Neuroleadership in 2014

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272824419

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS 0 448

1 author:

Al H. Ringleb University of Iowa/CIMBA

14 PUBLICATIONS 220 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Al H. Ringleb on 02 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL

NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014 by Al H. Ringleb David Rock and Chris Ancona

VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014 AUTHORS

Al H. Ringleb Director CIMBA/University of Iowa Co-founder, NeuroLeadership Institute Corresponding author: [email protected] David Rock Director, NeuroLeadership Institute, New York City Co-founder, NeuroLeadership Institute: Co-Editor, NeuroLeadership Journal [email protected] Chris Ancona Senior Research Associate, NeuroLeadership Labs Faculty, CIMBA [email protected]

The NeuroLeadership Journal is for non-commercial research and education use only. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third-party websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post a version of the article to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding the NeuroLeadership Journal’s archiving and management policies are encouraged to send inquiries to: [email protected]

The views, opinions, conjectures, and conclusions provided by the authors of the articles in the NeuroLeadership Journal may not express the positions taken by the NeuroLeadership Journal, the NeuroLeadership Institute, the Institute’s Board of Advisors, or the various constituencies with which the Institute works or otherwise affiliates or cooperates. It is a basic tenant of both the NeuroLeadership Institute and the NeuroLeadership Journal to encourage and stimulate creative thought and discourse in the emerging field of NeuroLeadership.

NeuroLeadership Journal (ISSN 2203-613X) Volume Five published in January 2015.

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 2 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL

Every year seems to bring greater interest in the human brain. Recently, both Europe and the United States announced major brain-mapping projects, a significant indication of the growing appreciation of the benefits likely to flow from accelerating its study. Both projects share the intention to “fill the gap in our knowledge of brain activity at the circuit level [and] ... provide a bridge that will enable recording and manipulating the activity of circuits, networks, and possibly eventually whole brains with single- neuron precision” (Alivisatos et al., 2013; Kupferschmidt, 2013). Research scientists continue to expand the field of knowledge, providing practitioners with a growing array of insights and applications for use in assisting their clients and colleagues. In working to both disseminate neuroscience findings applicable to the effective practice of leadership, and support practitioners in their personal and leadership development efforts, the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Executive Certificate in Applied Neuroleadership Program, Institute membership, Summit attendance, requests for Institute and Summit materials, and participation in local chapters worldwide are following a similar growth pattern.

As in past issues of the NeuroLeadership Journal, the intent of this article is to assist practitioners in reflecting upon recent neuroscience and social psychology research and thinking trends relevant to NeuroLeadership. First, in continuing past traditions, we will begin by taking a look at some of the most interesting trends and issues that seem most likely to affect NeuroLeadership’s future and direction. Then, as in the past, we will categorize the research based on the four domains set out in the initial Journal (Ringleb & Rock, 2008): 1) Decision Making and Problem Solving, 2) Emotion Regulation, 3) Collaborating With and Influencing Others, and 4) Facilitating Change. In selecting research for inclusion, the following basic criteria were followed to the extent possible: Significance to the field of NeuroLeadership, likelihood of significantly expanding or creating research linkages between neuroscience and the practices of leadership and leadership development, impacts on current thinking as driven by social science research, and, perhaps most importantly, relevance to the interests of practitioners in this growing field.

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 3 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014 by Al H. Rengleb David Rock and Chris Ancona

Trends and Issues Credibility of Research Methods

A number of recent trends and issues have developed that Given the impressive volume of research output over have had or will likely have an impact on NeuroLeadership the last decade, it takes a sincerely reflective moment going forward. First, with a growing number of consultants to realize that one of the primary neuroscience research and practitioners using neuroscience explanations tools, fMRI, is a relatively new technology. Importantly, in working with their clients, increased attention is that technology has enjoyed continuous improvement understandably being placed upon the credibility of the over its relatively short lifespan, a trend that is almost science, more specifically the research methods and certain to continue well into the future. As would be technology from which many of the important findings expected from any such device that places its primary are being derived. Secondly, seemingly in anticipation of attention on a proxy of what it is purporting to measure the affirmation of the technology’s veracity, practitioners (here, blood flow as a proxy for neural activity), much are making a slow but discernible move away from the has been written on the pros and cons of brain imaging mere “descriptive” use of neuroscience (for example, using and its interpretation. Still, even a dead salmon showing neuroscience explanations for behavior in addition to or neural activity (Bennet et al., 2009; Bennet, Wolford, & instead of social science explanations) to more “prescriptive” Miller, 2009) and other such claims (e.g., Ioannidis, 2005) uses (for example, using neuroscience findings to enhance have not been sufficient to discourage either the research intervention strategies intent on changing behavior). We or practitioner communities. At the NeuroLeadership Institute, we view this challenge to the credibility of brain are beginning to see growing interest and curiosity in “big imaging research as a positive event, as closer scrutiny and data” as more sophisticated practitioners collect, process, accountability will almost certainly lead to better research, and analyze neurobiofeedback data from the various better experimental design, and more dependable results measuring devices that are becoming more readily (e.g., Fanelli, 2013). accessible and usable by practitioners and their clients. Finally, in their admirable effort to make raw science Concern with this issue was brought to the practitioner more accessible and understandable to lay audiences, forefront by Professors Satel and Lilienfeld (2013) and Dr. both practitioners and science writers are developing Robert Burton (2013), who in both of their books offer a conceptual language (for example, SCARF® [Rock, 2008]) different perspective on neuroscience research. These that ends up influencing both the scientists as well as the inquiries come at a time when the “health of the scientific lay audience. Following this trend, there has been a recent enterprise” is a growing worldwide concern (e.g., Fang resurgence of dual process theory in the name of “System et al., 2013; Mobley, et al., 2013; Labbe & Labbe, 2013). 1 and System 2” thinking. Both books also particularly malign the over-reliance

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 1 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

on fMRI data and their interpretation, particularly to the resources to react to emotional stimuli (Carter & Shieh, general public (but see Illes et al., 2010; Racine et al., 2009). In this sense, neuroscience provided leadership 2005). At the NeuroLeadership Labs, we follow very strict scholars with a “hard-science” or “descriptive” explanation conventions in building our system—focusing on research of behavior (Rock & Schwartz, 2006). from the most reliable labs, being mindful of participant In addition to the technological advances making such pools (e.g., 20-year-old, female, left-handed, psychology brain imaging possible, technology of a far more personal students who are involved as part of their course grade or nature is also being developed and marketed (Swan, are being paid to participate vs. an executive group, etc.), 2012). This technology allows curious individuals to self- being cautious about relying on “averages” at the expense track a wide variety of biological, physical, and behavioral of individual differences, and avoiding a narrow focus at information—technology in the form of wearable sensors, the expense of more expansive explanations (often due mobile apps, and software interfaces (Wilson, 2012). With to failure to look at the whole brain reaction rather than neuroscience research having provoked them to seek a specific part), just to name a few. The best labs are well out brain-based descriptions of their behavior and that of aware of these concerns and are taking the necessary their clients in many cases, the curious are now looking steps to assure the integrity of their results (e.g., Lieberman for neuroscience to provide more “prescriptive” solutions & Cunningham, 2009; Button et. al., 2013). Further, there to behavioral issues: “I have the data; now, what can I do is considerable concern in the literature about the under- with it?” (Forbes & Grafman, 2013). reporting of negative results (Fanelli, 2012), overly flexible experiment design (Simmons et al., 2011), over reliance on economic games among strangers, and pressures toward publication at the expense of truthfulness (Nosek et al., Neuroscience 2012). research provided An additional concern, and one that is not well addressed in either work (Satel & Lilienfeld, 2013; Burton, 2013) or in behavioral insights the literature, is that neuroscientists all too often rely on decades old social science research paradigms in setting and explanations up participant pools—and fail to control for variables (e.g., based on scientific individual differences in self-regulation or regulatory focus or social awareness) that neuroscience and its data, simultaneously supportive technology now allow us to measure and assess with a considerable degree of accuracy. Neither confirming, book meaningfully addresses this notion in their criticism of neuroscience’s attempts to understand human expanding, and not behavior. Importantly, at this stage in the development of NeuroLeadership as a field, we both need and encourage too infrequently credible critics to make sure the protocols of the scientific method are being observed (e.g., Ochsner & Lieberman, contradicting social 2007; Berkman, et al., 2014). science data... From Description to Prescription: The Use and Availability of Big Data Big data has arrived in an almost unimaginable scale NeuroLeadership as a discipline initially focused on (Davenport, 2014). According to the research firm IDC, bringing “hard science” to the social science field of more than three zettabytes (1 zettabyte = 1 million leadership. Neuroscience research provided behavioral terabytes) were created or replicated in 2012. Some insights and explanations based on scientific data, 60% of U.S. adults are currently tracking their weight, simultaneously confirming, expanding, and not too diet, or exercise routine, while 33% are monitoring other infrequently contradicting social science data, which functions such as blood sugar, blood pressure, or sleep had developed in large measure based on observation of patterns. There are more than 40,000 smart phone health behavior in controlled environments (Berg & Lune, 2011; applications available to assist them (Swan, 2013). The Leary, 2011). For example, data reflective of emotions Quantified Self website lists over 500 tools available for were largely gathered on the basis of self-reported data personal measurement as of November 2014. Individual and from observations of others in reaction to a defined projects and experiments are becoming an interesting behavioral stimulus. Neuroscience allowed us to “see” the data management challenge for big data science in the emotion, by observing how an individual marshaled brain areas of data collection, integration, and analyses. In the

long-term, big data solutions are needed to implement and slow (Evans & Frankish, 2009). According to dual the vision of a systematic and continuous approach to process theorists, the “fast” system is an evolutionarily old automated, unobtrusive data collection from multiple system that is associative, automatic, unconscious, and sources to be processed into a stream of behavioral operates in parallel (System 1 Circuitry), while the “slow” insights and coaching intervention strategies in real time. system is a more recent, distinctively human system that is rule-based, controlled, conscious, and operates in serial At the NeuroLeadership Labs we are collecting and (System 2 Circuitry) (Lieberman, 2007; Lieberman et al., integrating data from a wide variety of psychometric, 2002). Scientists have proposed a variety of labels for the neurobiofeedback, and other sources. Data streams two circuitries, including implicit vs. explicit, automatic from diverse applications (for example, Fitbit®, vs. controlled, default process vs. inhibitory, bottom-up Zephyrsuperscript, and others) are being uploaded and vs. top-down, and evolutionarily old vs. evolutionarily aggregated with similar data from other sources. As with new, among others (Evans, 2008). Here, we use the more other big data projects, the challenge is in extracting neutral System 1 vs. System 2 designation. signal from noise (Davenport & Kim, 2013). While much of the neurobiofeedback data may be seen currently as System 2 Circuitry allocates the brain’s attention to the having little value and easily discarded, this is a new era effortful mental activities that demand it and is associated of big data science, meaning that caution often leads us with mental concentration and focus. Recent work has to store it for further investigation and validation as we highlighted how such demanding mental activities are develop both a better understanding of the data and the crucial for the navigation of and survival in the complex necessary algorithms to make the data more usable. Our social environment of humans, and it has been proposed wearable sensors and mobile apps are allowing for greater that the development of System 2 neural circuitry is objective data collection, assisting us in addressing issues directly related to these “social brain” needs (Dunbar, with self-reported data (such as traditional psychometric 2014; Lieberman, 2013), including self-regulation, impulse instruments). control, and willpower. As Lieberman says, “We are wired to be social” (Lieberman, 2013). Dual-Process Theory and System 1 Versus System 2 Circuitry

In disseminating neuroscience research and the practical Are there decisions connections that often flow from it, the NeuroLeadership Institute has been instrumental in popularizing theories for which the brain and concepts not only for practitioners but academics as uses information in well. One important example is the concept of SCARF® (Rock, 2008), which grew out of the NeuroLeadership an optimal way and Institute’s own research and has made its way into a variety of useful applications. In another recent example, dual- others for which process theory (Shiffer, 1998)—most frequently referred to as “System 1 versus System 2 thinking” (Stanovich & West, its processing is 2000)—has made its way into popular blogs, newspaper articles, and books. Both science writers (e.g., Konnikova, suboptimal? 2013) and scientists writing for lay audiences (e.g., Kahneman, 2011; Goleman, 2013) have found its usage Now that we have highlighted recent trends and issues in beneficial in explaining connections between human the field of NeuroLeadership, we will summarize some of behavior and neuroscience research findings. The social the latest research relevant to each of the four domains neuroscience community propose that understanding the of NeuroLeadership, beginning with Decision Making and relationship between System 1 and System 2 thinking is Problem Solving. part of the “second phase” of social neuroscience, “which focuses less on where things are happening in the brain Decision Making and Problem Solving and more on how regions of the brain form networks In our 2010 review, the Decision Making and Problem that interact to engender a psychological process [and] is Solving domain was broadened to encompass the poised to have a big impact on existing theories in social neural bases of the processes and procedures a leader psychology” (Forbes & Grafman, 2013). uses to produce results (Ringleb, Rock, & Conser, Dual-process theory asserts the fundamental notion that 2010). This delineation closely accords with the Do (or we have two basic brain circuitries—one that is automatic, Doing) component of the widely accepted Know-Be- unconscious, and fast; the other, controlled, conscious, Do leadership model (Hesselbein & Shinseki, 2004).

