different techniques. Neuromanager decision mathematical methods for modeling substantially making has emerged as an inter-disciplinary effort rational agents are highly developed, but we have to bridge this gap. It integrates ideas from fields of very little grip on boundedly rational agents of any organisational psychology, neuromanager science description. This is called the ‘can't beat something and neuromanager - management to specify with nothing’ justification for continuing to make accurate models of decision making. Research models with unboundedly rational agents. investigates neural bases of decision predictability Rubinstein's aims to provide another ‘something,’ and value, central parameters in expected utility to i.e. a set of tools for modeling boundedly rational decision – making. Integration of these offers agents of various sorts. These are: simplifying exciting potential for construction of near - decision-making by ignoring ‘similar’ features of accurate models of decision - making. incompatible options; limiting knowledge (represented by a formalism borrowed from modal How is Managerial decision making processes logic); limiting memory; aggregating Manager carried out in brain? Do we interpret research decisions by teams; and playing games by means findings when neuromanager logical results of automata (i.e. limiting game-theoretic strategies conflict? Knowing how brain is working explains to those which can be implemented by abstract little about what mind produces; what we think, automata). what we believe and how we craft decisions. What Neuroeconomics is an emerging transdisciplinary are the general implications of neuromanager field, primarily neuroscience, psychology and management? Neuromanager techniques permit to

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1574

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in look inside brain while it experiences outcomes to allow a reasonable decision to be made from and crafts decisions to examine implications. among them. This definition stresses the Central argument is that decision - making is at information-gathering function of decision- core of Managerial functions and future of any making. It should be noted here that uncertainty is organisation lies on vital decisions made. Decision reduced rather than eliminated. Few decisions are usually involves three steps: recognition of a need, made with absolute certainty because complete dissatisfaction within oneself (void or need), knowledge about all alternatives is seldom decision to change (fill void or need) and possible. Thus, every decision involves a certain conscious dedication to implement the decision. amount of risk. If there is no uncertainty, you do However, certain critical issues coupled with not have a decision; you have an algorithm--a set factors such as uncertainties, multiple objectives, of steps or a recipe that is followed to bring about a interactive multi - facetedity and anxiety make fixed result. decision making process difficult. At times when making a decision is multi - faceted or interests are Emerging neuromanager science evidence at stake, then need for strategic decision - making suggests that sound and rational neuromanager arises. Management is influenced by multiple- decision making depends on prior accurate systems approach to decision-making, a emotional processing. Somatic marker hypothesis perspective strongly rooted in psychology and provides a systems-level neuromanager anatomical neuromanager science. The integration of these and cognitive framework for neuromanager disparate methodologies offers exciting potential decision making and its influence. Key idea is that for construction of models of decision-making. neuromanager decision - making is a process influenced by Prefrontal Cortex and Marker Questions that need to be answered include; how Signals. These occur at multiple levels of to choose in tough situations where stakes are high operation. Some occur consciously and some occur and there are multiple conflicting objectives? How non-consciously. The issues that crop up are; what should Managers’ plan? How can we deal with happens when Managers change minds? What risks and uncertainties involved in a decision? algorithms allow sensorimotor managerial How can we create options that are better than the neuromanagerial behaviours to be learned? What ones originally available? How can we become computational mechanisms allow brain to adapt better decision makers? What resources will be changing circumstances? How (and where) are invested in decision - making? What are the value and probability combined in brain and what potential responses to a particular problem or is the dynamics of this? What neural systems track opportunity? Who will make this decision? Every defined forms of utility? To what extent do utility prospective action has strengths and weaknesses; computations generalize to decision, that is tasks how should they be evaluated? How will they that are more multi - faceted? How do systems that decide? Which of the things that could happen focus on immediate decisions interact? would happen? The decision has been made. How can we ensure it will be carried out? These are the What occur in brain when we make questions neuromanager researchers suspect are neuromanagerial economic decision making or are most crucial for understanding multi - faceted in course of making neuromanagerial economic managerial neuromanagerial behaviours. decision making? Is neuromanagement of neuromanagerial economic decision making- Problem Statement making processes relevant? How do we make a neuromanagerial economic decision making? Despite substantial advances, the question of how Many neuromanagerial economic decision making we make decisions and judgments continues to makers seek information than required to make a pose important challenges for scientific research. neuromanagerial economic decision making. When Historically, different disciplines have approached too much information is sought, delay occurs. This this problem using different techniques and impairs effectiveness of neuromanagerial assumptions, with few unifying efforts made. economic decision making. In this state, Making a Managerial decision implies that there neuromanagement seeks to explain human are alternative decisions to be considered, and in neuromanagerial economic decision making- such a case we want not only to identify as many making, ability to process alternatives and choose of these alternatives as possible but to choose the optimal course of action. It studies how managerial one that (1) has the highest probability of success neuromanagerial behaviour shapes understanding or effectiveness and (2) best fits with our goals, of brain. Conjectural accounts posit that human desires, lifestyle, values, and so on. Managerial brain accomplishes this through neural decision - making is the process of sufficiently computations. What coherent brain dynamics reducing uncertainty and doubt about alternatives underlie prediction, control and neuromanagerial

