article leadership and neuroscience

A R T I C L E S

Leadership and Neuroscience:Can We Revolutionize the Way That Inspirational Leaders Are Identified and

Developed?by David A. Waldman, Pierre A. Balthazard, and Suzanne J. Peterson

Executive OverviewRecent advances in the field of neuroscience can significantly add to our understanding of leadership andits development. Specifically, we are interested in what neuroscience can tell us about inspirationalleadership. Based on our findings, we discuss how future research in leadership can be combined withneuroscience, as well as potential neurofeedback interventions for the purpose of leadership development.We also consider ethical implications and applications to management-related areas beyond leadership.

Leadership development is a multibillion-dollarindustry, with in-house as well as external con-sulting groups offering leadership development

techniques and programs for their clients. Theefficacy of traditional leadership developmentmethods, however, has recently been called intoquestion (Haines, 2009), with many researchersrecognizing the need to go beyond traditionalleadership assessment methods, which typicallyinvolve evaluating leader behaviors and qualitiesthrough some sort of survey process throughwhich followers or peers rate a leader’s effective-ness. In particular, recent advances in neuro-science are expanding our understanding of be-havior and learning (Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize,2006). Specifically, we are interested in what in-sights the study of the human brain and the fieldof neuroscience may hold for understanding effec-

tive leadership, its assessment, and its develop-ment.

While there are many branches of neuro-science, the specific area of social cognitive neu-roscience may have the most applicability to thestudy of leadership. Ochsner and Lieberman(2001) defined social cognitive neuroscience as anemergent, interdisciplinary field that seeks to un-derstand human interactions at the intersection ofsocial, cognitive, and neural spheres of science.Recent advances in this area offer evidence of howthe human brain might support leaders in manyaspects of cognition and behavior. For instance,Adolphs (2009) proposed a neural basis for theconstruction of social knowledge, in particular themanner in which social inferences about the feel-ings, thoughts, and intentions of others areformed. Similarly, Tabibnia, Satpute, and Lieber-

* David A. Waldman ([email protected]) is a Professor in the Department of Management at the W. P. Carey School of Business, ArizonaState University.Pierre A. Balthazard ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Systems at the W. P. CareySchool of Business, Arizona State University.Suzanne J. Peterson ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at the W. P. Carey Schoolof Business, Arizona State University.

60 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express writtenpermission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only.

man (2008) examined brain activity in relation toperceptions of fairness versus unfairness.

Here, we have chosen to focus on the neuro-logical basis of inspirational leadership behavior, atype of behavior that is emphasized in many oftoday’s contemporary leadership theories, such astransformational, charismatic, and visionary para-digms. Our goal is to explore two key questions.First, can we use neuroscientific methodologies toidentify those people in leadership positions whoare likely to engage in behaviors associated withinspirational leadership? Second, armed with thisinformation, can we consider neurologicallybased, developmental interventions to enhancebehaviors associated with inspirational leadership?

In the remainder of this article, we attempt toaddress these questions. We begin by defininginspirational leadership. Next, we outline threekey challenges (and potential solutions) to theintegration of neuroscience with managementphenomena such as inspirational leadership.These include (1) problems in attempting to buildtheory that would conceptually link brain activityto leadership behavior, (2) the use of expedientand effective technologies to pursue basic researchthat could link neuroscience to leadership, and(3) a lack of knowledge or technology for how toapply neurological findings to leadership develop-ment. As we present these challenges, we will alsosummarize findings from a recent study that weconducted to demonstrate how neurosciencemight be used in leadership research.

What Is Inspirational Leadership?

Over the past 30 years, there has been an in-creasing interest in a genre of leadership the-ories collectively labeled as neo-charismatic

by House and Aditya (1997). Despite a few dif-ferences, the various theories share the view thatoutstanding leaders go beyond simple perfor-mance-versus-reward transactions and have adeep impact on their followers and their organi-zations, including the potential to be a major forcein realizing new visions and change. Various labelshave been used to describe such leaders, includingtransformational and visionary. However, inspira-tion rests at the core of what these theories pro-pose in terms of consummate excellence in the

leadership role (see Bass & Bass, 2009, for a re-view).