This change has also provided a more consistent In an interesting study of first responders, individuals who representation of what this domain means to the fields of prefer to combine quick, intuitive decisions with analysis both NeuroLeadership and traditional leadership, defined, were found to make the best decisions in a crisis situation at a minimum, as groups making decisions and solving (Bakken, 2013; see also, Dane et al., 2012). Intuitive decision- problems in the Doing sense. This broader definition has making was defined as the ability to make decisions based also served to distinguish NeuroLeadership from the fields on previous experience; analytical decision-making was of neuroeconomics and neuromarketing, both of which defined as making use of systematic processes, taking time are more focused on how an individual makes decisions. to review the details in compliance with formal guidelines and requirements (for the novice and the inexperienced, Differing Brain Algorithms the analytical approach was found to be a necessary tool Social scientists have long understood that decisions are in decision-making). Utilizing some 800 participants in a often the result of complex interactions between several computer-based simulation incorporating a variety of crisis factors, making it difficult to determine each individual scenarios, Bakken found that “those who normally prefer factor’s contribution to the final decision. In breaking down combining intuitive decisions with analysis made the best the brain’s decision-making circuitry, neuroscientists face decisions in the crisis situations.” The author concluded a similar problem, as decisions involve many neurons. A that while experience is valued, organizations should be research team from the University of Tübingen and the encouraged to use express process (analytical decision- Max Planck Institute has shown how the contribution of making) in combination with their intuitive thinking. That individual neurons in the decision-making process can is, in effect by “slowing down” the brain’s tendency to be reconstructed despite interdependencies between jump to alternatives (System 1 thinking), express processes the neurons (Haefner et. al, 2013). Using simulated data provide System 2 thinking with the opportunity to engage. from a realistic population model, the research team was Princeton University researchers addressed a fundamental able to build and test an interesting theoretical model. The question among neuroscientists about whether bad model provided a means to control for communications decisions result from noise in the external environment— between neurons and for more precise measurement of or sensory input—or because the brain makes mistakes the neurons providing information involved in the brain’s when compiling that information (Brunton et. al, 2013). decision process. The research team intends to use the There is little doubt that many decisions are based on noisy models to determine whether a few neurons carry a lot of and unreliable evidence (Gold & Shadlen, 2007). Brunton decision related information or whether the information and colleagues, however, separated sensory inputs from contained in a larger number of neurons gets combined. internal mental processes to show that the former can be In this way, the model provides a means for addressing noisy while the latter is remarkably reliable. The research a more fundamental question: Are there decisions for subjects—four college-age volunteers and 19 laboratory which the brain uses information in an optimal way and rats—listened to streams of randomly timed clicks coming others for which its processing is suboptimal? into both the left ear and the right ear. After listening to a With regard to the brain’s decision-making process stream, the subjects had to choose the side from which from a macro perspective, virtually all decision-making more clicks originated. The rats had been trained to processes consider alternatives. Singer et al. (2013) turn their noses in the direction from which more clicks implanted electrodes in the hippocampus of the brains originated. While the test subjects chose the correct of rats and then observed rats in a maze “playing out side most often, they did occasionally make errors. By memories” to help them decide which way to turn. The comparing various patterns of clicks with the volunteers’ research team observed that when the rats paused before responses, researchers found that all of the errors arose an upcoming choice, the hippocampus, which is critical when two clicks overlapped, and not from any observable for memory processing, was more active at times and noise in the brain system that compiled the clicks. The less active at others. When more active, the animal was researchers found that errors are mostly driven by the more likely to go to the right place, arguably because it inability to accurately encode sensory information— did a better job of recalling memories of places it could express processing slows the brain down to allow System go next—implicating the importance of the hippocampus 2 to engage, and to avoid sensory input errors coming in decision making. Combined with other research, the from biases, stereotypes, and preconceived ideas. study suggests that when the brain does a better job of Brain Circuitry for Social Decisions thinking about alternatives, it makes better decisions. That is, decision-making is improved by the use of System Most of the work on decision-making in the academic 2 thinking, providing support for the use of express business community focuses on non-social decisions, process as a means to overcome System 1 thinking errors despite the fact that arguably the majority of our decisions (Kahneman, 2011). are social (Lieberman, 2013), particularly those involving

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 4 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

leadership issues. The cognitive processes associated Assessing Decision-Making and Problem-Solving with theory of mind, or mentalizing, provide important Abilities mental inputs into the decisions we make about others In making the natural move from using neuroscience and about what others are deciding about us (Olsson & to describe behavior to using its research findings Ochsner, 2008). to bring about long-term, sustainable behavioral Although many areas of the human brain are devoted to change, understanding the dimensions upon which social tasks, a brain imaging study conducted by researchers the “prescriptive” activity can be based becomes at the Duke Center for Interdisciplinary Decision Science increasingly important, particularly to practitioners. At the found that one small region carries information only for NeuroLeadership Labs, we are working with biofeedback decisions during social interactions (Carter et. al., 2012). providers to develop a wireless, unobtrusive device The study put human subjects through a functional MRI to measure skin conductance. A prototype has been brain scan while playing a simplified game of poker against successfully tested for use in showing the emotional a computer and human opponents. Using computer differences between group decisions undertaken with algorithms to sort out what amount of information each and without express process. Preliminary data suggests area of the brain was processing, the team found that that the use of explicit (as opposed to relying on individual, only one brain region—the temporal-parietal junction, or idiosyncratic) critical thinking processes significantly TPJ—carried information unique to decisions against the reduces skin conductance responses, an indication of stress and arousal, in group settings. The intent is to human opponent. provide participants with data in making the argument In general, the scientists found that participants paid more for the use of express process as a means of moderating attention to their human opponent than their computer organizational emotion and, in the words of Daniel opponent, consistent with the notion, “We are wired to Goleman, avoiding organizational ADD (Goleman, 2013). be social” (Lieberman, 2013). For example, while brain signals in the TPJ told the researchers whether the subject would soon bluff against a human opponent, signals in ...the brain regions the TPJ did not predict the subject’s decisions against a computer. This and other studies (e.g., Fletcher et. al, responsible for 1995) show us there are fundamental neural differences between decisions in social and non-social situations. making decisions There is reason to believe that social information may continue to be cause our brain to play by different rules than non-social information. Those “rules” are likely to be influenced by active even when individual differences, a conclusion important to both scientists and business leaders in understanding what the conscious brain causes a particular individual to approach a decision in a social or a non-social manner. is distracted...

Individual differences in empathy are one factor that can affect social decision-making. In a period of social Many decisions must be made under stress, and many transition, of particular importance are the brain’s social decisions by themselves elicit a stress reaction. The decision-making processes in identifying competitors neuroscience literature draws an important distinction and collaborators—those people who are most relevant between those decisions where (1) stress impacts the for our future behavior. Our interactions with others are outcome (e.g., decisions regarding risk avoidance, critically influenced by empathy—the ability to understand strategy use, or the reliance on higher-level brain systems) and identify with another’s emotions. Research shows and (2) stress activates the “fight-or-flight” response that empathy among college students is in serious (Starcke & Brand, 2012). The former is most characterized by analytical, System 2 brain circuitries, while the latter decline, particularly since 2000 (Konrath et. al, 2011), is characterized by automatic, heuristic-based, System 1 a trend we have also observed at the NeuroLeadership circuitries. Labs in both psychosomatic instrument measures and neurobiofeedback measures in experiential Van den Bos et al. (2009) found that participants showing environments. The Duke study discussed above (Carter et higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol after the Trier al., 2012) implies that the brain’s circuitry for mentalizing, Social Stress Test performed less well on a decision making perspective taking, and empathy, which includes the TPJ, task. Furthermore, men did more poorly in managing the was designed for face-to-face moments. stress than did women. The scientists concluded that

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 5 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

the “results of this study suggest that … men in jobs at al. (2014) as the engagement of cognitive control neural high-risk positions who are high-cortisol responders are circuitry to challenge our automatic, biased behaviors and at risk when taking decisions under conditions of acute responses. achievement stress, while women may be less at risk In an interesting study affirming Kahneman, Reyna et al. under such conditions.” While this remains consistent (2014) found that U.S. intelligence agents may be more with prior, more general investigations of decision making prone to irrational inconsistencies in decision making than under stress (Raymond & O’Brien, 2009), Creswell et al. college students and post-college adults. The study found (2013) shows us further that the brain regions responsible that intelligence agents both exhibited larger biases on 30 for making decisions continue to be active even when the gain-loss framing decisions, and were also more confident conscious brain is distracted with a different, non-stressful in those decisions. Thirty-six agents were recruited for task. This non-stressful distraction can even result in the study from an anonymous federal agency and were improved decision making. presented with several “framed” scenarios much like those Following this line of research, Santos-Ruiz et al. (2012) made famous by Kahneman’s research. Participants who examined whether differences in decision-making skills had graduated college seemed to occupy a middle ground impacted stress levels as measured by cortisol levels. between college students and the intelligence agents, Following a research protocol similar to Van den Bos suggesting that people with more advanced reasoning et al. (2009), but using only female participants, they skills are also more likely to show reasoning biases. found cortisol levels to be significantly higher in those participants with poor decision-making skills. A survey of 600 board directors provides further support from the ...U.S. intelligence “wild,” showing that women are more likely to consider the rights of others and to take a cooperative approach agents may be to decision making, arguably translating into better performance for their companies (Bart & McQueen, 2013). more prone With regard to workplace stress, research is showing to irrational that stress detrimentally impacts decision-making and problem-solving abilities, and that gender as well as inconsistencies in baseline cortisol levels may be important factors in how well individuals can use System 2 processes to manage decision making stress. than college Understanding the Impact of System 1 Thinking Errors students... Daniel Kahneman has had a considerable impact on NeuroLeadership by raising awareness of the importance of understanding the consequence of System 1 thinking In a very creative study, De Martino et al. (2013) found that errors, particularly in the form of biases, stereotypes, and a trader’s Theory of Mind (ToM) bias (i.e., the tendency preconceived notions. In fact, at the 2013 NeuroLeadership to infer others’ intentions) explains how financial bubbles Summits, Dr. Matt Lieberman dedicated an entire main are created. The research offers the first insight into the session to the topic, and an article, “Breaking Bias,” processes in the brain that underpin financial decisions has been published in the NeuroLeadership Journal and behavior leading to the formation of market bubbles. (Lieberman, Rock, & Cox, 2014). Perhaps influenced The key difference between non-bubble markets and by some of Kahneman’s biases, proposed solutions to bubble markets is that in non-bubble markets, the value these System 1 thinking errors have been the subject of a share is determined only by the fundamental value of of considerable debate. At the NeuroLeadership Labs, the asset; in bubble markets, profitable trading depends we come down on the side of Kahneman based on the on accurately judging the intentions of other players in efficiency gains we have observed in both executive and the market. An increase in value representation during a university students from the use of express process in bubble market was a consequence of the fact that traders group settings. Our sense is that those efficiency gains use inferences about the intentions and mental states are largely attributable to lowered group emotions (e.g., of other agents to update their value representation. managing SCARF® threats) and directing the brain to use The researchers used fMRI to map participants’ brain the appropriate issue resolution brain circuitry. This is an activity as they traded within the experimental market. example of System 2 engaging to overcome System 1 They found that the formation of bubbles was linked to errors and cognitive bias, and is stressed in Lieberman et increased activity in the vmPFC, the part of the brain that