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1575

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in economic decision making-making? Therefore, encounter new information that makes rules neuromanagerial economic decision making is a obsolete? reasoning or emotional process which can be rational or irrational, based on explicit assumptions The issues, because modern models ignore or tacit assumptions. This leads to formulation of influence of emotions on neuro - human resources ‘neuro - management neuromanagerial economic neuromanagerial economic decision making- decision making paradox’. The goal is how brain making, that crop up is; implements neuromanagerial economic decision making tied to managerial neuromanagerial  What happens when we change our minds behaviour. These explore phenomena through and what are the algorithms? individual action, neuromanagerial economic  What computational mechanisms allow decision making-making and reasoning processes. brain to adapt to changing circumstances and Objective is to put forward a replica for neuro - remain fault-tolerant and robust? management neuromanagerial economic decision making, in which interaction between variables of  How (and where) are value and neuro - neuromanagerial economic decision probability combined in brain and what is the making processes are addressed via; how does dynamics? brain assign value to different options under  To what extent do tracking efficacy consideration? How does brain compare assigned computations generalize tasks that are more multi - values in order to design a neuromanagerial faceted? economic decision making?  Does an unmet need generate a tonic and progressively increasing signal (amounting ‘drive’) How do people make neuromanagerial or does it manifest as a recurring episodic / phasic economic decision making without having clear signal with increasing amplitude? inclinations? How do short-lived mental states bias  Do higher-level deliberative processes inclinations or neuromanagerial economic decision rely similarly on multiple mechanisms, or a single, making outside of the neuromanagerial economic more tightly integrated (unitary) set of decision making-makers’ awareness? How is mechanisms? information updating represented in the brain? What is the role of time perception in intertemporal neuromanagerial economic decision making? How Focal point is to understand; can we avoid making unhealthy and dangerous  Neural processes underlying how we craft neuromanagerial economic decision making? How neuromanagerial economic decision making and do we correct for neuromanagerial economic neuromanagerial economic decision making. decision making errors? Among the big questions  Understand mechanisms of they are trying to answer are: neuromanagerial economic decision making- making using functional neuroimaging  How do neurons code the emotional methodologies. weight of our experiences—do some neurons only  Integrating interdisciplinary research become active in response to negative experiences towards contributing to neuromanagerial economic while other neurons only fire when we experience decision making neuroscience. something favourably?  How do neurons code the numerical value Objective is to put forward a model for neuro - of various options—do more or different neurons human resources neuromanagerial economic fire for an option with bigger rewards than that for decision making, in which interaction between a lesser reward? How does the coding for rewards variables of neuro - human resources that you receive immediately differ from that of neuromanagerial economic decision making rewards that are delayed? processes are addressed via;  How do the far-flung different parts of the brain that govern neuromanagerial economic  How does brain assign value to different decision making-making coordinate their activity options under consideration? when making a neuromanagerial economic  How does brain compare assigned values decision making? in order to design a neuromanagerial economic  What triggers a neuromanagerial decision making? economic decision making? Is it cumulative build-  How is ‘process of valuation’ changed up of firing neurons that tip the balance to final when control is exerted? neuromanagerial economic decision making?  How is value computed in multi - faceted  How do we alter our neuromanagerial / abstract domains? economic decision making-making rules when we