Notwithstanding our focus on inspirationalleadership, it is important to acknowledge thatother, more functional definitions of leadership doexist. For example, in her book Bad Leadership,Barbara Kellerman (2004) suggested that “good”leadership is less about the ability of leaders toinspire followers and more about mutual leaderand follower responsibility. Specifically, she sug-gested that effective leaders should emphasizeshared power with followers and supportive net-works, and should surround themselves with peo-ple who tell them the truth. Despite this and otheralternative perspectives on leadership, here wefocus on inspirational leadership since it rests atthe center of the most widely studied forms ofeffective leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Inspirational leaders articulate a vision that isbased on strongly held ideological values thatcause people to become energized and to identifywith the vision (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998;Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). The ability toinspire is considered fundamental to establishing ahigh degree of follower confidence, intrinsic mo-tivation, and trust and admiration in the leader(Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993).Moreover, research has consistently found thatinspirational leadership is positively related toperformance at the individual, group, and organi-zational levels (Flynn & Staw, 2004, Judge &Piccolo, 2004; Sully de Luque, Washburn, Wald-man, & House, 2008).

According to leadership theorists, inspira-tional leaders are able to have these effects onfollowers and organizations as a whole primarilybecause of their visionary communication abil-ities (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir etal., 1993). However, the type of vision put forthby leaders makes a difference in their ability tomotivate and connect with followers. More spe-cifically, vision can be delineated in terms of asocialized versus personalized continuum. So-cialized vision is characterized by such elementsas altruism and social responsibility, the inclu-sion of empowered followers as a necessary com-ponent to organizational success, and a focus onserving the interests and goals of the greater

2011 61Waldman, Balthazard, and Peterson

collective (House & Howell, 1992). In short,socialized vision leads to outcomes and pro-cesses that benefit followers as well as outsidestakeholders such as the larger community oreven nation in which a firm resides. Leadershiptheorists have tended to view socialized visionas prototypical of the type of visionary commu-nication that will inspire followers (e.g., Shamiret al., 1993). In contrast, personalized vision islargely narcissistic in nature (e.g., Chatterjee &Hambrick, 2007) and is characterized by self-interest, an over-emphasis on the leader (ratherthan others) in achieving organizational out-comes, and an obsession with authority andachieving dominance over competition (House& Howell, 1992). Such vision may be inspiringonly to followers with low self-concepts (How-ell & Shamir, 2005).

From this review of inspirational leadership, wenow turn to the question of whether brain activitycan be linked to leadership—and, more specifi-cally, to inspirational leadership.

Can LeadershipBe LinkedConceptually toBrainActivity?

Akey challenge for researchers is to attempt tomake theoretical connections between brainactivity and overt leadership behavior and

qualities. Without such theory, research endeav-ors might simply involve searches for relationshipsbetween vaguely conceived neurological variableson the one hand (see Vul, Harris, Winkielman, &Pashler, 2009), and traditional, psychometricallybased measures of leadership on the other. Morethan 30 years ago, Henry Mintzberg (1976) ad-dressed this challenge when he suggested that leftbrain/right brain differences may be relevant tomanagement and leadership. Specifically, he ar-gued that managers may differ in relative strengthor dominance with regard to the two hemispheresof the brain. As later summarized by Finkelsteinand Hambrick (1996), managers with dominantleft hemispheres (i.e., in which the focus is largelylogic and rational thinking) may make good plan-ners. In contrast, they suggested that managerswith dominant right hemispheres (i.e., in whichthe focus is largely imagination, creativity, visual

imagery, and emotional response) may make goodmanagers or leaders. While some researchers (e.g.,Hines, 1987) were critical of what was termed the“left brain/right brain mythology,” advancementsin neuroscience theories, methodologies, andfindings over the last decade have led to a re-newed interest in, and exploration of, brain later-alization theories. In particular, a neuroscientificconstruct known as “coherence” has facilitatedthe study of the origin of complex behaviors asso-ciated with leadership.