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 6 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

processes value judgments. The study showed how the from work activities while away from the office, especially same ToM brain mechanisms that have been extremely at night. Employees often use smartphones for work advantageous in our evolutionary history could result in within an hour of going to bed, and many sleep within maladaptive behaviors when interacting with complex reach of their smartphones (Perlow, 2012). From a sample modern institutions like financial markets. of 82 mid- to high-level managers, and relying on the ego depletion theory literature (Baumeister et al., 1998), Lanaj Decision Making, Emotions, and Emotion Regulation et al. (2014) found that late-night smartphone usage for Decision research in economics, business, psychology, work may interfere with sleep, leaving users depleted in and neuroscience readily accept emotion’s significant the morning and thus more subject to the influence of role in decision-making. In making risk-based decisions, distractions (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). we normally deliberate the pros and cons of our choices, taking into consideration past experiences in Collaborating With and Influencing Others similar situations before making a final decision. As we In our most recent review of research in the important have discussed, research demonstrates that cognitive domain of Collaborating with and Influencing Others stress, such as stressful distraction, can influence this (Ringleb, Rock, & Ancona, 2012), we developed a theme balanced, logical approach to decision making (Raymond around what we at the NeuroLeadership Labs refer to & O’Brien, 2009). Yip & Cote (2012) show that such internally as the “Social Brain Theory of Leadership.” stressful distractions do affect our decisions, but not if Derived in part through the work of Matt Lieberman (2013) the decision maker has high emotional intelligence. This and insights from research by Todd Heatherton (2011), the study shows that understanding the source and relevance theory espouses that the human brain was obligated to of emotional influences and how much sway they have adapt to a complex social environment to survive, and so over our decision making can affect our willingness to evolved dedicated neural mechanisms acutely sensitive to take risks. Participants with lower levels of emotional social context—particularly to any signal (real or perceived) understanding allowed anxiety unrelated to decisions they that our social inclusion was somehow at risk. The were making influence their decisions; those with higher neural drivers for controlling oneself to be a good group emotional intelligence did not. In a second experiment, member imply a need for dedicated neural circuitries to the researchers observed that individuals with lower levels enhance social awareness (mentalizing, theory of mind, of emotional intelligence could also block unrelated mirror neurons), threat and reward detection (social pain, emotions from influencing their decisions about risk, SCARF®), self-awareness, and self-regulation. To the simply by being made self-aware that their anxiety was not brain, survival means acceptance by the social group, related to the decisions at hand. Self-awareness was the with the consistent underperformance of any one of key to emotional control. those component circuitries leading to social exclusion Decision Making and the Healthy Mind Platter and “death.” Moderated by self-regulation (reviewed in the Facilitating Change domain discussion below), the In addition to the impact of stress, factors such as sleep, adaptive behavioral challenges of the social environment exercise, diet, and mindfulness can also impact decision- include adherence to group values and beliefs and making efficacy. Recall that Singer et. al (2013) identified managing SCARF® threats. To this end, self-protection is the hippocampus as being important in assessing a fundamental brain goal. In that specific regard, in this alternatives in the decision-making process in the brain. domain, we focus on social awareness and threat and Coplan et al. (2014) have found that being overweight reward detection circuitries. appears to be related to reduced levels of a molecule that reflects brain cell health in the hippocampus. Using Social Transition, Mental Complexity, and Wisdom magnetic resonance spectroscopy, a non-invasive Our thinking at the NeuroLeadership Labs has been greatly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) application, the assisted by insights gleaned from our ever-expanding research team visualized the molecule N-acetyl-aspartate database and the assistance of the neuroscience and (NAA); NAA is associated with brain cell health. Overweight social psychology research communities at the Summits. study participants exhibited lower levels of NAA in the Much of the social group adaptation to which Heatherton hippocampus than normal weight subjects. The effect refers would be applicable to anyone making a transition was independent of age, sex, and psychiatric diagnoses. to a new social group, whether that individual was intent By providing individuals with instant access to work-related on being a follower or a leader. A leader’s responsibility is information and communications outside of the office, not only to adapt to the new social group (a follower’s core smartphones have become a ubiquitous technology. responsibility), but also to adapt or mold the social group However, the benefits of smartphone use for work at so that it can thrive and be more successful. The ability home may be offset by the inability of users to fully recover of an individual to make such adaptations is a function of

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 7 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

something we have begun to call “mental complexity.” through adolescence—something to which we can all Within our core development system, mental complexity relate (Siegel, 2013). In fact, most of the research in this measures an individual’s ability to effectively adapt to and important area centers on adolescence-to-adulthood manage social connections. The higher an individual’s social transitions (e.g., Allen et al., 2013; Sheridan, et al., level of mental complexity, the more readily an individual 2013; Olsson, et al., 2013). can move purposefully in, between, and among social Returning to the concept of Wisdom in this specific regard, groups. It is a complex function of social, cognitive, and with human traits and attributes assumed to be normally affective variables led by self-awareness, social awareness, distributed, individual differences in Wisdom imply that and self-regulatory abilities. As discussed in the Decision individual reactions to social transitions will range in Making domain, for a leader, mental complexity involves the extremes from being relatively painless to being being able to differentiate individuals within the social agonizingly painful. While science may be able to observe group on the basis of the relevancy of their behavior. The this phenomena of Wisdom descriptively on average—as failure to distinguish relevancy from irrelevancy—between in “individuals performing this task light up these circuitries more- and less-important social group members—may in their brain”—prescriptively, as coaches and consultants lead to following deceptive advice or conforming with we need to understand not only what circuitries are the unproductive, unconstructive, or unhealthy attitudes involved, but how we can assist in strengthening those or opinions of individuals less likely to move the group pathways, particularly in those underperforming in such forward. Internally at the NeuroLeadership Labs, we see social transitions. In addition, by controlling for behavioral this interpersonal neurobiological ability as defining an characteristics such as self-regulation, we may find it individual’s Wisdom, a concept discussed in a similar possible to predict where an individual may fall on the context at the NeuroLeadership Summits in 2013. continuum and better focus those intervention strategies (we will turn to this notion in the Emotion Regulation To the brain, domain). To get a sense of this from a slightly different perspective, survival means recall the claim made by Malcolm Gladwell (2008) that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at acceptance by the something—a pianist, an athlete, or a video gamer. Dan Goleman (2013) asserts further that 10,000 hours of social group... focused attention towards a goal will lead to a measure of expertise, making it clear that the “expertise” so achieved We have observed that challenges to mental complexity may be proficiency at doing something poorly. With more are most experienced or observed during periods direct relevance to the Collaborating with and Influencing of “social transition”—changes in current, important Others domain, Lieberman (2013) adds that if we make social connections. That is, issues of significance to the even modest assumptions about how much time we Collaborating With and Influencing Others domain are spend on social thoughts, our brains will put in 10,000 most prominent during periods of social transition. In our hours well before we turn 10—more than enough to experience, the author who best explains both the what become experts in the enormously complex realm of our of this social transition notion and, importantly, the how primary social group. In bringing this thinking together, of going about addressing it is Dan Siegel, a frequent the strengths individuals carry from their previous social contributor to the NeuroLeadership Summits. Obvious group will likely be the consequence of “10,000 hours” of examples from a business leader’s perspective would practice in social survival in that social group. With regard include taking a new job with managerial responsibilities to mental complexity, while those practiced strengths or being promoted into the same. Seemingly less may have been fundamental to survival in the individual’s obvious examples, but equally as challenging in many previous social group, they may not be applicable or cases, would include a change in team membership— function in the same way in the social group to which consider the inclusion of a new team member who then the individual is transitioning (Izuma, 2013). In making brings to bear both a different perspective and a strong an effort to adapt to the new social group (meeting the personality—or a change in organizational leadership, human need for social conformity [Shestakova et al., 2013; both of which would involve important adaptations for Trautmann-Lengsfeld & Herrman, 2013]), social anxiety affected leaders and followers. Dr. Siegel artfully exposes often arises from the misinterpretation of the cues that the depth and complexity of social transitions as he shows had previously activated those strengths to a beneficial us the growth in mental complexity demanded of all effect in the former social group. This consequential members of a primary social group as a member goes social anxiety in the new social group is something we

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 8 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

refer to at the NeuroLeadership Labs as an Emotive Trougakos et al., 2014), Relatedness (Gillet et al., 2012), System 1 Thinking Error (as opposed to a Cognitive System and Fairness (Crockett et al., 2013; Corradi-Dell’Acqua et 1 Thinking Error which arises from the brain’s tendency al., 2013). to jump to conclusions based on a heuristic arising from Neuroscience and Social Rank. a bias, stereotype, or preconceived idea [Kahneman, 2011]). The notion is similar to that espoused by another In moving beyond the behavior observation experiments Summit contributor, Jeffrey Schwartz, who refers to it as of the social sciences, brain imaging technology enables a “deceptive brain message” (Schwartz & Gladding, 2011). the study of social rank in relation to brain function and structure. The brain imaging evidence provides support In the majority of cases, it is not the failure of the leader to for the role of limbic, prefrontal, and striatal pathways use his or her strengths, but rather the consequence of their in human social-rank processing (Beasley et al., 2012). automatic, unconscious System 1 thinking circuitries using These findings suggest that social-hierarchy stability and those strengths inappropriately when confronting social perceived rank differentially impact the neural activation stimuli which they have had relatively little experience in of relative status processing (Rushmore, et al., 2012). interpreting. The brain’s System 1 will deploy an adaptive Mills et al. (2014) provide insights into how the social habit that was effective in the prior social group in response brain develops structurally across adolescence before to the perceived or real stimulus. However, in the new stabilizing in the early twenties. On the basis of data social environment, the habit is having an unproductive, drawn from 288 participants and 857 scans, the scientists unconstructive, or unhealthy result, bringing about social examined the social brain—medial prefrontal cortex anxiety and stress (Morrison & Heimberg, 2013; Mobini (mPFC), temporoparietal junction (TPJ), posterior superior et al., 2013; Duval et al., 2013; Prater et al., 2013), or its temporal sulcus (pSTS), and anterior temporal cortex adverse effects are more pronounced or consequential (ATC). While they were able to show that gray matter in this social group relative to the other. With the solution volume and cortical thickness in the mPFC, TPJ, and pSTS to stress being to take on more stress (Doehrmann et al., decreased from childhood into the early 20s, and that the 2013), individuals would benefit by being encouraged and ATC increased in gray matter volume until adolescence supported to practice in those areas where they have less and in cortical thickness until early adulthood, the analysis experience to build resiliency and bring about the social did not correlate brain structure with social-cognitive conformity that allows them to be successful—to build skill. In other words, we can observe the brain function mental complexity, to build Wisdom. and structural development, but cannot yet account for Descriptive Developments from Neuroscience individual differences in social cognitive skill levels.

In defining Emotive System 1 thinking errors, SCARF® Neuroscience and the Mirror Neuron and Mentalizing provides us with a definable set of social stimuli. Perhaps Systems. best illustrating the importance of SCARF®’s Status The notions of Mental Complexity and Wisdom reflect component is the fact that it has been examined and the idea that social information processing abilities differ investigated by a wide variety of disciplines, including from person-to-person. In this sense, social cognition anthropology, psychology, sociology, organizational involves the ability to understand the behaviors and behavior, and social neuroscience. To grasp the notion actions of others, an ability identified as being important in context of the “social brain” from the perspective of in a leader’s social transition. Two neurocognitive systems neuroscience, let’s consider one element of social status: have been identified as being associated with such social Social rank, which refers generally to an individual’s social cognitive abilities: the mirror neuron and mentalizing standing as either dominant or subordinate in a social systems. Research has demonstrated that the mirror group (Sapolsky, 2004). neuron system is activated during both the execution and the observation of motor actions; the mentalizing system Organizational hierarchies such as those found in is activated when an individual infers another person’s employment settings, for example, serve to create natural mental state (Van Overwalle & Baetens, 2009). While dominants (managers) and subordinates (team members). together they encompass the social brain areas to which With perceived social rank impacting the individual as Mills et al. (2014) refers above, the action orientation of the much as actual social rank (Adler et al., 2000), social rank mirror neuron system embraces additional brain regions, reflects the ability to attract the attention, admiration, including the ventral premotor cortex (vPMC) and dorsal and investment of others. When this goal is thwarted or premotor cortex (dPMC). unattainable, hopelessness and depression often ensue (Gilbert, 2005). In this sense, SCARF® stimuli are clearly Spunt and Lieberman (2013) provide valuable insights into in abundance and well researched: Status (Bartram, 2013), the structure and function of these two important brain Certainty (Fergas, 2013), Autonomy (Anand et al., 2012; systems. Using fMRI, 19 participants were confronted