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1576

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

 How can Neuro - human resources be traditionally considered exogenous. Decisions applied to design solutions to real - time problems? involving risk, uncertainty, or time delays may require multi - faceted trade-offs. Subsequent issues are, The proposed methodology is to develop  There is a need to attend as to how conjectural foundations, models and algorithms to neuroscience can, and already has, benefited from support timely, robust, near-optimal decision Neuro - human resources’ unitary perspective, and making in highly multi - faceted, dynamic systems,  How neuroscience has been enriched by operating in uncertain, resource-constrained taking account multiple specialized neural systems environments with incomplete information against with potential research directions. a competent thinking adversary. Although, based on operations research methodologies such as The following clarifications may help pre-empt modeling, simulation and numerical optimization, some common fallacies. this proposal is expected to include multi-  Is there scientific support for ‘brain disciplinary emphasis to accommodate multi - modularity’? faceted, multi-dimensional decision frameworks. Methodology includes use of neuro decision  Is there evidence of ‘strategic – tasks and application of neuroscientific analyses interactions’ between brain systems? and functional neuro-imaging techniques (fMRI).  Can the multiple brain system approach Attempt to combine somatic marker hypothesis be defended on evolutionary grounds? with coherence model of neuro - economics  Are human resource studies models too decision would be a major initiative. Juxtaposition simple to explain the intricacies of the brain of Damasio's hypothesis with a cognitive model of processes? neuro - economics decision making is preliminary  Is neuro-human resource studies study of to a possible model of emotional neuro - neuromanagerial economic decision making- economics decision making. making processes relevant for human resource studies? Research directions include; Research demonstrates that brain cannot encode  Modeling and simulation with objective all information. Decision is triggered when of decision support, ‘enough’ information supporting one alternative is obtained and brain uses a variety of biological  Fundamental graph model and network mechanisms to filter information in a constrained analysis in support of modeling multi - faceted optimal way. Neuro data reports precisely that systems managerial neuromanagerial behaviours, individuals stick too often to first impressions.  Numerical optimization and modeling for These confirmatory biases may emerge from same managerial neuromanagerial behaviours, set of physiological information processing  Evidential reasoning and fusion constraints. Further work in this direction help approaches to model real-time information, uncover causes of other biases and determine  Sequential dynamic decision making whether they are all related to same physiological approaches, and limitations. Methodology used in neuroeconomics  Algorithms and simulation into modeling model has two advantages. Primarily, evidence of decision-making. from brain sciences provides precise guidelines for constraints that should be imposed on decision- making processes. This helps uncover ‘true’ Rationale motivations for ‘wrong’ decisions and improve predictive power of the model. Neuro theories that Goal of studying human decision managerial account for biases in judgment build on specific neuromanagerial behaviour is prediction. This models of preferences over beliefs or non-Bayesian research seeks to develop conjectural models, updating processes. Rather than guessing a cause based on axiomatic foundation, which can predict for biases, neuroeconomics model builds a model Managerial decisions. These models would take as based on existing physiological properties inputs state of external world and generate as underlying learning and belief formation. In outputs actual decisions made by human choosers. principle, this can help pinpoint biological For this reason, research would aim towards foundations for anomalous decisions. The second achieving compact and abstract models of advantage is that by explicitly modeling decision. To date, management model of decision physiological properties, it is possible to provide has not been informed by the way brain functions. foundations for elements of preferences Analysis of observations would include not only

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1577

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Managerial economic decisions between options, Applying similar methodology to study Managerial per se, but additional data, including length of time decision - making is the way to understand bounds taken to make decisions, number of error in of rationality. decisions and psychophysical model(s).