Neuronal Coherenceand Inspirational Leadership

While a number of indicators exist to interpretbrain activity, coherence is one of the morecommonly applied metrics in social cognitiveneuroscience research. Coherence is a way ofmeasuring the interconnectedness of areas ofthe brain. More simply, coherence is a way oftracking coordinated activity or communicationbetween various areas of the brain. This makescoherence ideally suited for the examination ofcomplex behavioral concepts such as inspira-tional leadership behavior, which are likely torequire multiple parts of the brain (e.g., emo-tional and cognitive centers) to act jointly (Ca-cioppo, Berntson, & Nusbaum, 2008; Nolte,2002). Coherence is typically reported in theform of a percentage; for example, 90% coher-ence would indicate relatively high coherence(i.e., a high degree of coordinated activity be-tween two parts of the brain), while 10% co-herence would indicate relatively low coher-ence (i.e., less coordinated activity between twoparts of the brain).

Furthermore, coherence levels may indicatedifferent behavioral phenomena for different lo-cations in the brain. For example, the presence ofhigh coherence in the right hemisphere couldsuggest greater emotional balance and under-standing through integration in the processes thatmanage emotional thought, including an under-standing of one’s own emotions as well as theemotions of others (Thatcher, Krause, & Hrybyk,1986; Thatcher, North, & Biver, 2007). It mightalso reflect a greater cognitive understanding of


the larger picture when reasoning and makingdecisions (Thatcher et al., 2007).1

Regarding the former, various authors havestressed the importance of the affective or emo-tional component of visionary communication,which makes a direct appeal to the personal val-ues, beliefs, and needs of followers and attempts toget them excited and optimistic about the future(e.g., Boal & Hooijberg, 2001; Shamir et al.,1993). As such, the affective component underliesthe leader’s ability to generate the motivation andcommitment necessary for followers to carry outthe vision. Indeed, emotions are important interms of the emotions leaders themselves experi-ence and share, as well as the emotions followersexperience toward the leader and his or her vision(Barsade & Gibson, 2007; George, 2000). Effec-tive leadership involves the regulation of one’sown emotions—for example, expressing a posi-tive, optimistic mood about the future, while min-imizing expressions of anxiety, sadness, or fear thatmight demotivate followers. Furthermore, it in-volves an understanding of and an ability to in-fluence the positive emotions of others throughhope and inspiration, despite the ambiguity, set-backs, or fears that they might otherwise face(Barsade & Gibson, 2007).

The relationship between specific brain activ-ity and emotions may be found through a betterunderstanding of the nature of emotional balance.Using the terminology of emotional intelligence,balance is achieved by promoting the positiveemotions associated with optimism and excite-ment, while keeping more disruptive negativeemotions such as anxiety, selfishness, fear, anger,and sadness in check (Goleman, 1998). As arguedfurther below, leaders who espouse more socializedvisions may be better able to regulate feelings andemotions (i.e., they have greater emotional intel-ligence), which allows them to inspire in others adesire to achieve the goals of the collective (Ash-kanasy & Daus, 2002; Humphrey, 2002).

Various authors have proposed a specific neu-rological basis for emotional intelligence or skills(Ashkanasy, 2003; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,2001). Goleman et al. (2001) noted that emo-tional intelligence has a basis in brain circuitryand further suggested that it derives from howcortical regions of the brain interpret and manageneurotransmitter signals from the brain’s limbicsystem. Morse (2006) suggested that a leader’s useof emotions and reasoning for the purpose of for-mulating and espousing a vision has a basis in thelimbic system. Naqvi, Shiv, and Bechara (2006)further suggested that parts of the brain, such asthe ventromedial prefrontal cortex, may help aperson to balance emotions in decision making,especially in situations in which outcomes areambiguous or uncertain. There is also recent re-search showing that regions of the cortex mayhelp to assess risk and guide behaviors in antici-pation of emotional consequences, including suchnegative consequences as fear and despair (Paulus,Rogalsky, Simmons, Feinstein, & Stein. 2003;Sanfey et al., 2003).

