Organizational cognitive neuroscience: A step ahead in understanding counterproductive workplace behavior
Abstract
This paper discusses the dawn of cognitive neuroscience in management and organizational research. The study does that in two tiers: first, it reviews the interdisciplinary field of organizational cognitive neuroscience and second, it analyzes the role organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) could play in reducing counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB). Theoretically the literature has established the benefits of a neuro-scientific approach towards understanding various organizational behaviors but no research has been done on using organizational neuroscience techniques to study counterproductive work behaviors. This paper however has taken the first step towards this research avenue. The study will shed light on this interdisciplinary field of organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) and the benefits that organizations can reap from it with respect to understanding employee behavior. A research agenda for future studies is provided to scholars who are interested in advancing the investigation of cognition in counterproductive work behaviors, also by using neuroscience techniques. The study concludes by providing evidences drawn from the literature in favor of adopting an OCN approach in organizations.
References
Bear MF, Connors BW, Paradiso MA. Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain, 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers; 2007.
Dayan P, Abbott LF. Theoretical Neuroscience. The MIT Press; 2001.
Jeannerod M. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Action. Blackwell Publishing; 1997.
Neşe S. The impact of organizational neuroscience and self-determination theory on neuro-leadership theory. Istanbul Management Journal 2023; (94): 65–72. doi: 10.26650/imj.2023.94.006
Waldman DA, Wang D, Fenters V. The added value of neuroscience methods in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 2019; 22(1): 223–249. doi: 10.1177/1094428116642013
Postle BR. Essentials of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2020.
Butler MJR, O’Broin HLR, Lee N, Senior C. How organizational cognitive neuroscience can deepen understanding of managerial decision-making: A review of the recent literature and future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews 2015; 18(4): 1–18. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12071
Ochsner KN, Lieberman MD. The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist 2001; 56(9): 717–734. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.9.717
Carpenter NC, Whitman DS, Amrhein R. Unit-level counterproductive work behavior (CWB): A conceptual review and quantitative summary. Journal of Management 2021; 47(6): 1498–1527. doi: 10.1177/0149206320978812
Spector PE, Fox S, Penney LM, et al. The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior 2006; 68(3): 446–460. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Griffin RW, O’Leary-Kelly A, Collins J. Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In: Cooper CL, Rousseau DM (editors). Trends in Organizational Behavior. Wiley; 1998. Volume 5, pp. 65–82.
Balthazard PA, Thatcher RW. Neuroimaging modalities and brain technologies in the context of organizational neuroscience. In: Organizational Neuroscience. Emerald Publishing; 2015. Volume 7, pp. 83–113.
Ashkanasy NM, Becker WJ, Waldman D. Neuroscience and organizational behavior: Avoiding both neuro-euphoria and neuro-phobia. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2014; 35(7): 909–919. doi: 10.1002/job.1952
Waldman DA, Ward MK, Becker WJ. Neuroscience in organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2016; 4: 425–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113316
Cristofaro M, Giardino PL, Malizia AP, Mastrogiorgio A. Affect and cognition in managerial decision making: A systematic literature review of neuroscience evidence. Frontiers in Psychology 2022; 13: 762993. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.762993
Mangione TW, Quinn RP. Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 1975; 60(1): 114–116. doi: 10.1037/h0076355
Penney LM, Spector PE. Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2002; 10(1–2): 126–134. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00199
Spector PE, Fox S. The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In: Fox S, Spector PE (editors). Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets. American Psychological Association; 2005.
Passarelli AM. Organizational neuroscience. In: Oxford Bibliographies in Management. Oxford University Press; 2015.
Becker WJ, Cropanzano R, Sanfey AG. Organizational neuroscience: Taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of Management 2011; 37(4): 933–961. doi: 10.1177/0149206311398955
Lee N, Senior C, Butler MJR. The domain of organizational cognitive neuroscience: Theoretical and empirical challenges. Journal of Management 2012; 38(4): 921–931. doi: 10.1177/0149206312439471
Miller GA, Gazzaniga MS. The cognitive sciences. In: Gazzaniga MS (editor). Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience. Springer; 1984. pp. 3–11.