Including more than just observed decisions Assumptions allows data to have an additional disciplining effect on model. We extend this assumption of 1. The problem is clear and unambiguous optimal managerial neuromanagerial behaviour to (Problem Clarity). analysis of brain process producing a decision. To 2. The decision-maker can identify all do this, we assume that there is an unobservable relevant criteria and viable alternatives (Known decision that an agent makes, consequences of Options). These are the characteristics or which are reflected in all observable data that can requirements that each alternative must possess to be measured in the decision process. That decision a greater or lesser extent. Usually the alternatives is strength of effort devoted to processing are rated on how well they possess each criterion. information in reaching a decision between 3. Rationality assumes that the criteria and options. As a conclusion, we propose a model that alternatives can be ranked and weighted (Clear joins predictions of traditional psychological Preferences). observations and predictions of relative brain 4. Specific decision criteria are constant and activation dependent on exogenous characteristics that the weights assigned to them are stable over of decision environment. time (Constant Preferences). 5. Full information is available because there Even as it is recognised that brain (and is no time or cost constraints (No Time or Cost consequent managerial neuromanagerial Constraints). behaviour) does not operate perfectly optimally, 6. The preference alternative will yield the there are several reasons why these assumptions highest perceived value (Maximum Payoff). can nevertheless be valuable. First, although multi - faceted forms of managerial neuromanagerial Limitations behaviour might not be optimal, simpler evolutionarily conserved mechanisms might prove to be closer to optimal, or at least to have been so Decision makers do not have complete knowledge of all the facts surrounding the problems. They in the environment in which they evolved. Second, cannot foresee future events with complete an assumption of optimality can be a crucial step in accuracy. Therefore, it is not always possible to development of formal model. Formal model, in turn, enables generation of precise, testable choose the optimum solution. The search for predictions about Managerial neuromanagerial decision is stopped as soon as the minimum acceptable level of rationality is reached. Most behaviour. Finally, even when managerial decisions involve too many multi - faceted neuromanagerial behaviour (or neural function) variables all of which cannot be examined fully by turns suboptimal, defining optimal performance a decision maker. It is not always possible to can provide a useful benchmark against which to compare actual managerial neuromanagerial identify all possible alternatives due to time and behaviour. Identifying ways in which managerial cost constraints. A decision making situation may involve multiple goals all of which cannot be neuromanagerial behaviour systematically deviates maximized simultaneously. It is not possible to from optimality can generate new insights into maximize goals when a suitable quantitative underlying mechanisms. measure of progress is not available. The

Neuromanager management model will play a environment of decision making is often uncertain. crucial role in building of new reliable theories When facilitating decisions in which some performance evaluations are uncertain, a decision capable of explaining and predicting Manager must be taken about how this uncertainty is to be managerial neuromanagerial behaviour and modelled. This involves, in part, choosing an strategic decisions. Main message is that Manager is not one coherent body. Brain is a multi-system uncertainty format {a way of representing the entity and therefore decision-maker must be possible outcomes that may occur. It seems reasonable to suggest {and is an aim of the thesis modelled as an organisation. Before the modern to show {that the decision of how uncertain model, organisations were modelled as Manager quantities are represented will exert some influence players characterised by an input-output over the decision-making process and the final production function. Systematic study of interactions between agents and decision processes decision taken. Practical applications often use within organisations lead to novel insights. simpler decision models to aid decision making

