Handbook of Your Brain in Business: 1. Introduction 1.4 What Neuroleadership Practitioners Get Wrong
Handbook of the Brain in Business
Introduction
What Neuroleadership Practitioners Get Wrong
Previous: Neurobollocks
Neuroleadership was first coined by David Rock and Jeffrey Swartz in their article The Neuroscience of Leadership in the journal Strategy + Business [1]. This was predated by an earlier article in the Harvard Business Review by Bennis and O'Toole [2] that proposed enhancing leadership practices leveraging brain science.
It was thought at the time that this could be the next big thing. This was shortly after Emotional Intelligence had done its first rounds and it looked like this was an approach that could tap into the collective imagination combined with the seductiveness of neuroscience I have already spoken about.
I first got involved in neuroleadership in 2008 and indeed there was a certain energy that seemed to support neuroleadership becoming a big thing. But it never did.
Why not?
There are multiple reasons:
Big data became the next big thing – and very relevant to business
Hard to see relevance
Complexity of some of the topics
Lack of coherent models
Some of the above are based on market dynamics i.e. the rise of big data and digitalisation which took over as the key leadership and business topics for a while. Quite understandably as these became strategic business focal points and also backed by governments keen to digitalise themselves and businesses to remain competitive.
However, some of the issues are self-inflicted and I argue that most neuroleadership practitioners are not really neuroleadership practitioners. This is for a number of reasons each with their own impact. Here in no particular order:
Psychology and Behavioural Science vs. Neuroscience
Psychological research has been the default mode for leadership studies. For example, when we talk about stress, fear, and anxiety these are psychological constructs that have underlying neurological foundations. However, many neuroleadership practitioners fail to make the clear distinction between what is behavioural i.e. what people do, what is psychological i.e. what is our internal model and experience, and what the underlying neuroscience is.
This may not be a bad thing - there is plenty of fascinating, and very relevant work done in the psychological field. The same goes for the behavioural aspects and the rise of behavioural psychology. Many neuroleadership practitioners are fascinated by human behaviour – as I am. However, there does need to be clarity in what is a neuroscientific concept and what is a psychological concept.
I have already explained how these can fit together in the introduction.
Mindfulness vs. Neuroleadership
Research into meditation and neuroscience started picking up in the mid noughties and there was a wave of mindfulness and meditation practices that also became popular in general life but also in the business world.
Meditation has a bunch of evidence to suggest that it is beneficial - however, not always as good as what is proposed by many proponents [3], [4]. Meditation is a single point of intervention that can prove to be effective but in some practitioners’ minds this was the only point of intervention – and because of the focus on the human mind this became confused with neuroleadership. This was also in no short measure due to David Rock’s focus on “Quiet Leadership” [5].
The problem with that is that there are many interventions that can be incredibly beneficial - I will speak later of the incredible benefits of a good night’s sleep on the brain, or the benefits of diet and your gut microbiome. Each of these can be beneficial to us human beings but this doesn’t make them the single only intervention or the most suitable intervention.
On top of that comes the problem of defining mindfulness and the various forms of meditation – meditation and mindfulness comes in many shapes and flavours. But that is not the core problem, the core issue is that this is not neuroleadership, but neuroleadership can explain why meditation may be a very useful thing to do for some people.
Not being clear what leadership is
The next issue with neuroleadership - but this also applies to some other leadership theories is no being clear what leadership is. Leadership is a big topic and can mean many different things to different people. Failing to actually clarify what leadership is, is therefore a key problem.
This leads to different proponents having different opinions on what good leadership is and/or a focus on different aspects such as the aforementioned Quiet Leadership by David Rock which may help highly emotional people become more effective leaders, but may not help laidback people like myself.
In my recent work I have given a clear description of leadership: “getting things done through people” but also clarified different levels of leadership.
People leader – leading small or larger teams (often first level but not necessarily)
Leader of Team Leaders (people leaders) – in larger organisations this normally involves leading a department
Leader of Leaders – in a larger organisation, leading a business unit
And Leading an Organisation - having full responsibility for a variety of functions
Each of these requires different skills and forms of leadership – I will clarify each of these within this Handbook - indeed this is how the leadership section of this Handbook is organised.
Similarly different forms of leadership have often been ignored or considered bad - consider being authoritarian which may not always be recommended but can have its places in certain contexts.
Many proponents of neuroleadership also have not had the respective leadership experience in business and so have not been taken seriously.
Being clear on leadership and its forms can then lead to clearer and better guidance especially by combining neuroscience, psychological, and organisational science and research.
Having Suitable Models
Any theory particularly in leadership will need to have some guiding principles or clear underlying models and frameworks to draw on. Neuroleadership lacks these. It as a field is a hodgepodge of ideas and concepts because each author brings their own models to the table. These may be suitable for certain contexts but may lack general applicability.
Rarely do neuroleadership authors give coherent models that can be used in business but rather gives a series of explanations or descriptions of behaviour based on the underlying brain science and /or psychology. This is all good and fine but may lack general or broad applicability in business context.
Another important point is that if there are no coherent models that neuroleadership may therefore lack applicability to leaders and organisations.
Within this there is also a challenge – the most popular theories have a simple premise but also are applicable. Think of concepts such as servant leadership or emotional intelligence which have basic simple premises and simplistic approaches making them accessible but also enough depth to engage individuals into them.
Neuroleadership can ironically explain just why these approaches may be successful or useful but fails to capture the imagination.
Therefore, neuroleadership needs to have models that are coherent but simple enough to grasp and have enough depth to warrant usefulness. Admittedly this is no easy task.
No Framework
Few business theories or leadership concepts give a full framework or approach. This is sorely missing in my mind. The reason is that many leadership theories therefore become ideological constructs and only applicable under certain circumstances or simply become one tool in a toolbox.
I have actually spent a lot of time considering an overriding framework - this therefore enables a clearer look at the challenges and interventions that will be needed. For example, I have already spoken of leadership levels and that functions at one dimensions of the framework, but the leadership context is also another dimension. A context could be leading through crises, innovation, or disagreement. This handbook will present a clear framework and cover all aspects of leadership and how neuroleadership can guide to more effective interventions.
This all leads to a fragmented field with no clear direction – in the neuroleadership field there are many good ideas, concepts, and research but this is applied haphazardly and often in unsuitable or oversimplified ways by practitioners. Many practitioners mix up concepts and fail to apply a consistent framework or approach.
I will aim to tie these up together in this Handbook into a more coherent picture of neuroleadership within a clear framework, with useful models, tools, and approaches.
Next up: The High-Performing Brain... and Body
References
[1] D. Rock and J. Schwartz, “The Neuroscience of Leadership,” no. 43, 2006.
[2] W. G. Bennis and J. O’Toole, “How business schools lost their way,” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 83, no. 5, 2005.
[3] M. Farias, E. Maraldi, K. C. Wallenkampf, and G. Lucchetti, “Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: a systematic review,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, vol. 142, no. 5. 2020.
[4] N. T. Van Dam et al., “Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation,” Perspect. Psychol. Sci., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 36–61, 2017.
[5] D. Rock, Quiet Leadership: Six Steps to Transforming Performance at Work. New York: Harper Collins, 2006.