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 9 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

with 24 silent videos as stimuli with the intent to test indicates that coaching intervention strategies focused the automaticity of social-cognitive processing. In a on enhancing self-regulatory ability, thereby increasing clever research design, the participants were asked to the vigilance of System 2 circuitry, and self-awareness observe the actions of the actor in a video according to through brain-based computer exercises and mindfulness one of four pre-specified goals—observe, what, why, or practice will deliver positive results; we will return to this how—while remembering an easy or difficult telephone topic in the Facilitating Change domain. number (cognitive load). Note that a standard test for automaticity (for System 1 circuitry) is whether a brain function or activation can be distracted (in which case, it Effective leaders is more likely to be System 2 circuitry), here being tested by changing cognitive load. The scientists observed that harness and direct brain activation in areas within the mirror neuron system was unaffected by load regardless of the participant’s the power of designated goal; that is, they were not distractible, and thus more likely to be a System 1 circuitry component. emotion... Conversely, they observed that brain activation in areas within the mentalizing system was affected by load only Emotion Regulation when participants were prompted to attribute observed actions to a motive (the “why” goal), but not when actions The past decade has witnessed remarkable growth both were understood in terms of their implementation (the in understanding and in applications of affective science. “how” goal); the cognitive demands of the need to process Of particular interest here is emotion regulation. As causality necessary for the “why” calculation activated we have discussed, transitions to and maintenance of additional mentalizing system resources, suggesting a leadership is heavily influenced by an individual’s level System 2 affiliation. These results support a dual-process of Mental Complexity—the ability to perceive, identify, model, whereby the mirror neuron system supports understand, and successfully manage both his or her relatively automatic behavior identification (affiliation with emotions and the emotions of others (Olsson et al., 2013). System 1 circuitry) and the mentalizing system supports Effective leaders harness and direct the power of emotion relatively controlled components of social causal to build trust and improve follower satisfaction, morale, attribution (affiliation with System 2 circuitry). and motivation, and thus enhance overall organizational effectiveness (Riggio & Reichard, 2008). In prior reviews, Prescriptive Developments and Concerns we considered the beneficial contributions of mindfulness An integral component of a leader’s successful social (Farb et al., 2007), meditation (Tang et al., 2007), labeling transition is the Mental Complexity to differentiate (Lieberman et al., 2007), and reappraisal (Ray et al., 2005) between individuals within a social group on the basis to emotion regulation, and the consequential elevation of the relevancy of their behavior. As the study by Spunt of emotion regulation’s visibility in the leadership and and Lieberman (2013) suggests, this ability is influenced business academic research literature (e.g., Gooty et. al., by the leader’s System 2 mentalizing system. With the 2010; Rajah et al., 2011). Given its conceptual relevance understanding that Mental Complexity is likely to follow a to leadership development and intervention strategies, normal distribution like other human traits and attributes, it is not surprising that emotion regulation has garnered individual differences in this ability undoubtedly impact considerable interest within the practitioner community. the likelihood of success. The Spunt and Lieberman The focus in NeuroLeadership more generally, and in (2013) study describes the brain’s function and structure this review more specifically, is in understanding the in this regard, and by the nature of academic science functionality of the emotion regulation process with the leaves the prescriptive aspects of this important finding intent to provide guidance as to how those development to coaches and consultants. As we discussed above, the and intervention resources might be allocated most interpretation of the “why,” or social causality, of another’s efficiently. actions or behaviors are likely to be influenced by a Current Research leader’s experience in interpreting those social cues in prior social groups. To the extent those interpretations or In recent years, scientists investigating emotion regulation misinterpretations lead to unproductive or unconstructive have continued to fill the gaps in our understanding of results, the individual is likely going to suffer dysfunctional the applications and limitations of the emotion regulation social anxiety in an effort to adapt or conform to the strategies the field has thus far identified. From the new social group. Both our observations here at the practitioner standpoint, while there are many different NeuroLeadership Labs and the neuroscience research strategies an individual could deploy to regulate emotions

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 10 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

(Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999), it may be more important similar emotional reaction to the same situation. The study to understand which emotion-regulation strategies are involved 52 participants who were paired up and asked most likely to deliver effective emotion regulation. In this to give a speech while being video-recorded. Prior to the sense, an “effective” emotion regulation strategy would, speech, participant pairs were encouraged to discuss with at a minimum, encompass an understanding of which each other how they were feeling about making their strategy is most effective in what context. Further, and speeches. Each participant’s level of the stress-related something we will come back to below, efficiency would hormone cortisol was measured before, during, and after also require consideration of the individual, given how their speeches. individuals differ in their adjustment to stressful life events, Studies Considering Context with some exhibiting impaired functioning while others exhibit impressive resilience (Olsson et al., 2013). Troy et al. (2013) show us that cognitive reappraisal may actually be harmful when it comes to stressors that are under our control. For someone facing a stressful ...individuals who situation over which they have little control, the ability to use reappraisal should be extremely helpful; the ability engage in cognitive to change emotions may be something over which the individual can exert some degree of control in order to reappraisal tend cope. Conversely, for an individual experiencing stress at work because of poor performance, for example, to suffer less from reappraisal might not be so adaptive. The study suggests anxiety than those that reframing the situation to make it seem less negative may make that person less inclined to attempt to change who ignore, hide, the underlying situation. The participants were required to have experienced a stressful life event in the eight weeks or repress their preceding study recruitment. The study involved assessing both changes in self-reported data on sadness and data feelings. gathered on cognitive reappraisal ability quantified in a lab setting by measuring change in skin conductance activity while watching a series of videos clips. In contrast Studies Considering Strategies to prior studies, the results bring into question the By definition, emotion regulation involves an individual’s breadth of cognitive reappraisal’s adaptability, finding use of behavioral and cognitive strategies to change the that the degree to which emotion regulation is adaptive duration and intensity of an emotion (Gross & Thompson, depends on the type of stress. Specifically, high cognitive- 2007). Llewellyn et al. (2013) found those individuals who reappraisal ability was associated with less depression engage in cognitive reappraisal tend to suffer less from and increased well-being in the context of uncontrollable anxiety than those who ignore, hide, or repress their stress. When stress was relatively controllable, however, feelings. The study involved 179 healthy men and women higher cognitive-reappraisal ability was associated with who were asked how they managed their emotions and decreased psychological health. how anxious they felt in various situations. Jamieson et al. Emotion Regulation and Intervention Strategies (2013) showed that stress levels could be better managed by simply encouraging people to reframe the meaning Increasingly, emotion regulation is becoming an integral of the signs of stress from a forthcoming stressful task component of an effective leadership development as being natural and helpful. The study involved 67 men intervention strategy. Research from a variety of fields is and women who were subjected to the Trier Social Stress contributing to our understanding of this fundamental Test under varying conditions. The study suggests that control process. In this sense, emotion regulation is seen while some individuals may generally find such calming as belonging to a larger family of processes whereby an techniques as deep breathing helpful when confronting individual, and, more specific to our interests, a leader stress, such techniques are not likely to be as beneficial exerts control over his or her own behavior in adapting in those situations requiring peak performance (such as a to the social group. Indeed, in that regard, modern job interview or a speaking engagement); using cognitive emotion-regulation research has drawn considerable reappraisal and reframing how we think about stress inspiration from theories of human self-regulation and appears to be the better strategy. Townsend et al. (2013) cognitive control (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1999; Rueda et found that individuals may be able to cope with stress al., 2005; Diamond, 2013; Bridgett et al., 2013). Across a by sharing their feelings with someone who is having a wide variety of fields, self-regulation has been identified

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 11 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

as a contributor to adaptive and adverse outcomes observation has been unnecessarily encumbered by the in children, adolescents, and adults, affecting such fact that the term “self-regulation” has been presented emotion-influenced behaviors as coping skills, social to the practitioner community under a variety of names competence, interpersonal relations, and self-esteem, including self-control, self-discipline, effortful control, ego as well as impulsivity, self-control, self-discipline, mind strength, inhibitory control, and willpower (Duckworth wandering, and time management, among a significant et al., 2011), not to mention that those concepts may list of other behaviors (Bridgett et al., 2013; Smallwood, mean the same thing in some disciplines but have 2013). In fact, recent research argues persuasively that the very distinctive meanings in others. This encumbrance right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (rVLPFC) is the neural becomes particularly evident when making a comparison region commonly recruited across many different forms between self-control and impulsiveness (Hamilton et al., of both self-control (Cohen et al., 2013) and emotion 2014). As reflected in the research literature, the issue regulation (Goldin et al., 2013). However, there is also is further compounded by the fact that the various remarkable variability in individual adjustments to stress disciplines studying self-regulation “largely lead separate (Ong et al., 2006). Research has identified a number of lives” (Hofmann et al, 2012). We encountered much of factors in explaining these individual differences, including the same issue in considering research on emotion in a neurobiological, genetic, cognitive, and psychosocial previous review (Ringleb et al., 2012). factors (Lau & Eley, 2008; Morris, Ciesla, & Garber, 2008; In this light, we sought an interdisciplinary compromise Southwick, Vythilingam, & Charney, 2005), among with the intent to provide a working definition to assist in others. At the NeuroLeadership Labs, we believe that building intervention strategies. Baumeister et al. (1998) accounting for individual differences is important not only stated, “[S]ome internal resource is used by the self to in intervention strategies, but also in the research. make decisions, respond actively, and exert self-control.” In this sense, we see self-regulation as this “internal At the resource,” and as including self-control, self-discipline, emotional regulation, and other control processes, NeuroLeadership as well as active responding and decision making. We recognize that the psychology and neuroscience of Labs, we believe explicit emotion regulation have been fruitfully studied for over two decades, yielding much understanding that accounting of the neural mechanisms of emotions and behavioral control (Ochsner & Gross, 2005; Gross & Thompson, for individual 2007; Ochsner & Gross, 2008; Ochsner et al., 2012). More specifically, recent research argues persuasively that the differences is right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (rVLPFC) is the neural region commonly recruited across many different forms important not only of both self-control (Cohen et al., 2013) and emotion in intervention regulation (Goldin et al., 2013). In working with our various client groups on emotion- strategies, but also regulation issues, we began to see the Gross (2001) distinction along the lines of emotion-regulatory in the research. processes (situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response From the standpoint of a development intervention, modulation) as benefiting from the additional designation we have observed that successful emotion regulation as being reactive, proactive, or some mix of the two strategies have as a precursor an individual’s self-regulatory (Braver, 2012). The distinction becomes important when ability. It has long been our belief—a belief supported the relative vigilance of an individual’s System 2 circuitry increasingly by our data and research (e.g., Niles et al., significantly influences the outcome, as would be 2013)—that individual differences in self-regulatory ability expected in the emotion regulation strategies of attention predict the success of an emotion regulation deployment. deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation With habitual reactions to social stimuli being largely (DeStono et al., 2013). In other words, individuals governed by the brain’s System 1 circuitry, the ability to exhibiting higher levels of self-regulation (and thus the modulate those reactions is dependent upon the relative ability to more readily engage System 2 circuitry) are more vigilance of an individual’s System 2 circuitry (Oschsner, likely to successfully deploy emotion regulation strategies 2013). In large measure, the conceptualization of this with a reactive component (holding as a constant factors

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 12 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

such as experience, and thus habitual responses; that is, and courses. Employees with lower self-regulatory ability an individual’s prior social group experience may have may benefit from interventions that attempt to strengthen “hardwired” in a functional System 1 response). self-regulation, either through a mindfulness program (Teper et al., 2013) or targeted computer-based brain To get a sense of this, let’s consider the workplace exercises (Schweizer et al., 2013; Onraedt et al., 2014), environment. Clearly, a wide variety of factors in addition which we will discuss in the next domain, Facilitating to emotion regulation and self-control influence work Change. safety (Kotze & Steyn, 2013; Hogan & Foster, 2013; Lawton & Parker, 1998). In a study to examine whether System 2 thinking (“controlled cognition”) together with System 1 thinking (“automatic cognition”) could better predict ...our System 1 safety behaviors in the workplace, Xu et al. (2014) found Circuitry is that individual differences in inhibition can shift the relative weight of System 2 and System 1 cognitive processes in responsible for... predicting employees’ safety behaviors in the workplace. That is, instead of developing an experiment to test listening to and worker responses to a defined stimulus, the research team first controlled for individual self-regulatory ability speaking our (“inhibitory control”) as measured by a computerized Stroop task. Safety behaviors were measured through an first language, assessment of safety compliance and participation (Neal, et al., 2000). The System 2 cognitive process (“controlled recognizing faces, cognitive process”) regarding safety was measured using using general responses of the safety attitude questionnaire (Henning et al., 2009). The System 1 cognitive process (“automatic”) problem-solving was measured by a computerized Implicit Association Test (IAT) task, which provides an indirect measure of the techniques, and strength of automatic associations of two categories (i.e., safety vs. risk) with two attributes (positive vs. negative) engaging in basic (Greenwald et al., 1998). The results indicated that the relative weight of System 1 (“automatic”) and System 2 social relations... (“controlled”) cognitive processes in predicting safety behaviors depended on individual differences in self- At the NeuroLeadership Labs, we draw an important regulatory (“inhibition”) ability. Employees with low self- distinction between technical and adaptive solutions to regulatory ability were more influenced by System 1 leadership challenges (Heifetz, 1998). The distinction is cognitive processes; employees with high self-regulatory illustrated through an example of an individual in transition ability were more likely to be guided by System 2 cognitive from a social group where avoidance of conflict is the processes. Clearly, both System 1 and System 2 cognitive survival skill, to another where he or she finds it necessary processes influence worker behavior, but through to confront conflict. In the interest of finding a means of different pathways. System 1 cognitive processes affect managing the unproductive emotional anxiety that arises behavior through an impulsive and spontaneous process, in such conflict-laden encounters, the technical solution is largely driven by habit. System 2 cognitive processes to send the individual to a course on conflict management. were seen to drive behavior through a deliberative and Typically, such a technical solution is easy to identify, reflective process, in which automatic, habitual impulses those in need of it are generally receptive, and it can be are inhibited, and the employee’s behavior is guided by implemented quickly (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Heifetz & conscious thought and analysis. Linsky, 2002). System 2 Circuitry will undoubtedly allocate With specific regard to the efficient allocation of the brain’s attention to the effortful mental activities the development and intervention resources, given the course will demand of it. But will the course knowledge measurable impact of individual differences in self- solve the individual’s emotional anxiety issue? Will having regulation behavior, the Xu et al. (2014) study suggests that the technical knowledge behind conflict management intervention strategies may be more effective for differing provide the individual with the necessary skills to manage subgroups of employees. Those employees with higher conflict productively? Will an individual armed with an self-regulatory abilities may benefit more from traditional understanding of an emotion regulation strategy be able interventions focused on information-based techniques to control their emotions and those of others effectively?