Beyond emphasizing the different hemispheresof the brain (left and right), it seems logical tofocus on the frontal regions of the brain (as op-posed to the distal or posterior regions). This isbecause the front part of the brain may be espe-cially involved in the regulation and expression ofemotions, as well as higher cognitive functioningsuch as goal-directed or visionary behavior (Hag-mann, Cammoun, Gigandet, Meuli, & Honey,2008). For instance, Heisel and Beatty (2006)found the right frontal part of the brain to beessential for effective interpersonal communica-tion and social relationships. Moreover, it hasbeen shown that right frontal dysfunction givesrise to antisocial behavior and an inability tounderstand relationships with other people (i.e.,social skills, mood control, and awareness of self;see Salloway, Malloy, & Duffy, 2001) and difficul-ties balancing emotions in decision making underconditions of uncertainty (Naqvi et al., 2006). Insum, the social/emotional skills or abilities associ-ated with right frontal activity might also berelevant to behaviors involved in inspirationalleadership, especially the espousal of socializedvisionary communication. In addition, in line

1 We should note that the ideal level of EEG coherence varies by thefunction of the particular brain network or region. Indeed, some brainfunctions may be improved with integration (i.e., more coherence), whileothers may be improved with differentiation (i.e., less coherence). In thecurrent research, we posited a region in the brain in which more coherencewould be associated with leader behavior.


with the assessment of neuronal coherence, recentwork would suggest that emotional regulation in-volves multiple regions of the brain working inconjunction (Cacioppo et al., 2008). Thus, ourprimary focus in this research is on right-braincoherence, especially in the frontal regions(Thatcher et al., 1986; 2007).

Visions that are socially based inherently in-volve the effective working through of potentialtrade-offs pertaining to a wide range of possiblestakeholder groups, including employees, custom-ers, and the greater community in which the or-ganization exists. In line with our above argu-ments, we posit that individuals with enhancedright frontal coherence may be able to both con-ceptualize the balancing of concerns of multipleconstituent groups in the formation of a moresocialized vision and deal with potential emo-tional strains, moral issues, and uncertainties.They may further recognize that the positive emo-tions of others can be enhanced through visionsthat emphasize more socialized, as opposed to per-sonalized, content (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman,2007).

In sum, it is possible that not only will rightfrontal activity be heightened for inspirationalleaders, but we may also witness greater coherencebetween areas in this portion of the brain. Asdescribed below, we tested this prediction throughthe use of a direct assessment of socialized vision-ary communication, as well as a more indirectassessment through followers’ ratings of inspira-tional/charismatic leadership.

TheAdvancementofNeuroscienceMethodologies

Achallenge for the examination of neuroscienceand leadership is how to technologically ex-amine the topic. The technology associated

with neurological assessment and research has ad-vanced greatly in recent years. A number of tech-niques are now available to investigate brain ac-tivity that may be relevant to effective leadershipbehavior. For research purposes, two of the morepopular ones are functional magnetic resonanceimaging (fMRI) and quantitative electroencepha-logram (qEEG). These techniques vary in terms of

their precision and exact capabilities, but never-theless represent a large improvement over pasttechniques in their ability to detect and quantifykey aspects of brain activity.

For our research program, we have chosen touse qEEG, which employs advanced signal pro-cessing techniques to infer data about the brainthrough the scalp and skull (Niedermeyer & Silva,1995). The data produced by qEEG can be readilyused in conjunction with statistical analysis pro-grams. In addition, qEEG is relatively inexpen-sive, portable, and non-invasive, and its use in-volves no health risk. Unlike fMRI and othermethods that require people to remain immobi-lized in an unnatural setting (that is, in a clinicalsetting within a confined tube), qEEG assessmentcan be completed while people are comfortablyseated and engaged in everyday tasks—includingconversations associated with the type of visioncommunication task described below.

Two basic measurements are commonly used toanalyze a qEEG recording: (1) the amplitude, orthe size of the electrical waves, and (2) the fre-quency, or the number of waves per second. Am-plitude and frequency of brain waves can be as-sessed with regard to five bandwidths and rangefrom low arousal (sleeping) to high arousal (ex-treme alertness). From lowest to highest arousallevels, these bandwidths are known as delta, theta,alpha, beta, and gamma rhythms. In the currentresearch, we were interested in examining brainactivity in the beta rhythm because beta waves arethe most prevalent in the alert brain. In addition,beta waves are involved with affective and cogni-tive processes, selective attention, concentration,and anticipation (Classen, Gerloff, Honda, &Hallet, 1998). More will be said below regardingour use of beta waves and coherence in our studyof the relationship between neurological function-ing and inspirational leadership.