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1578

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in under uncertainty, based on uncertainty formats analysis. Due to its multidisciplinary nature, this that `simplify’ the full probability distributions. investigation is subject to several kinds of The making and implementation of decisions are misconceptions. Is Neuromanager study of influenced by several uncontrollable factors. decision - making processes relevant for Therefore, the consequences of various alternatives management? The debate argues that the question cannot be anticipated accurately. The outcome of a is of scientific interest and tools from management decision can be known only in future. It is not model are well adapted to address it. always possible to foresee future events and the While there are several benefits of using anticipated consequences of various alternatives neuromanagerial techniques in understanding may differ from those actually realized. A decision decision making, there are questions that in one area may have an adverse effect on another neuromanagerial science cannot answer by itself area of operations. Human factors are the main and needs help of experimental methodology and limits on rational decision making. Personal value theories to understand how Managers decide. The systems, perceptions, economic and social factors, key limitation is identifying different regions of etc., are the main human limits on rationality. brain in certain situations (VUCA). These Every decision maker is a human being and his’ techniques are not able to provide an explanation decisions are influenced by his personal beliefs, or a reason (neuromanagerial) as to why we attitudes and biases. The manner of decision respond in the manner that we do. What happens in making is influenced by a Manager's perception brain or what is activated when Managers make regarding the problems and their solutions. The decisions or are in process of making decisions or perception of one decision maker possibly is responding to outcomes? It does not give insight different from that of the other. While making into why we make decisions and why we respond decisions, a Manager is likely to seek the in the manner that we do. This is where protection of his self interest and decision making experimental methodology would help bolster power. Collection of information, evaluation of understanding. A synergy between alternatives, decision of decision and attitude neuromanagerial techniques and experiments towards change may all get disported due to provide insight into understanding Managerial personal and political reasons. A decision maker decision making. may take decisions which are the best in terms of his own personal interest rather than what is in the Until now, research has not systematically best interest of the organization. Lack of support integrated influence of emotions on decision- and acceptance by subordinates, lack of trust by making. Since evidence from neuroscience superiors, legal restrictions, moral and ethical suggests that decision-making depends on prior standards, formal policies and procedures, emotional processing, interdisciplinary research ineffective communication, incorrect timing of the under label of ‘Neuroeconomics’ arose. The key decisions are also sources of limits on rationality. idea is to employ recent neuroscientific methods in The decision maker may not be able to gather and order to analyze relevant brain processes. Due to process all information. He may gather information its multidisciplinary nature, this investigation is which he thinks pertinent to the decision. In such subject to several kinds of misconceptions. Is situation, decisions are made within a hounded neuroeconomics study of decision-making rationality. Every Manager is concerned with the processes relevant for economics? Depending on limits of rationality how they can be overcome so how we define ‘(neuro) economics’, it may or may that the most rational alternative may be selected not be relevant. The debate, however, seems futile. for solving the problem. Every Manager is This research does not take a stand on that issue. concerned with the limits of rationality how they Instead, it argues that question is of scientific can be overcome so that the most rational interest and tools from economics model are well alternative may be selected for solving the adapted to address it. problem. While there are several benefits of using Until now, research has not systematically neuroscience techniques in understanding integrated influence of sub - systems of brain in managerial managerial neuromanagerial behaviour decision-making. Evidence suggests that decision - and decision making, there are some questions that making depends on methodical methods to analyse neuroscience cannot answer by itself and needs relevant brain processes. The study is limited by help of experimental methodology and theories to the focus on descriptive rather than real understand why we behave in the manner that we prescriptive decision making, but has implications do. The key limitation of neuroscience techniques, for prescriptive decision making practice in that aside from being expensive, is that it is able to natural tendencies are identified which may need identify that different regions of our brain are to be overcome in the course of a prescriptive