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 13 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

In that regard, recall that our System 1 Circuitry is the latter, we are also of the opinion that researchers in this responsible for delivering our habitual reactions, good area would benefit from following research by Dan Siegel or bad, to environmental stimuli, largely with the intent on interpersonal neurobiology (e.g., Siegel, 2012). At the of self-protection. As such, it operates automatically, moment, however, the field seems to be preoccupied efficiently, often unconsciously, and cannot be turned with whether neuroscience will either replace existing off. It is associated with survival-based information that research or add to it (Lee et al., 2012; Edwards, 2013). learners acquire easily and unconsciously. Not surprisingly, From the academic management community, we are such information is largely social and includes listening beginning to see the use of neuroscience technologies to and speaking our first language, recognizing faces, and methods in reexaminations of existing organization using general problem-solving techniques, and engaging theories and concepts (Waldman et al., 2013). Taken in basic social relations, all of which are acquired readily from any perspective, there is little question that the area outside of educational contexts. In the interest of both offers meaningful interdisciplinary research opportunities adapting to and then molding the social group, a leader (Waldman, 2013; Butler, 2013). transitioning from one social group to another is likely Change Interventions: The Use of Mindfulness and to require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships, Computer-Based Brain Exercises and approaches to work to be successful—an adaptive solution that is likely to be difficult to identify, multifaceted, At the NeuroLeadership Labs, preliminary data suggests and thus easy to deny (and largely operating automatically that almost any development intervention benefits and unconsciously). In addition, adaptive solutions are from both mindfulness practice and computer-based influenced more significantly by individual differences brain training to enhance self-regulation. In concert, (e.g., self-regulatory ability), which will manifest themselves mindfulness and enhanced self-regulation ability also serve in varying degrees of resistance to acknowledging the to influence an individual’s self-awareness. Interestingly, adaptive challenge as well as to the personal discovery with regard to the latter, virtually every mass-media book that may be an integral part of the adaptive process. discussing the brain and behavior prescriptively asserts Understanding those individual differences (e.g., Gross self-awareness (in one form or another) as a “solution” to & John, 2003; English & John, 2013) will significantly the particular malady it addresses—something with which influence both the development and intervention we are in general agreement. strategies resources allocated to addressing the issue and In setting the stage for mindfulness and computer-based the consequential success of those efforts. brain exercises, the principal “barrier” to individual change is not infrequently the individual’s brain and its evolutionary Facilitating Change penchant for self-protection. Goals set through an As in our previous annual surveys, here we again focus individual’s rational, conscious, System 2 thinking are on individual change efforts. In large part, this reflects unconsciously undermined by the brain’s System 1 goals, the type of research most likely to be undertaken by making us “immune to change” (Kegan & Lahey, 2009). the neuroscience research community. Although That is, individuals often pursue other actions or activities within the business academic community there is that are inconsistent with their System 2 goals. Those growing interest in “organization neuroscience” and the inconsistent actions and activities are often undertaken contributions to the understanding of social processes it in response to powerful social anxieties that arise as the can make in organizations (Becker et al., 2011; Lee et al, individual works to conform to the social norms of group 2012; Cropanzano & Becker, 2013), the field is still in its to which he or she is transitioning. The vast majority of relative infancy. In its absence, some of the knowledge those fears, worries, anxieties, or concerns have their gap on change is being filled by interesting works from basis in reactions to SCARF® threats. For example, in the the practitioner community; consider, for example, face of a System 2 goal to be a more effective delegator, such work as that by McFarland and Goldsworthy the individual’s fear of losing control manifests itself as a (2013). Dr. McFarland is a long-time contributor to the System 1 self-preservation goal to “not lose control,” an NeuroLeadership Summits. Based on our observations at unconscious, automatic System 1 goal that makes it very the NeuroLeadership Labs, we are hopeful that some of difficult for the individual to achieve their System 2 goal. that research will come from investigating the increased A developmental intervention would focus on examining use of express rational process (as we discussed in the the assumption the individual is making that is driving Decision Making and Problem Solving domain), particularly such SCARF® fears (often it is assumed that he or she will as it relates to the ability of express process to modulate be rejected [e.g., Olsson et al., 2013]) and then testing the unproductive organizational emotions, and in developing assumption experientially in much the way a person would a better understanding of the demands of social transitions conduct a self-tracking or “quantified-self” experiment on both followers and particularly leaders. With regard to (e.g., Kim, 2014; Lupton, 2013). It is quite commonly

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 14 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

revealed that the fear has its basis in the misinterpretation estimate cortical thickness. Cortical thickness across the of cues in the social-transition process and often involves whole cortical surface was correlated with self-reported a particular behavior in the new social group that was not hours per week of video gaming. The scientists observed sufficiently practiced in the prior group because it was not a positive association between cortical thickness and needed or accepted for conformity. While the primary video gaming duration in the left dorsolateral prefrontal intervention strategy would be to assist the individual in cortex (DLPFC) and left frontal eye fields (FEFs). No managing the SCARF® concern and to build emotional regions showed cortical thinning in association with resilience around the skill by practicing it, we have found video-gaming frequency. DLPFC is the core correlate of that the intervention can be beneficially augmented with executive control and strategic planning, which in turn mindfulness practice and computer-based brain training. are essential cognitive domains for successful video Computer-Based Brain Exercises gaming. The FEFs are a key region involved in visuo-motor integration important for programming and execution of Despite early concerns about the efficacy of computer- eye movements and allocation of visuo-spatial attention. based brain exercises (e.g., Owen et al., 2010), they Still, while noting that behavioral and neurophysiological continue to show promise. For the most part, the evidence tentatively support the efficacy of training, a improved efficacy seem to be due to improved exercise number of researchers are calling for additional data from quality, enhanced attention to the brain circuitry to which evidence-based practices, particularly as it relates to the an exercise is directed with regard to the deficiency it is magnitude and specificity of these effects. Others are intended to address, clearer delineation of what brain suggesting the importance of accounting for individual structures and functions can be targeted, and defined differences (Basak et al., 2011). Still others are asserting measurement and assessment of results. At the most that observed improvements in individual performance general level of inquiry, research has focused on video is task specific and as such are not transferable to other games; increasingly, research attention is shifting to tasks (Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013). focused interventions.

Research on Video Game Training and Brain Structure and Function. ...video gaming Several recent experimental studies support the idea causes increases that training increases various components of brain (executive) functioning (e.g., Strobach et al., 2012). in brain regions Anguera et al. (2013) reported that older adults without video game experience show enhanced cognitive control responsible for after training when compared to both active and passive control groups. In terms of neurophysiology, action video spatial orientation, game training appears to engage neural structures and circuits that mediate executive functions. EEG studies memory formation, have shown associations between improved performance in executive-function tasks and increases in both frontal- and strategic alpha (Maclin et al., 2011; Mathewson et al., 2012) and planning, as well as midline-frontal theta power (Anguera et al., 2013) after video game training. fine motor skills. In addition to post-training changes in brain function, there is preliminary evidence that training may also lead to Research on Targeted Brain Exercise Interventions. structural brain changes. Kuhn at al. (2013) demonstrated that video gaming causes increases in brain regions There is growing body of research documenting responsible for spatial orientation, memory formation, functional and structural changes in the brain resulting and strategic planning, as well as fine motor skills. The from specific interventions and targeted training regimes study compared a control group to a video-gaming (e.g., Salminen et al., 2012; Enriquez-Geppert et al., 2013). training group that trained for two months for at least Working memory training remains controversial (Melby- 30 minutes per day. Specifically, the scientists found Lervag et al., 2013; von Bastian et al., 2013; Jaeggi, et al., significant gray-matter increases in right hippocampal 2008), particularly (and not surprisingly) when it “targets” formation (HC), right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex intelligence or working-memory improvement (Redick (DLPFC), and bilateral cerebellum in the training group. In et al., 2013; Chooi et al., 2012). Consistent with basic a study of 152 14-year-olds, Kuhn et al. (2014) used MRI to neuroscience research in demonstrating increases in

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 15 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

specific sectors of prefrontal activation and decreases in learning-based training program would transfer to the amygdala activation, research is beginning to document playing field. The scientists assigned 19 baseball players the effect of explicit interventions designed to decrease to complete 30 25-minute sessions of a computer-based stress and promote pro-social behavior and well-being on vision-training exercise they had developed, while another brain structure and function. For example, in Gordon et 18 team members received no training. Trained players al. (2013), some 2,752 users of the computer-based brain- showed improved vision after training, had decreased training program MyBrainSolutions completed a validated strike-outs, and created more runs. At a minimum, assessment battery of cognitive and emotional states these results demonstrate the transferability of benefits before and after training. Users of the MyBrainSolutions from a vision-training program based on perceptual training program have access to 22 brain-training learning principles. They provide encouragement for the exercises, each designed to train skills within one of development of targeted interventions versus relying on four key domains—thinking, emotion, feeling, and self- “spillover” benefits from video gaming in general. regulation. The intent is to both recommend exercises Importantly, with increasing evidence that videos to users that will best target weaker brain circuitry and games and computer-based brain exercises affect then to enable tracking of improvements in performance brain function and structure, scientists are calling for in those circuitries over time. Using statistical analysis to increased collaboration between the gaming industry measure the relationships between brain games played and brain scientists to design new, more focused games/ and improvement in assessment scores, the scientists exercises that train the brain. The intent is to encourage were able to show that the most significant benefits collaboration in developing exercises producing were found for those games training positivity to improve positive effects on behavior, such as decreasing anxiety, anxiety and stress. In addition, training in self-regulation sharpening attention, and improving empathy (Davidson was found to be beneficial in terms of improved memory, & McEwen, 2012; Bavelier & Davidson, 2013). In addition, attention, and executive function, as well as in reducing a number of scientists are investigating the potential for anxiety and stress. Significantly, self-regulation training future interventions based on a variety of brain-based was found to have beneficial consequences across all the technologies, either by themselves or in combination with other cognitive and emotional domains. Note that this is computer-based brain exercises (Zotev et al., 2014; Ruiz the same training program we have fully incorporated into et al., 2014). It is our sense that, to some degree, these our system for testing at the NeuroLeadership Labs. exercises may serve to provide emotion-tagged artificial At this stage of development of computer-based brain experiences that the individual’s prior social experiences exercises, such interventions appear to enjoy greater were unable to provide. efficacy when combined with other tools, although it Mindfulness Practice makes identifying the brain exercise’s actual contribution to an individual’s performance improvement more Our understanding of the importance of mindfulness challenging. Such interventions have been developed practice continues to grow, with recent research to promote pro-social behavior, such as emotion demonstrating its positive effect on decision making regulation, for incorporation in school curricula with the (Hafenbrack et al., 2013), creativity (Colzato et al., 2012), emotion regulation (Teper et al., 2013; Creswell et al., intent to target the development of more positive social 2014), self-regulation (Tang et al., 2014), and general and emotional behavior growth in K-12 school children. mental and physical health (e.g., Creswell, in press). Through a recent meta-analysis of 213 programs involving From the beginning, Drs. Tang and Creswell have been more than 270,000 school children, Durlack et al. (2011) important contributors at the NeuroLeadership Summits found that participants in social-emotional learning on this topic and its importance to the effective practice of programs demonstrated significant gains in social and leadership. Collectively, these findings raise the possibility emotional skills and performed better on standardized that mindfulness interventions produce specific plasticity- measures of academic achievement, suggesting gains in related alterations in brain function and structure. Of self-regulation. particular concern to an individual—particularly if the In moving away from behavior to task development, recall individual is a leader—successfully navigating a social that we discussed earlier that a number of studies have transition means efficiently and effectively reading and suggested that brain exercises may be task-specific (e.g., comprehending social cues (Olsson et al., 2013). To this Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013). In an interesting study that end, supported interventions that enhance empathetic enlisted the involvement of the University of California- accuracy and related neural activity are likely to prove Riverside baseball team, Deveau et al. (2014) combined beneficial. It is not surprising then that mindfulness multiple perceptual-learning approaches to determine practices emphasizing the cultivation of positive affect, if improvements gained from an integrated, perceptual such as compassion and kindness, have received increased