AStudyofBusiness Executives

As an illustration, we now describe a specificresearch project that we conducted in ourattempt to link qEEG assessment with inspi-

rational leadership. We collected qEEG data,coded visionary communication statements, andrated leadership data from a diverse sample of 50


individuals who held leadership positions in alarge metropolitan area located in the westernUnited States. While this sample is somewhatsmall, it is fairly unique in that it provides lead-ership and neurological data for individuals whoare at the upper echelons of their organizations, asopposed to samples that might include students orlower level supervisors or employees. The sampleincluded an eclectic mix of people in business andcommunity leadership roles, such as physicians,lawyers, deans, politicians, developers, companyexecutives, entrepreneurs, and community activ-ists. To illustrate the senior level of these individ-uals in their respective organizations, the modalsalary reported was “$125,001 plus,” and 90% ofparticipants self-reported themselves as a seniorexecutive, professional, owner, or self-employed/entrepreneur. The median number of direct andindirect reports was reported as 25 to 99 individ-uals, although half of our sample led organizationswith significantly larger workforces.

qEEG Assessment of Coherence. As men-tioned above, coherence is a measure of coordi-nated activity between multiple parts of the brainand is calculated as a percentage; 0% representslow coordinated activity and 100% representshigh levels of coordination. Coherence measureswere generated using NeuroGuide™ software.2

The software examines electrical data collectedfrom 19 electrodes placed on a participant’s scalp,and reports (as coherence values) the pairwisecomparison of the activity patterns from the 171possible combinations of the electrode locations.We focused on the three electrodes that are lo-cated on the right frontal regions of the brain,known as Fp2, F4, and F8.3 Thus, our right frontalbrain coherence index was derived by averagingthe coherence scores obtained from the three elec-trode combinations in this region. Further, asmentioned earlier, we examined coherence asso-ciated with the high-frequency beta rhythm(20–30 Hz) because of its association with analert/active mental state.

Vision Statements. While participants wereundergoing qEEG assessment, we asked them toengage in a vision task—an activity that is com-mon to conceptualizations of inspirational leader-ship behavior. Participants were asked two ques-tions about the future of their organizations, andresponses were recorded and transcribed: (1) “Canyou please describe your current plans for yourorganization, as well as plans for the future?” and(2) “As you look toward the future, can you for-mulate a vision statement for your firm?”

The vision statements of the participants werecoded by two trained coders on a scale of 1 to 3.Vision statements that scored 1 tended to fall intothe personalized vision category. This style can becharacterized by use of singular pronouns (e.g., Iand me); a focus on dominance, exploiting others,beating the competition, and financial results; anda refusal to acknowledge the roles of the team,employees, or other constituents/stakeholders. Ex-amples of personalized statements were “My visionis to be the number-one supplier of essential officeproducts and services, regardless of what thatproduct line is within the markets that I service”and “I look at my accomplishments or what am Iplanning . . .”

In contrast, statements that scored a 3 wereconsidered to be examples of a more socializedvision. These visions were focused on the collec-tive we, empowerment, values, the necessary roleof the team in the organization’s future success, adesire for all levels of the organization to benefitfrom the outcomes, and positive contributions toemployees, customers, the community, and theenvironment. The following excerpts were illus-trative of such statements: “To also provide anenvironment at work that is fun, rewarding, ful-filling, and with opportunities to grow and expandfor our associates, and also to be a player in thecommunity” and “We will operate within an um-brella of a vibrant and productive environmentthat promotes the best possible working condi-tions for our workforce, and to give them the bestpossible development opportunities.” Statementscoded as 2 were somewhat mixed, with both per-sonalized and socialized elements.

Traditional-Rated Leadership Assessment. Per-ceptions of inspirational leadership were obtained

2 NeuroGuide™ is a product of Applied Neuroscience, Inc., of Tampa,Florida, and is widely used by therapists in clinical settings.