Senior C, Lee N, Butler M. Perspective—Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organization Science 2011; 22(3): 804–815. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0532
Niven K, Boorman L. Assumptions beyond the science: Encouraging cautious conclusions about functional magnetic resonance imaging research on organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2016; 37(8): 1150–1177. doi: 10.1002/job.2097
Lindebaum D, Raftopoulou E. What would John Stuart Mill say? A utilitarian perspective on contemporary neuroscience debates in leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 2017; 144: 813–822. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2247-z
Becker WJ, Cropanzano R. Organizational neuroscience: The promise and prospects of an emerging discipline. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2021; 31(7): 1055–1059. doi: 10.1002/job.668
Fatfouta R, Schwarzinger D. A toxic mix: Explicit and implicit narcissism and counterproductive work behavior. Applied Psychology 2023. doi: 10.1111/apps.12482
Carpenter NC, Newman DA, Arthur Jr W. What are we measuring? Evaluations of items measuring task performance, organizational citizenship, counterproductive, and withdrawal behaviors. Human Performance 2021; 34(4): 316–349. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2021.1956928
Ahmed W, Kiyani AA, Hashmi SH. The study on organizational cynicism, organizational injustice & breach of psychological contract as the determinants of deviant work behavior. Actual Problems of Economics 2013; 140(2): 145–154.
Gruys ML, Sackett PR. Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2003; 11(1): 30–42. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Vroom VH. Work and motivation. Wiley; 1964.
Skinner BF. The experimental analysis of behavior. American Scientist 1957; 45(4): 343–371.
Bandura A, Walters RH. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall; 1977.
Martinko MJ, Gundlach MJ, Douglas SC. Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2003; 10(1–2): 36–50. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00192
Folger R, Skarlicki DP. A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. In: Griffin RW, O’Leary-Kelly A, Collins JM (editors). Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior. Elsevier Science/JAI Press; 1998. pp. 43–81.
Greenberg J. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology 1990; 75(5): 561. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561
Dalton DR, Wimbush JC. Absence does not make the heart grow fonder. Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations 1998; 23: 127–146.
Johns G. How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology 1994; 79(4): 574–591. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.574
Robinson SL, Bennett RJ. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Management Journal 1995; 38(2): 555–572. doi: 10.5465/256693
Hollinger RC. Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior 1986; 7(1): 53–75. doi: 10.1080/01639625.1986.9967695
Koslowsky M. A new perspective on employee lateness. Applied Psychology 2001; 49(3): 390–407. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00022
Ashkanasy NM. Neuroscience and leadership: Take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Journal of Management Inquiry 2013; 22(3): 311–313. doi: 10.1177/1056492613478519
Chen PY, Spector PE. Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 1992; 65(3): 177–184. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00495.x
Ambrose ML, Seabright MA, Schminke M. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2002; 89(1): 947–965. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00037-7
Geen RG. Aggression and antisocial behavior. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (editors). The Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 317–356.
Berkowitz L. Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain, and negative affect. In: Geen RG, Donnerstein E (editors). Human Aggression: Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy. Academic Press; 1998.
Fox S, Spector PE. A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior 1999; 20(6): 915–931. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6<915::AID-JOB918>3.0.CO;2-6
Fox S, Spector PE, Miles D. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2001; 59(3): 291–309. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Keashly L, Harvey S. Emotional abuse in the workplace. In: Fox S, Spector PE (editors). Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets. American Psychological Association; 2005. pp. 201–235.
Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, et al. (editors). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice. CRC Press; 2011.
Perugini M. Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology; 2005; 44(1): 29–45. doi: 10.1348/014466604X23491
Goleman D. The socially intelligent. Educational Leadership 2006. 64(1): 76–81.
Bickle J. Reducing mind to molecular pathways: Explicating the reductionism implicit in current cellular and molecular neuroscience. Synthese 2006; 151(3): 411–434. doi: 10.1007/s11229-006-9015-2
Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J. fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2005; 6(2): 159–164. doi: 10.1038/nrn1609
Kaiser DA, Othmer S. Effect of neurofeedback on variables of attention in a large multi-center trial. Journal of Neurotherapy 2000; 4(1): 5–15. doi: 10.1300/J184v04n01_02
Brief AP. Attitudes in and around Organizations. SAGE; 1998.
Akinola M. Measuring the pulse of an organization: Integrating physiological measures onto the organizational scholar’s toolbox. Research in Organizational Behavior 2010; 30: 203–223. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.003
Barsade SG, Ramarajan L, Westen D. Implicit affect in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 2009; 29: 135–162. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.008
Connolly T, Arkes HR, Hammond KR. Judgement and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 301–303.
Dane E, Pratt MG. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review 2007; 32(1): 33–54. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.23463682
Copyright (c) 2023 Marium Arslan Zuberi, Amir Mahmood, Nasir Mahmood Qureshi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to this journal agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear. With this license, the authors hold the copyright without restrictions and are allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions as long as this journal is the original publisher of the articles.