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 16 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

empirical attention. In fact, Hofmann et al. (2011) conclude often brought to the realization of the veracity of this that mindfulness interventions oriented toward enhancing statistical relationship through the comment: “Smart the positive emotions of compassion and kindness do people make dumb decisions, and vice versa,” something increase positive effect and decrease negative effect. More with which most of us would likely agree. We then add recently, two additional studies provide further support for the following additional comment: “An individual may be this notion, one promoting the benefits of a secularized, hired on the basis of their IQ, but will be fired or promoted analytical compassion-meditation program, cognitive- on the basis of their RQ and EQ.” With regard to business based compassion training (Mascaro et al., 2013), and education, it is this latter comment that is of increasing the other a compassion-mindfulness practice led by an concern. experienced instructor (Klimecki et al., 2013). A number of influential works have highlighted both the In addition to better understanding their own emotions blessings (Gray et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013) and the and the emotions of others through mindfulness practice, curses (Rosen, et al., 2012; Turkle, 2012) of social media leaders need the self-discipline to generate results. Tang and the internet. Of particular concern here is an insightful et al. (2014) showed us that mindfulness meditation is study by Konrath et al. (2011) showing a marked decline in effective in improving brain function related to executive empathy amongst young people, especially after the year attention. Although the study focused on the use of the 2000. Although research has shown a decline in social mindful meditation technique Integrated Body-Mind awareness in both the long-term (Kesebir & Kesebir, 2012) Training (IBMT)—a powerful technique introduced here by and the near-term (Twenge et al., 2013), the degree and Dr. Tang several years ago—several forms of mindfulness extent of the latter has been attributed to social media have been shown to enhance self-regulation (Davidson & and the Internet. According to Turkle (2012), the extensive McEwen, 2012). use of social media has led to a decline in face-to-face interactions amongst young people. Neuroscience and social psychology are both in support of the notion ...mindfulness that brain circuitries supporting social interactions depend heavily on those face-to-face interactions for interventions their development (e.g., Bickart et al., 2011, 2012; Kanai et al., 2012; Meshi et al., 2013; Stanley & Adolphs, 2013). oriented toward Others have noted a corresponding decline in attention, focus, and self-control (Wilcox et al., 2013). As a general enhancing the summary statement of the discussions that we have had in the four fundamental domains of NeuroLeadership in positive emotions this survey, those are important attributes for individuals, of compassion and particularly leaders, as they make the social transitions that we expect will be an integral part of their careers. How and kindness do concerned should business education be about these trends in RQ and EQ, and what can they do about them?

increase positive Two hundred years ago, university libraries were small, the curriculum was fixed, and, as a consequence, students effect and decrease were required to read little more than the assigned negative effect. textbooks (Shiflett, 1994). In this sense, “knowledge” was in short supply, and the professor played a key role in student development. Conversely, interpersonal skill- Changing the Business School Paradigm development opportunities were in abundance, as the primary source of entertainment was personal interaction. At the NeuroLeadership Labs, we have long prescribed to Moving ahead 200 years, we find just the opposite to the knowing (Knowledge)-doing (Rational Process)-being be true; “knowledge” is now in great abundance, while (Behavior) model of leadership and personal development technology has had a significant impact on the quality (Snook et al., 2011; Hesselbein & Shinseki, 2004). We and quantity of social interactive experiences necessary associate IQ with knowing, RQ (Rational Quotient, a term for the neural growth of those important social circuitries. coined jointly by the NeuroLeadership Labs and Kepner Yet, little has changed in the way we educate young Tregoe) with doing, and EQ (Emotional Intelligence people in today’s business schools (Bennis & O’Toole, Quotient) with behavior. Within relevant ranges, we have 2005; Ghemawat, 2011). consistently found that while RQ and EQ are positively correlated, they are not correlated with IQ. Students are According to McClelland (1973), once an individual is in

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 17 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

a given job, “specific competencies like self-discipline, and promote well-being—having the impact we all empathy, and persuasion [are] far stronger forces in success anticipated just eight short years ago when the discipline than a person’s ranking in academics.” McClelland makes a was first considered. As we have said before: Much work strong argument for competency testing over intelligence has been done; much is yet to begin. As quickly as we testing. The anecdotal evidence from the business discover answers, we just as quickly uncover more community is equally compelling. For example, Mr. Laszlo intriguing questions. Bock, the senior vice president of people operations for Google, is widely quoted as saying, “G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless [...] ...technology has We found that they don’t predict anything” (Friedman, 2014). Goleman (2013) quotes an unnamed former head had a significant of a major bank as saying, “I was hiring the best and the brightest, but I was still seeing a bell-shaped curve for impact on the success and wondering why.” Unfortunately, McClelland’s article has been controversial among many academics, quality and quantity some of which “could not grasp that doing well in their of social interactive classes had little to do with how their students would perform once in a job” (Goleman, 2013). In one of the few experiences tests of this seemingly basic notion, Eisenberg et al. (2013) found that students in a traditional academic course in necessary for the cross-cultural management showed “pronounced” effects on the cognitive aspects of the topic, but no significant neural growth of effects on behavioral aspects. Mendenhall et al. (2013) offer the possibility to develop relevant competencies through those important the use of cognitive behavior therapy in the classroom. While limited in this case to cultural competencies, why social circuitries. not open the approach to competencies in general? With dire predictions of the majority of business courses Still, with the growing recognition of emotion’s to be offered online in the near future (Clark, 2014), the indispensable role in personal and leadership corresponding declined in face-to-face interactions development, it is becoming increasingly evident that suggest that behavioral shortcomings are arguably only social psychologists, neuroscientists, OB and leadership going to get worse. Although research has touched on theorists, and leadership practitioners need to be working social capital concepts of trust, collective action, and together more closely to break down terminology barriers communication (Lu et al., 2013), relatively little research where they are needlessly inhibiting advancements in has been done showing behavioral-development benefits new thinking and applications. We need to embrace that can be attributed to online courses. However, as the seemingly endlessly evolving technology and begin Bavelier and Davidson (2013) suggest, with regard to developing intervention tools and techniques for use in computer-based brain exercises that assist in behavioral both our classrooms and our workshops. A functional interventions involving social perceptions and empathy, co-mingling of concepts ranging from definitions to this is a developmental linkage that business schools terminology to functioning models amongst these should not ignore. To meet the needs of the business disciplines will serve to focus the usefulness of those community, business education needs to move beyond tools and have the beneficial effect of accelerating “time- the confines of the knowledge-predominated classroom to-market” for working practitioners. With what we see and embrace development responsibilities in the areas of in the research pipeline and what we anticipate, there process (doing) and behavior (being). is an enormous body of interesting and compelling work forthcoming. In light of this anticipation and our Conclusion expectations, perhaps the best advice we can give may In bringing together and reflecting upon the breadth and well be: “Now may be a good time to take a neuroscientist depth of the latest research in neuroscience, it is evident to lunch.” Except this time, we might suggest considering that significant progress has been made in not only bringing along a video gamer. furthering the definition of this field of NeuroLeadership, but also in outlining its developmental responsibilities going forward. The research continues to clarify thinking, motivate creativity, inspire learning, enhance productivity,

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 18 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

References for proper multiple comparisons correction. Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results, 1 (1), 1-5. Adler, N., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with Bennett, C. M., Wolford, G. L., & Miller, M. B. (2009). The psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary principled control of false positives in neuroimaging, data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 4 (4), 417- 586-592. 422. Alivisatos, A. P. et al. (2013). The brain activity map. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business Science, 339, pp. 1284-5. schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83 (5), Allen, J. P., Chango, J., & Szwedo, D. (2013). The 96-104. adolescent relational dialectic and the peer roots of adult Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2011). Quantitative research social functioning. Child Development, 85 (1), 192-204. methods for the social sciences, 8th ed. New York: Anand, G., Chhajed, D. , & Delfin, L. (2012). Job Pearson Education. autonomy, trust in leadership, and continuous Berkman, E. T., Cunningham, W. A., & Lieberman, improvement: An empirical study in health care. M. D. (in press). Research methods in social and Operations Management Research, 5, 70-80. affective neuroscience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.) Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., Al-Hashimi, Handbook of research methods in personality and social O., Faraji, F., et al. (2013). Video game training enhances psychology (2nd ed). cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 501 (7465), 97- Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. 101. C., and Barrett, L. F. (2011). Amygdala volume and social Bart, C. & McQueen, G. (2013). Why women make better network size in humans. Nature Neuroscience. 14, 163- directors. International Journal of Business Governance 164. and Ethics, 8 (1), 93-99. Bakken, B. T. (2012). Intuition and analysis in decision Bartram, D. (2013). Happiness and ‘economic migration’: making. On the relationships between cognitive style, A comparison of Eastern European migrants and stayers. cognitive processing, decision behaviour, and task Migration Studies, 1 (2), 156-175. performance in a simulated crisis management context, Series of Dissertation 9/2013. BI Norwegian Business Basak, C., Voss, M. W., Erickson, K. I., Boot, W. R., & Kramer, A. F. (2011). Regional differences in brain volume School. predict the acquisition of skill in a complex real-time Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive strategy videogame. Brain and Cognition, 76 (3), 407-414. control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-Regulation, Cognitive Sciences, 16 (2), 106-113. ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Bridgett, D. J., Oddi, K. B., Laake, L. M., Murdock, K. W., & Psychology Compass, 1 (1), 115-128. Bachmann, M. N. (2013). Integrating and differentiating Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, aspects of self-regulation: Effortful control, executive D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited functioning, and links to negative affectivity. Emotion, 13 resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1), 47-63. 74, 1252-1265. Brunton, B. W., Botvinick, M. M. & Brody C. D. (2013). Bavelier, D., & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Brain training: Rats and humans can optimally accumulate evidence for Games to do you good. Nature, 494 (7438), 425-426. decision-making. Science, 340 (6128), 95-98. Beasley, M.; Sabatinelli, D.; & Obasi, E. (2012). Burton, R. A. (2013). A skeptic’s guide to the mind: What Neuroimaging evidence for social rank theory, Frontiers neuroscience can and cannot tell us about ourselves. in Human Neuroscience, 6 (123), 1-3. New York: St Martin’s Press. Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). Butler, M. J. (2014). Operationalizing interdisciplinary Organizational neuroscience: Taking organizational research—a model of co-production in organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Management, 37 (4), 933-961. Neuroscience, 7 (720). Bennet, C., Baird, A., Miller, M. B., and Wolford, G. L. Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, (2009). Neural correlates of interspecies perspective J. Robinson, E. & Manufo, M. R. (2013). Power failure: taking in the post-mortem Atlantic salmon: An argument Why small sample size undermines the reliability of

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 19 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365- mindfulness with health. Eds. Brown, K.W., Creswell J. D., 375. & Ryan, R. Handbook on Mindfulness Science. Guilford Publications, New York, NY. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior. Advances in Social Crocket, M. J., Apergis-Schoute, A., Hermann, B, Cognition, 12, 1-105. Lieberman, M. D., Muller, U., Robbins, T. W., & Clark, L. (2013). Serotonin modulates striatal responses to fairness Carter, M. & Shieh, J. (2009). Guide to research and retaliation in humans. The Journal of Neuroscience, techniques in neuroscience. Amsterdam: Academic 33 (8), 3505-3513. Press. Cropanzano, R., & Becker, W. J. (2013). The Promise Carter, R. M., Bowling, D. L., Reeck, C., & Huettel, S. A. and Peril of Organizational Neuroscience Today and (2012). A Distinct Role of the Temporal-Parietal Junction Tomorrow. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22 (3), 306- in Predicting Socially Guided Decisions. Science, 337 310. (6090), 109-111. Dane, E., Rockmann, K.W. &. Pratt., M.G. (2012). When Chooi, W. T., & Thompson, L. A. (2012). Working memory should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to training does not improve intelligence in healthy young intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organizational adults. Intelligence, 40 (6), 531-542. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119 (2), 187- Clark, P. (March 14, 2014). Online Programs Could 194. Erase Half of U.S. Business Schools by 2020. Davidson, R. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2012). Social influences BusinessWeek online. http://www.businessweek.com/ on neuroplasticity: Stress and interventions to promote articles/2014-03-14/online-programs-could-erase-half- well-being. Nature Neuroscience, 15 (5), 689-695. of-u-dot-s-dot-business-schools-by-2020 Davenport, T. H. & Kim, J. (2013). Keeping up with the Cohen, J. R., Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Quants: Your guide to understanding and using analytics. Intentional and incidental self-control in ventrolateral Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. PFC. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.) Principles of Frontal Lobe Function (2nd ed) (pp. 417-440), New York: Davenport, T. D. (2014). Big data at work: Dispelling the Oxford University Press. myths, uncovering the opportunities. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Colzato, L. S., Ozturk, A., & Hommel, B. (2012). Meditate De Martino, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Ray, D., Bossaerts, P., & to create: The impact of focused-attention and open- Camerer, C. (2013). In the mind of the market: Theory of monitoring training on convergent and divergent mind biases value computation during financial Bubbles. thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. Neuron, 79 (6), 1222-1231. Coplan, J. D.; Fathy, H. M.; Abdallah, C. G.; Ragab, S. A.; DeSteno, D., Gross, J. J., & Kubzansky, L. (2013). Affective Kral, J. G.; Mao, X.; Shungu, D. C.; & Mathew, S. J. (2014). science and health: The importance of emotion and Reduced hippocampal N-acetyl-aspartate (NAA) as a emotion regulation. Health Psychology, 32 (5), 474. biomarker for overweight. NeuroImage: Clinical, 4, 326- 335. Deveau, J., Ozer, D. J., & Seitz, A. R. (2014). Improved vision and on-field performance in baseball through Corradi-Dell’Acqua, C., Civai, C., Rumiati, R. I., & Fink, G. perceptual learning. Current Biology, 24 (4), R146-R147. R. (2013). Disentangling self- and fairness-related neural mechanisms involved in the ultimatum game: an fMRI Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review study. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 8 of Psychology, 64, 135-168. (4), 424-431. Doehrmann, O., Ghosh, S. S., Polli, F.E, et al. (2013). Creswell, J. D.; Bursley, J. K., & A. B. Satpute (2013). Predicting treatment response in social anxiety disorder Neural reactivation links unconscious thought to from functional magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA decision making performance. Social Cognitive and Psychiatry, 70 (1), 87-97. Affective Neuroscience, 8 (8), 863-869. Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of Creswell, J. D., Pacilio, L. E., Lindsay, E. K., & Brown, K. the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal W. (2014). Brief mindfulness meditation training alters of Research in Personality, 45 (3), 259-268. psychological and neuroendocrine responses to social Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). What’s so social about the social evaluative stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 44, 1-12. brain? New Frontiers in Social Science, 21, 1-10. Creswell, J. D. (in press). Biological pathways linking Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R.