3 The 19 scalp locations, including the right frontal areas Fp2, F4, andF8, are based on the International 10/20 system of electrode placement thatwas originally developed by Jasper (1958).


via surveys from three to six direct reports of eachparticipant in the days or weeks following his or herqEEG assessment. In line with prior work (Avolio,Bass, & Jung, 1999), these perceptions were assessedusing the idealized influence and inspirational mo-tivation scales from the short form of the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990).While much research has labeled these perceptionssimply as charismatic leadership, in line with ourearlier definition we believe that they tap heavilyinto the inspirational component of charisma. Ac-cordingly, we provide the label “inspirational/char-ismatic leadership.” As is commonly the case in priorresearch (cf. Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck,& Sivasubramaniam, 1996), we summed the scoresof these scales across respective followers to form anoverall measure of inspirational/charismatic leader-ship for each study participant (� � .91, 8 items).

Summaryof StudyFindings

The values for coherence varied from 3% to 71%,with a sample average of 23.7%. These valuesrepresent differences across the participants in thisstudy in terms of the degree of neural connectivityin the right frontal portions of their brains. Morespecifically, we found three key results relevant tocoherence in the right frontal portion of the brain.First, as predicted, right frontal coherence wasassociated with participants who were coded ashigh on socialized visionary communication (r �.36, p � .05).4 Second, socialized vision was cor-related with follower perceptions of inspirational/charismatic leadership (r � .39, p � .01). Third,right frontal coherence was only marginally asso-ciated with follower perceptions of inspirational/charismatic leadership (r � .26, p � .10). In short,these findings suggest that right frontal coherencemay help to form the basis of socialized visionarycommunication, which in turn helps to build fol-lower perceptions of the leader in inspirational orcharismatic terms. That is, right frontal coherence

(i.e., our neurological indicator) was morestrongly related to our direct coding of socializedvisionary behavior, rather than the more indirector generalized behavioral measure involving per-ceptions of inspirational/charismatic leadershipon the part of followers. To further illustrate ourfindings, we identified two illustrative case exam-ples from our participant sample.

CaseExamples

Figure 1 shows a grayscale translation of a coloredspectral analysis associated with more versus lesscoherence in the right frontal region, specificallyfor the three areas mentioned earlier: Fp2, F4, andF8. Dark regions with plus (�) signs representareas with high degrees of coherence (75% orhigher), while dark regions with minus (-) signsrepresent areas with low coherence (25% orlower). In general, as described further below,Leader #1 displays more coherence emanatingfrom each of the three right frontal regions. Co-herence is especially concentrated within thosethree regions for this individual, as compared toLeader #2.

Leader #1 is a 52-year-old leader of a privatenon-profit, community-based corporation thatprovides health and human services to Hispaniccommunities. This individual earned a master’sdegree in educational leadership. Based on evalu-ations by followers, Leader #1 rated very high oninspirational/charismatic leadership. In addition,in response to the vision task, this individualdemonstrated a highly socialized vision, as illus-trated by the following statements: “Our goal is tocreate a good environment for this communityand to give back to the community, which hasbeen nurturing our company all these years, tomake it a profit-sharing endeavor,” “we hope thatthe community can benefit more from our prod-ucts,” and “we hope to be able to add more work-ers so that we will reduce the amount of unem-ployment in this area.” Thus, this leader seemed todisplay a vision that was both positive and sociallyresponsible. Furthermore, this individual tendedto have a great deal of thought and reasoningbehind the ideas put forth. In short, leader #1appeared to display a socialized vision and, in turn,was viewed largely as inspirational/charismatic by

4 To explore the robustness of our findings we examined the relation-ship between socialized vision communication and coherence in severalother regions in the brain (e.g., left frontal coherence). The purpose ofthese analyses was to eliminate the possibility that coherence in general(i.e., in any region of the brain) might be related to socialized visioncommunication. In none of these instances did we find a significantrelationship between coherence and socialized vision communication.


followers. Concomitantly, the qEEG analysis re-vealed high frontal right hemisphere coherence(69%) for this individual.

Leader #2 is a 48-year-old senior executive inan engineering/construction firm. In the housingboom of the early 2000s, leader #2 changed em-ployers several times while simultaneously gaininghigher-level management positions. Despite thisperson’s personal success at navigating the corpo-rate ladder, in response to the vision task, thisindividual offered only a non-socialized or genericview of the future: “to produce good products.”Leader #2 then became frustrated and apologizedfor the (self-perceived) less-than-adequate re-sponses. Overall, crafting the vision seemed to bedifficult and somewhat frustrating, with the codedsocialized vision score ranking very low. Leader #2also produced one of the lowest scores recorded inour research in terms of follower ratings of inspi-

rational/charismatic leadership. Moreover, thisperson’s brain activity presented only limited co-herence (17%) in the right frontal regions, amarked contrast to the patterns seen in leader #1.