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1579

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in activated when we are in certain situations. These metabolic activity. Or rather, it depicts techniques are not able to provide an explanation the differential rate of oxygen use: one first takes a or a reason (neuro) as to why we respond in the baseline measurement in the control condition, manner that we do. then a second measurement while the subject is performing some cognitive task. The baseline What happens in brain or what is activated when measurement is then subtracted from the on-task we make decisions or are in the process of making measurement. The reasoning, seemingly plausible, decisions or responding to outcomes? It does not is that whatever shows up in the subtraction give us any insight into why we make these represents the metabolic activity associated solely decisions and why we respond in the manner that with the cognitive task in question. we do. This is where experimental methodology would help bolster understanding as to why One immediately obvious (but usually Manager make decisions that they do. A synergy unremarked) problem is that this method between neuroscience techniques and neuro eliminates from the picture the more massive fact, experiments will provide tremendous insight into which is that the entire Managerial neuro is active understanding managerial neuromanagerial in both conditions. A false impression of neat behaviour and decision making. functional localization is given by the presentation of differential Managerial neuro scans which Is the neuromanagement study of decision- subtract out all the distributed functions. This making processes relevant for management? Until subtractive method is ideally suited to the imaging now, research has not systematically integrated technology, and deeply consistent with the influence of emotions on decision-making. modular model of mind. But is this modular model Depending on debate, it is argued that question is of mind perhaps attractive in part because it lends of scientific interest and tools from management itself to the subtractive method? Perhaps the most model are well adapted to address it. Evidence fundamental limitation of functional imaging, vis- suggests that decision-making depends on prior à-vis the claim that it allows us to ‘peer inside the emotional processing. Due to its multidisciplinary mind,’ is that there is a basic disconnect of time nature, this investigation is subject to several kinds scale. Managerial neuro scans are of misconceptions. emphatically not images of cognition in process, as the neural activity of interest occurs on a time scale orders of magnitude faster than hemodynamic But there are some basic conceptual problems response (the proxy for neural activity measured hovering about the interpretation of Managerial neuro scans. In parsing these problems, it becomes by fMRI). apparent that the current ‘neuro’ enthusiasm should be understood in the larger context of scientism, a But for a certain kind of intellectual, the mere pervasive cultural tendency with its own logic. A act of positing that some mystery has a mechanical prominent feature of this logic is the overextension basis gives satisfaction. A heady feeling of mastery of some mode of scientific explanation, or model, rushes in prematurely with the idea that in to domains in which it has little predictive or principle nothing lies beyond our powers of explanatory power. Such a lack of intrinsic fit is comprehension. But to be knowable in principle is often no barrier to the model nonetheless achieving quite different from being known in fact. Hands-on great authority in those domains, through a kind of mechanical experience frequently induces an histrionics. All that is required is a certain kind of experience of perplexity in formally trained performance by those who foist the model upon us, engineers. We may be emboldened to speculate, in a dramatic imitation of explanatory competence a sociological mode, whether a lack of such that wows us and cows us with its self-confidence. mechanical experience ‘enables’ a certain intellectual comportment which doesn’t give the If the critique of mental modularity is valid, how machine its due, and isn’t sufficiently impressed can one account for the fact that Managerial neuro with this difference between the knowable and the scans do, in fact, reveal well-defined areas that known. ‘light up’ in response to various cognitive tasks? In the case of functional (as opposed to structural) Likely Contributions neuroimaging, what you are seeing when you look at a Managerial neuro scan is the result of a The study of decision making and problem subtraction. Functional magnetic resonance solving has attracted attention. Expanded research imaging (fMRI), for example, produces a map of requires (model - based empirical) study of the rate of oxygen use in different parts of the managerial neuromanagerial behaviour and Managerial neuro, which stands as a measure of provide setting for basic research on how ill-

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1580

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in structured problems are, and can be, solved. decision economics. Neuromanagerial decision Managerial neurodecision making, which is much economics attempts to unify abstract less well understood than Manager decision - neuromanagerial decision economic variables with making and problem solving, can be studied with neuroanatomy and understand physical great profit using already established methods of mechanisms by which brains make decisions. The inquiry, especially through intensive studies. basic premise is that somewhere along sensory- motor circuit is neural substrates that represent Neuromanagerial management offers solution ‘value’ and ‘probability.’ Within neurobiology, through series of measurements of brain activity at studies of movement control areas, usually referred the time of decisions. It provides conceptual and to collectively as the components of the motor philosophical framework for understanding and system, are segregated into two main divisions: conducting research at intersection of those that control systems that regulate movements neuromanagerial science, management and of the body, hands, feet and mouth (the psychology. Neuromanagerial management model skeletomuscular system) and those that move the proposes to build brain-based models capable of eyes (the oculomotor system). As with the sensory predicting observed managerial neuromanagerial systems, there seem to be strong parallels between behaviour. Neuromanagerial management will the multiple motor systems of the brain and as in shed light on causes of managerial studies of the sensory systems, our core framework neuromanagerial behaviour (and neuromanagerial largely derives from studies of one system, in this anomalies) and help build theories capable of case the oculomotor system. The oculomotor explaining and predicting decisions. Measurement system has provided especially fertile ground for of brain activity provides information about study because of the simplicity of the mechanics of underlying mechanisms brain during decision the eyeball. While movements of the arm, for processes. Neuromanagerial decision modelling example, involve dozens of muscles and multi - would help when new information is inconsistent faceted inertial moments, movements of each eye with goals. Combining the above disciplines gives involve only 6 muscles and no detectable inertia. interdisciplinary insight to define fundamentals of (For an introductory overview of the motor system neuromanagerial decision making that has eluded see the motor chapters in Rosenzweig et al. (2002). researchers. For more detail see Squire et al. (2002).)