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 20 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

D. & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing medical information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and students’ social and emotional learning: A meta- Social Networking, 16 (10), 735-739. analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Fletcher, P. C., Happe, F., Frith, U., Baker, S. C., Dolan, R. Development, 82, 405–432. J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Frith, C. D. (1995). Other minds in Duval, E. R., Hale, L. R., Liberzon, I., Lepping, R., Powell, the brain: a functional imaging study of “theory of mind” J. N., Filion, D. L., & Savage, C. R. (2013). Anterior in story comprehension. Cognition, 57 (2), 109-128. cingulate cortex involvement in subclinical social anxiety, Forbes, C.E. & Grafman, J. (2013). Social neuroscience: Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 214 (3), 459-461. The second phase. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7 Edwards, P. (2013). Neuroscience and Reductionism: (20), 1-5. Some Realist Reflections. Friedman, T. (February 22, 2014). How to get a job at Eisenberg, J., Lee, H. J., Brück, F., Brenner, B., Claes, M. T., Google. The New York Times, pp. SR11. Mironski, J., & Bell, R. (2013). Can business schools make Ghemawat, P. (2011). Responses to forces of change: students culturally competent? Effects of cross-cultural A focus on curricular content. In Globalization of management courses on cultural intelligence. Academy management education: Changing international of Management Learning & Education, 12 (4), 603-621. structures, adaptive strategies, and the impact on English, T., & John, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social institutions report of the AACSB-GME Task Force. Tampa, effects of emotion regulation: The mediating role of FL: AACSB International—The Association to Advance authenticity for individual differences in suppression. Collegiate Schools of Business. Emotion, 13 (2), 314. Gilbert, P. (2005). Evolution and depression: Issues and Enriquez-Geppert, S., Huster, R. J., & Herrmann, C. S. implications. Psychological Medicine, 36, 287-297. (2013). Boosting brain functions: Improving executive Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & functions with behavioral training, neurostimulation, Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of organizational and neurofeedback. International Journal of factors on psychological needs and their relations with Psychophysiology, 88 (1), 1-16. well-being. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27 (4), Evans, J. (2008). Dual-process accounts of reasoning, 437-450. judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New Psychology, 59, 255-278. York: Little, Brown and Company. Evans, J. and Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual Gold, J. I, & Shadlen, M.N. (2007). The neural basis of processes and beyond. New York: Oxford University decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, Press; Evans, J. (2008). Dual-process accounts of 535-574. reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Goldin, P., Ziv, M., Jazaieri, H., Hahn, K., & Gross, J. J. Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. (2013). MBSR vs aerobic exercise in social anxiety: fMRI Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from of emotion regulation of negative self-beliefs. Social most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90, 891- Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8 (1), 65-72. 904. Goleman, D. (2013). Focus: The hidden driver of Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a excellence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. good sign. PLoS Med 10 (12): e1001563. Gooty J., Connelly, S., Griffith J. & Gupta A. (2010). Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G. & Casadevall, A. (2013). Leadership, affect, and emotions. A state of the science Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (6), 979-1004. scientific publications,PNAS, 109 (42), 17028-17033. Gordon, E., Palmer, D. M., Liu, H., Rekshan, W., & Farb, N. A. S., Segal, Z. V., Mayberg, H., Bean, J., McKeon, DeVarney, S. (2013). Online cognitive brain training D., Fatima, Z., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Attending to the associated with measurable improvements in cognition present: Mindfulness meditation reveals distinct neural and emotion well-being. Technology & Innovation, 15 (1), modes of self-reference. Social Cognitive and Affective 53-62. Neuroscience, 2 (4), 313-322. Gray, R., Vitak, J., Easton, E. W., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Fergus, T. A. (2013). Cyberchondria and intolerance of Examining social adjustment to college in the age of uncertainty: Examining when individuals experience social media: Factors influencing successful transitions health anxiety in response to internet searches for and persistence. Computers & Education, 67, 193-207.

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 21 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., Schwartz, J. L. K. Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit Cognitive Science, 16 (3), 174-180. cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Hogan, J., & Foster, J. (2013). Multifaceted personality Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1464-1480. predictors of workplace safety performance: More than Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: conscientiousness. Human Performance, 26 (1), 20-43. Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, J. B., Racine, E., Science, 10 (6), 214-219. Blakeslee, S., Caplan, et al. (2010). Neurotalk: improving Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences the communication of neuroscience research. Nature in two emotion regulation processes: Implications Reviews Neuroscience, 11 (1), 61-69. for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. findings are false.PLoS Med. 2, e124. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion Izuma, K. (2013). The neural basis of social influence and regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), attitude change. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: 456–462. Guilford Press. Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. Haefner, R. M., Gerwinn, S., Macke, J. H., & Bethge, J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on M. (2013). Inferring decoding strategies from choice working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy probabilities in the presence of correlated variability. of Sciences, 105 (19), 6829-6833. Nature Neuroscience, 16, 235-242. Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B. Hafenbrack, A. C., Kinias, Z., & Barsade, S. G. (2013). (2013). Changing the Conceptualization of Stress in Debiasing the mind through meditation mindfulness and Social Anxiety Disorder Affective and Physiological the sunk-cost bias. Psychological Science, 25 (2), 369- Consequences. Clinical Psychological Science, 1 (4), 376. 363-374. Hamilton, K. R., Sinha, R., & Potenza, M. N. (2014). Self- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: reported impulsivity, but not behavioral approach or Farrar, Straus and Giroux. inhibition, mediates the relationship between stress and Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., Roylance, R., and Rees, G. (2012). self-control. Addictive Behaviors, in press. Online social network size is reflected in human brain Heatherton, T. F. (2011). The neuroscience of self and structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 363- Sciences, 279 (1732), 1327-1334. 390. Kegan, R. & Lahey, L.L. (2009). Immunity to change: How Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75 (1), 124-34. your organization. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Heifetz, R. A. (1998). Leadership without easy answers. Kesebir, P., & Kesebir, S. (2012). The cultural salience of Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. moral character and virtue declined in twentieth century Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: America. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7 (6), 471- Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Cambridge, 480. MA: Harvard Business Press. Kim, J. (2014). A qualitative analysis of user experiences Henning, J. B., Stufft, C. J., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. with a self-tracker for activity, sleep, and diet. Interactive E., Mannan, M. S., & Keren, N. (2009). The influence of Journal of Medical Research, 3 (1), e8. individual differences on organizational safety attitudes. Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Lamm, C., & Singer, T. (2013). Safety Science, 47 (3), 337-345. Functional neural plasticity and associated changes Hesselbein, F. & Shinseki, E. K. (2004). Be-Know-Do: in positive affect after compassion training. Cerebral Leadership the Army Way, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cortex, 23 (7), 1552-1561. Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. (2011). Konnikova, M. (2013). Mastermind: How to think like Loving-kindness and compassion meditation: Potential Sherlock Holmes. New York: Viking Press. for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes Review, 31 (7), 1126-1132. in dispositional empathy in American college students Hofmann, W. Schmeichel, B.J. & Baddeley, A.D. (2012). over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 22 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

Psychology Review, 15 (2), 180-198. Lieberman, M., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D., & Trope, Y. (2002). Kotzé, M., & Steyn, L. (2013). The role of psychological Reflection and reflexion: A social cognitive neuroscience factors in workplace safety. Ergonomics, 56 (12), 1928- approach to attributional inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), 1939. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, pp. 199–249. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kühn, S., Gleich, T., Lorenz, R. C., Lindenberger, U., & Gallinat, J. (2013). Playing Super Mario induces structural Lieberman, M. D. and Cunningham, W.A. (2009). Type I brain plasticity: Gray matter changes resulting from and type II error concerns in fMRI research: Re-balancing training with a commercial video game. Molecular the scale. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 4 Psychiatry, 19, 265-271. (4), 423-428. Kühn, S., Lorenz, R., Banaschewski, T., Barker, G. J., Lieberman, M. D., Rock, D., & Cox, C. (2014). Breaking Büchel, C., Conrod, P. J., et al. (2014). Positive association Bias. NeuroLeadership Journal, 5, 1-17. of video game playing with left frontal cortical thickness Llewellyn, N., Dolcos, S., Iordan, A. D., Rudolph, K. D., & in adolescents. PLoS ONE, 9 (3), e91506. Dolcos, F. (2013). Reappraisal and suppression mediate Kupferschmidt, K. (2013). Graphene and brain projects the contribution of regulatory focus to anxiety in healthy win European jackpot. Science, 229 (6), pp. 497. adults. Emotion, 13 (4), 610-615. Labbe, C. & Labbe, D. (2013). Duplicate and fake Lu, J., Yang, J., & Yu, C. S. (2013). Is social capital effective publications in the scientific literature: how many SCIgen for online learning? Information & Management, 50 (7), papers in computer science? Scientometrics (2013) 94, 507-522. 379-396. Lupton, D. (2013). Quantifying the body: monitoring and Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C.M. (2014). Beginning measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late- Critical Public Health, 23 (4), 393-403. night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior Maclin E. L., Mathewson K. E., Low K. A., Boot W. and Human Decision Processes, 124 (1), 11-23. R., Kramer A. F., Fabiani M., et al. (2011). Learning Lau, J. Y. & Eley, T. C. (2008). Attributional style as a risk to multitask: effects of video game practice on marker of genetic effects for adolescent depressive electrophysiological indices of attention and resource symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, allocation. Psychophysiology, 48, 1173-1183. 849–859. Mascaro, J. S., Rilling, J. K., Negi, L. T., & Raison, C. L. Lawton, R., & Parker, D. (1998). Individual differences (2013). Compassion meditation enhances empathic in accident liability: A review and integrative approach. accuracy and related neural activity. Social Cognitive and Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Affective Neuroscience, 8 (1), 48-55. Ergonomics Society, 40 (4), 655-671. Mathewson, K. E., Basak, C., Maclin, E. L., Low, K. A., Leary, M. R. (2011). Introduction to behavioral research Boot, W. R., Kramer, A. F., et al. (2012). Different slopes methods, 6th Ed. New York: Pearson Education. for different folks: Alpha and delta EEG power predict subsequent video game learning rate and improvements Lee, N., Senior, C., & Butler, M. J. (2012). The domain of in cognitive control tasks. Psychophysiology, 49 (12), organizational cognitive neuroscience theoretical and 1558-1570. empirical challenges. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 921-931. McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for” intelligence”. American Psychologist, 28 (1), 1-14. Lieberman, M. D. (2007). The X- and C-systems: The neural basis of automatic and controlled social cognition. McFarland, W., & Goldsworthy, S. (2013). Choosing In E. Harmon-Jones & P. Winkelman (Eds.), Fundamentals change: How leaders and organizations drive results one of Social Neuroscience (pp. 290-315). New York: Guilford. person at a time. McGraw Hill Professional. Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working to connect. New York: Crown Publishing. memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49 (2), 270. Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings Mendenhall, M. E., Arnardottir, A. A., Oddou, G. into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in R., & Burke, L. A. (2013). Developing cross-cultural response to affective stimuli.Psychological Science, 18 competencies in management education via cognitive- (5), 421-428. behavior therapy. Academy of Management Learning &

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 23 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

Education, 12 (3), 436-451. Functional imaging studies of emotion regulation: A Meshi, D., Morawetz, C., and Heekeren, H.R. (2013). synthetic review and evolving model of the cognitive Nucleus accumbens response to gains in reputation for control of emotion. Annals of the New York Academy of the self relative to gains for others predicts social media Sciences, 1251 (1), E1-E24. use. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 439. Ochsner, K. N. (2013). The role of control in emotion, Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & emotion regulation and empathy. In D. Hermans, B. Rime Blakemore, S. (2014). Developmental changes in & B. Mesquita (Eds.), Changing Emotions (pp. 157-165). the structure of the social brain in late childhood New York, NY: Psychology Press. and adolescence. Social Cognitive, and Affective Olsson, A, & Ochsner, K. N. (2008). The role of social Neuroscience, 9, 123-131. cognition in emotion. Trends in Cognitive Science. 12 (2) Mobini S., Reynolds S., & Mackintosh B. (2013). Clinical 65-71. implications of cognitive bias modification for interpretive Olsson, A., Carmona, S., Downey, G., Bolger, N., & biases in social anxiety: An integrative literature review. Ochsner, K. N. (2013). Learning biases underlying Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37 (1), 173-182. individual differences in sensitivity to social rejection. Mobley, A., Suzanne, K. L., Braeuer, R. Ellis, L.M., & Emotion, 13 (4), 616-621. Zwelling, L. (2013). A survey on data reproducibility in Olsson, A., McGee, R., Nada-Raja, S., & Williams, cancer research provides insights into our limited ability S.M. (2013). A 32-year longitudinal study of child and to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. adolescent pathways to well-being in adulthood. Journal PLoS ONE, 8 (5), e63221. of Happiness Studies, 14 (3), 1069-1083. Morris, M. C., Ciesla, J. A., & Garber, J. (2008). A Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, P. prospective study of the cognitive-stress model of A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of and successful adaptations to stress in later life, Journal Abnormal Psychology, 117, 719–734. of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730-749. Morrison, A. S. & Heimberg, R. G. (2013). Social anxiety Onraedt, T., & Koster, E. H. (2014). Training working and social anxiety disorder, Annual Review of Clinical memory to reduce rumination. PloS One, 9 (3), e90632. Psychology, 9, 249-274. Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Neal A., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P..M (2000). The impact of Dajani, S., Burns, A. et al. (2010). Putting brain training to organizational climate on safety climate and individual the test. Nature, 465 (7299), 775-778. behavior. Safety Science, 34 (1), 99–109. Parkinson, B., & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect- Niles, A. N., Mesri, B., Burklund, L. J., Lieberman, M. D., regulation strategies. Cognition & Emotion, 13 (3), 277- & Craske, M. G. (2013). Attentional bias and emotional 303. reactivity as predictors and moderators of behavioral Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your smartphone: How treatment for social phobia. Behavioral Research and to break the 24/7 habit and change the way you work. Therapy, 51, 669-679. Harvard Business Review Press. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Prater, K. E., Hosanagar, A., Klumpp, M., Angstadt,M. & utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to Phan, K. L. (2013). Aberrant amygdala–frontal cortex promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on connectivity during perceptions of fearful faces and at Psychological Science, 7, 615-631. rest in generalized social anxiety disorder. Depression Ochsner, K. N. & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control and Anxiety. 30 (3), 234–241. of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 242-249. Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O., & Illes, J. (2005). fMRI in the public Ochsner, K. N. and Lieberman, M. D. (2007). The eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6 (2), 159-164. emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R.D. (2011). Emotionality and Psychologist, 56 (9), 717-734. leadership: Taking stock of the past decade of research. Ochsner, K. N. & Gross, J. J. (2008). Cognitive emotion The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1107-1119. regulation: Insights from social cognitive and affective Ray, R. D., Ochsner, K. N., Cooper, J. C., Robertson, neuroscience. Current Directions in Psychological E. R., Gabrielli, J. D. E., & Gross, J. J. (2005). Individual Science, 17, 153-158. differences in trait rumination and the neural systems Ochsner, K. N., Silvers, J. A., & Buhle, J. T. (2012). supporting cognitive reappraisal. Cognitive, Affective, &

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 24 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

Behavioral Neuroscience 2005, 5 (2), 156-168. functioning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, (166 Raymond, J. E., & O’Brien, J. L. (2009). Selective Visual Santos-Ruiz, A.; Carmen Garcia-Rios, M.; Fernandez- Attention and Motivation The Consequences of Value Sanchez, J.C; Perez-Garcia, M.; Muñoz-García, M.A.; Learning in an Attentional Blink Task. Psychological & Peralta-Ramirez, M.I. (2012) Can decision-making Science, 20 (8), 981-988. skills affect responses to psychological stress in healthy Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., women? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37 (12), 1912-1921. Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., et al. (2013). No evidence of Sapolsky R. (2004). Social status and health in humans intelligence improvement after working memory training: and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of 393-418. Experimental Psychology: General, 142 (2), 359-379. Satel, S. & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013). Brainwashed: The Reyna, V. F.; Chick, C. F.; Corbin, C. F.; & Hsia, A. N. seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: (2014). Developmental reversals in risky decision making: Basic Books. Intelligence agents show larger decision biases than Schwartz, J. M. & Gladding, R. (2011). You are not your college students. Psychological Science, 25 (1) 76-84. brain: The 4-step solution for changing bad habits, Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and ending unhealthy thinking, and taking control of your life. social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional New York: Avery Publishing. and social skill approach. Journal of Managerial Schweizer, S., Grahn, J., Hampshire, A., Mobbs, D., Psychology, 23 (2), 169-185. & Dalgleish, T. (2013). Training the emotional brain: Ringleb, A. H., & Rock, D. (2008). The emerging field of improving affective control through emotional working NeuroLeadership. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 3-19 memory training. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (12), Ringleb, A. H., Rock, D. & Ancona, C. (2012). 5301-5311. NeuroLeadership in 2011 and 2012. NeuroLeadership Sheridan, M. A., How, J., Araujo, M., Schamberg, M.A., Journal, 4, 1-35. & Nelson, C.A. (2013). What are the links between Ringleb, A. H., Rock, D., & Conser, J. (2010). maternal social status, hippocampal function, and HPA NeuroLeadership in 2010, NeuroLeadership Journal, 3, axis function in children? Developmental Science, 16 (5), 1-19. 665-675. Rock, D. (2008). SCARF®: A Brain-based model Shestakova, A., Rieskamp, J., Tugin, S., Ossadtchi, for collaborating with and influencing others. A., Krutitskaya, J., & Klucharev, V. (2013). NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 44-52. Electrophysiological precursors of social conformity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8 (7): 756- Rock, D. & Schwartz, J. (2006). The neuroscience of 763. leadership. Strategy + Business, No. 43. Shiffer, F. (1998). Of two minds: The revolutionary science Rosen, L. D. (2012). iDisorder: Understanding our of dual-brain psychology. New York: Free Press. obsession with technology and overcoming its hold on us. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan. Shiflett, O. L. (1994). Academic libraries. InEncyclopedia of Library History, edited by J. Wayne A. Wiegand and Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). Donald G. Davis. New York: Garland. The development of executive attention: Contributions to the emergence of self-regulation. Developmental Siegel, D. J. (2012). Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neuropsychology, 28 (2), 573-594. Neurobiology: An Integrative Handbook of the Mind (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology). New Ruiz, S., Buyukturkoglu, K., Rana, M., Birbaumer, N., York: WW Norton & Company. & Sitaram, R. (2014). Real-time fMRI brain computer interfaces: self-regulation of single brain regions to Siegel, D. J. (2013). Brainstorm: The power and purpose networks. Biological Psychology, 95, 4-20. of the teenage brain. New York: The Penguin Group. Rushmore, M. F. S, Mars, R. B., & Sallet, J. (2012). Are Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2011). there specialized circuits for social cognition and are they False- positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data unique to humans? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, collection and analysis allows presenting anything as 1-7. significant.Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. Salminen, T., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2012). On Singer, A. C., Carr, M. F., Karlsson, M. P., & Frank, L. M. the impacts of working memory training on executive (2013). Hippocampal SWR Activity Predicts Correct

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 25 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

Decisions during the Initial Learning of an Alternation Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 (6), 449- Task. Neuron, 77 (6), 1163-1173. 454. Smallwood, J. (2013). Distinguishing how from why the Townsend, S. S., Kim, H. S., & Mesquita, B. (2014). Are mind wanders: a process–occurrence framework for you feeling what I’m feeling? Emotional similarity buffers self-generated mental activity. Psychological Bulletin, 139 stress. Social Psychological and Personality Science, in (3), 519-535. Press. Snook, S., Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (Eds.). (2011). The Trautmann-Lengsfeld, S. A. & Herrmann, C. S. (2013). handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, and EEG reveals an early influence of social conformity on being. London: Sage Publications. visual processing in group pressure situations. Social Southwick, S. M., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D.S. (2005). Neuroscience, 8 (1), 75-89. The psychobiology of depression and resilience to Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I, Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D.J. stress: Implications for prevention and treatment. Annual (2014). Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 255-291. as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Spunt, R. P. & Lieberman, M. D. (2013). The busy Social Management Journal, in Press. Brain: Evidence for Automaticity and Control in the Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A Neural Systems Supporting Social Cognition and Action person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Understanding, Psychological Science, 24 (1), 80-86. Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending Stanley, D. A., & Adolphs, R. (2013). Toward a Neural Basis on the context. Psychological Science, 24 (12), 2505- for Social Behavior. Neuron, 80 (3), 816-826. 2514. Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000). Individual difference Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?” from technology and less from each other. New York, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726. NY: Basic Books. Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2012). Decision making under Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2013). stress: a selective review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Changes in pronoun use in American books and the rise Reviews, 36 (4), 1228-1248. of individualism, 1960-2008. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44 (3), 406-415. Strobach, T., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2012). Video game practice optimizes executive control skills in dual- Van den Bos, R., Harteveld, M., & Stoop, H. (2009). Stress task and task switching situations. Acta Psychologica, 140 and decision-making in humans: performance is related (1), 13-24. to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34 (10), 1449-1458. Swan, M. (2012). Sensor mania! The internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the Van Overwalle, F., & Baetens, K. (2009). Understanding quantifies self 2.0. Journal of Sensor and Actuator others’ actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing Networks, 1, 217-253. systems: A meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 48, 564-584. Swan, M. (2013). The Quantifies Self: Fundamental von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K. (2013). Effects and disruption in the big data science and biological mechanisms of working memory training: a review. discovery. Big Data, 1 (2), 85-98. Psychological Research, 1-18. Tang, Y. Y., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2014). Waldman, D. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary research is the Meditation improves self-regulation over the life span. key. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7 (562). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1307 (1), Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., Stikic, M., Berka, C., Balthazard, 104-111. P. A., et al. (2013). Emergent leadership and team Tang, Y., Ma, Y., Wang, J., Fan, Y., Feng, S., Lu, Q., Yu, Q., engagement: An application of neuroscience technology Sui, D., Rothbart,. M. K., Fan, M., & Posner, M. I. (2007). and methods. Academy of Management Proceedings, Short-term meditation training improves attention and 2013 (1), 12966. self-regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Wilcox, K., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Are close friends the Sciences, 104 (43), 17152-17156. enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self- Teper, R., Segal, Z. V., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Inside the control. Journal of Consumer research, 40 (1), 90-103. Mindful Mind How Mindfulness Enhances Emotion Wilson, H.J. (2012). You, by the numbers. Harvard Regulation Through Improvements in Executive Control. Business Review, 90 (9), 119-122.

© NeuroLeadership Institute 2015 For Permissions, email [email protected] email Permissions, For 2015 Institute NeuroLeadership © 26 NeuroLeadershipJOURNAL VOLUME FIVE | JANUARY 2015 NEUROLEADERSHIP IN 2014

Xu, Y., Li, Y., Ding, W., & Lu, F. (2014). Controlled versus automatic processes: Which Is dominant to safety? The moderating effect of inhibitory control. PloS One, 9 (2), e87881. Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (3), 403-416. Yip, J. A. & Cote, S. (2012). The emotionally intelligent decision maker: Emotion-understanding ability reduces the effect of incidental anxiety on risk taking. Psychological Science, 24 (1), 48-55. Zotev, V., Phillips, R., Yuan, H., Misaki, M., & Bodurka, J. (2014). Self-regulation of human brain activity using simultaneous real-time fMRI and EEG neurofeedback. NeuroImage, 85, 985-995.

View publication stats