Conclusion This is the science of the most multi - faceted and advanced product of nature - the human Over the Centuries since Adam Smith, brain. How strong is the discipline behind the Neuromanagerial economists have developed discoveries we have made to date? Interpretation of managerial activity in terms of neuroscience is frameworks for maximising neuromanagerial typically concerned with extreme behaviors. There decision economic success. However, despite the are significant differences between the methods. intellectual power of these theories and simple Such differences include: the extent to which the logic involved in calculations, humans continue to do what rational, reward-maximizing equations tell decision problem is broken into a hierarchy of sub- them to do. Irrationality of human decision-making problems, whether or not pair wise comparisons of substitutes and/or criteria are used to elicit attracts fierce interest of two very different fields: decision-makers' preferences, the use of interval neuroscience and neuromanagerial decision scale or ratio scale measurements of decision- economics. Neuromanagerial decision economic makers' preferences, the number of criteria theories of human decision-making are essentially based on two parameters: what something is worth included, the number of substitutes evaluated, ranging from a few (finite) to infinite, the extent to and probability of its occurrence. Neuroscientists which numerical scores are used to value and/or think of decision-making as a product of physical rank substitutes, the extent to which incomplete neural circuits: sensory information enters brain, rankings (relative to complete rankings) of journeys through brain where decision is ‘made,’ and eventually exits the brain to evoke bodily substitutes are produced and the extent to which responses. Neuromanagerial decision economics uncertainty is modeled and analyzed. There is sufficient overlap to motivate further investigation. ignores these biological, more proximal roots of neuromanagerial behaviour, whereas neuroscience ignores neuromanagerial decision economic goals These areas must interact and influence flow of that ultimately guide decisions. information along the circuit, thereby prompting certain decision and its subsequent neuromanagerial behaviour. Pressing questions, These two approaches have recently been then, are how and where these abstract variables integrated in the hybrid field of neuromanagerial

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1581

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in are combined in brain and dynamics of neural biases may emerge from same set of information computation which engenders a ‘decision.’ processing constraints. Further work in this Inherently, neuromanagerial decision economics is direction help uncover causes of other biases and to have grander, nobler intentions. Although the determine whether they are all related to same former ‘dismal science’ is abstract and far removed limitations. Methodology used in neurohuman from biological mechanisms, it offers one thing resources model has two advantages. Primarily, neuromanagerial behavioural studies tend to lack: evidence from brain sciences provides precise great mathematical beauty. Because guidelines for constraints that should be imposed neuromanagerial economists base their models on on neuromanagerial economic decision making- optimal neuromanagerial behaviour, they have making processes. This helps uncover ‘true’ ability to develop precise, unified framework for motivations for ‘wrong’ neuromanagerial interpreting human neuromanagerial behaviour. economic decision making and improve predictive Neuromanagerial decision economics draws upon power of the model. Neuro theories that account precision and rigor of formal models of for biases in judgment build on specific models of neuromanagerial decision economics to go beyond inclinations over beliefs or non-Bayesian updating sensory-motor circuit, allowing opportunities for processes. understanding neural basis of abstract neuromanagerial decision economic ideas. Thus, The proposed tactic is to develop conjectural principles of neuromanagerial decision economics foundations, models and algorithms to support allow neuroscientists to explore physical timely, robust, near-optimal neuromanagerial mechanisms underlying high level cognitive economic decision making in highly multi - processes. faceted, dynamic systems, operating in uncertain, resource-constrained environments with Progress in neuroscience will allow us to reveal incomplete information against a competent the neuronal correlates of decision making thinking adversary. Although, based on operations involved in informed consent. Such a research methodologies such as modeling, ‘neuroscience of decision making’ would allow us simulation and numerical optimization, this to develop empirical—that is, ‘human black box’ argument is expected to include multi-disciplinary based—criteria of informed consent. Empirical emphasis to accommodate multi - faceted, multi- criteria are descriptive and must therefore be dimensional neuromanagerial economic decision distinguished from the normative criteria of making frameworks. informed consent. Normative criteria are characterised by norms and values and thus cannot These results suggest that the simplest kind of be reduced to descriptive, that is empirical— connection between sensation and action can be criteria. Therefore, the neuroscience of decision described as a process by which topographic making cannot replace the ethics of informed parallel representations of signals from the outside consent. Instead, it can complement the ethics of world are used to trigger neuromanagerial informed consent by providing empirical and thus behavioural responses in topographically organized descriptive criteria. I conclude that neuroethics, in output maps, perhaps through the intermediate such a complementary sense, will change the way representation of a simple neuroeconomic in which we solve ethical problems of informed managerial economic decision variable consent in twenty first century neuropsychiatry. (see Glimcher (2003a) for a more in depth survey of this work). This much is uncontroversial. Also In the past few‐ years, methods used in uncontroversial is that these sensory-motor understanding brain patterns and neural activity connections do not constitute neuroeconomic have advanced tremendously. In light of discussing managerial economic decision making in the some of these theories and applications of economic sense. Neoclassical variables like value neuroscience in neuromanagerial economic and expected utility, which are central to formal decision making, it is important to see what rational neuroeconomic managerial economic techniques are being used to study the decision making, do not occur in a very clear brain. Research demonstrates that brain cannot fashion during these experiments. One possibility encode all information. Neuromanagerial that this raises is that these are precisely the kinds economic decision making is triggered when of crude and primitive processes that are ‘enough’ information supporting one alternative is responsible for economically irrational obtained and brain uses a variety of mechanisms to neuromanagerial behaviour. Rational managerial filter information in a constrained optimal way. neuroeconomic option models may break down, be Neuro data reports precisely that individuals stick bounded, because mechanisms like these ‘take too often to first impressions. These confirmatory over.’ But there is an alternative hypothesis. These

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1582

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-4, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in mechanisms may be much more complicated than insight into circuit-level computations that (may) they appear from the experiments that have already govern multi - faceted neuromanagerial been presented. Indeed, these experiments may behaviours. The extent to which computations of reveal only the tip of the neurobiological iceberg. neuromanagerial decision economic model can Distinguishing between these two hypotheses is, truly be generalized to computations performed by fortunately, an empirical problem. We can begin to brain (as well as to more multi - faceted decision ask whether these circuits and this general model tasks) is unknown, but aims and progress of this can account for more complicated classes of field are promising. From neuromanagerial neuroeconomic managerial economic decision economist's point of view, neuromanagerial making by examining these same neurons under decision economics may be far ‘messier’ than conditions that more closely approximate the kinds neuromanagerial decision economics. Conjectural of rational managerial neuroeconomic option that analysis of what humans should do isn't is nearly are of interest to economists. as fascinating as understanding what they actually do and neuromanagerial decision economics brings Research directions ought to include; us far closer to reality. Being a maiden study, the present attempt would contribute (at intersection of  Modeling and simulation with objective neuromanager science, management and of neuromanagerial economic decision making psychology) towards existing scholarship in the support, following mode;  Fundamental graph model and network analysis in support of modeling multi - faceted  Provide conceptual framework for systems managerial neuromanagerial behaviours, understanding and conducting neuromanager  Numerical optimization and modeling for management research, managerial neuromanagerial behaviours,  Offer solution through measurements of  Evidential reasoning and fusion brain activity at time of decisions, and approaches to model real-time information,  Describe a standard model for decision  Sequential dynamic neuromanagerial making spanning neuromanager science, economic decision making approaches, and management and psychology.  Algorithms and simulation into modeling of neuromanagerial economic decision making- making.

Neurohuman resources model will soon play a crucial role in building of new reliable theories capable of explaining and predicting individual managerial neuromanagerial behaviour and strategic neuromanagerial economic decision making. Main message is that individual is not one coherent body. Brain is a multi-system entity (with conflicting objectives, restricted information, etc.) and therefore neuromanagerial economic decision making-maker must be modelled. Before the modern model, organisations were modelled as individual players characterised by an input-output production function. Systematic study of interactions between agents and neuromanagerial economic decision making processes within organisations (acknowledging informational asymmetries, incentive problems, restricted communications channels, hierarchical structures, etc.) led to novel insights. Applying a similar methodology to study individual neuromanagerial economic decision making-making is the way to understand bounds of rationality.

Thus, by exploring neural processes by which brain generates neuromanagerial decision economic decisions, researchers are able to gain

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 1583