Implications forResearchand LeadershipDevelopment

The above discussion demonstrates that neuro-science may provide information relevant tounderlying brain patterns associated with in-

spirational leadership. But what exactly can bedone with such data to further the goals of lead-ership research and leadership development? Asmentioned earlier in the article, leadership re-search over the past several decades has centeredaround constructs that are measured largelythrough psychometric methods (e.g., surveys), andare then correlated with other phenomena (e.g.,

Figure1CaseExamplesof theRight Front Coherenceof Leaders

Note: Grayscale translation of a color spectral analysis of right front coherence. The gradient shows the levels of beta coherence from the perspectiveof the three right frontal electrode locations, including areas at 0% (indicated by the minus signs), areas at 100% (indicated by plus signs), and areas inbetween. Dark regions with plus (�) signs represent areas with high degrees of coherence (75% or higher) while dark regions with minus (-) signs representareas with low coherence (25% or lower). The numerical values of .69 and .17 represent the summed and averaged coherence scores for the Fp2, F4, andF8 regions for respective leaders.


performance outcomes). Despite honing leader-ship constructs and theory, researchers have typ-ically not been able to account for more than 10%of the variance in outcomes (Bass & Bass, 2009).

Neuroscience techniques and theories presentthe potential for important breakthroughs. Thus,we agree with Lieberman (2007, p. 279), whosuggested that social cognitive neuroscience “cancontribute to the development of new theoriesand the enrichment of existing theories withinthe social sciences, demonstrating that social cog-nitive neuroscience can be both a science of newtechniques and a science of new ideas.” Further-more, in line with our work, Cacioppo et al.(2003, p. 653) stated that an understanding of“where and how activity in the brain covaries witha social process, construct, or representations . . .has the potential to inform theory.”

In short, traditional attempts to observe leaderbehavior, clinically or through survey methodol-ogy, can go only so far in terms of our understand-ing of leadership processes and their outcomes.Neuroscience and its associated methodologieshold the potential for a much broader understand-ing of the source of such behavior. For example, acommon theme of theories of effective leadershipis that both cognitive and affective (or emotional)elements come into play. As noted by Phelps(2006), the neural circuitries of cognition andaffect/emotion are intertwined in decision makingand reasoning processes. Through neurosciencemethodology, cognition and emotion can be the-orized and examined simultaneously in order tofully understand the neurological basis of effectiveleadership. That said, however, we also recognizethat effective leadership is a broad concept. Thus,theoretical and empirical attempts to link neuro-logical phenomena to leadership might best belimited to somewhat focused or narrow qualitiesand behaviors. In the research summarized here,we have attempted to link neuronal coherence tosocialized vision, rather than pursuing broaderlinkages to more general characterizations of “ef-fective leadership.”

In sum, we suggest that neuroscience has thepotential to greatly inform theory and assessmentpertaining to leadership and other managerialphenomena (e.g., decision making) described be-

low. By exploring the neurological bases of leaderbehavior, more informed theory may be producedto model leadership processes. Moreover, newtechniques or measures may be developed to moreprecisely assess leadership potential.

CanWeApplyNeurological Findings toLeadershipDevelopment?

The explanation of leadership processes is anarea worthy of research, and as argued above,neuroscience can provide new insights and

techniques to further such goals. But can suchbrain activity research be used to identify anddevelop leaders? If the brain is relatively static interms of its electrical wiring, then our line ofresearch could at most have implications forleader assessment and perhaps selection. For ex-ample, traditional methods of assessing leaders(interviews, assessment centers, and so forth)could be potentially augmented by an examina-tion of neurological profiles. On the other hand, ifthe neural pathways in the brain are malleable,there could be some interesting implications forleadership development. In short, these issuescould shed new light on the age-old question ofwhether leaders are born versus made, and theefficacy of leadership development versus naturalability.

Current thinking in neuroscience would sug-gest that the brain is indeed relatively “plastic” interms of the capability to change the nature ofelectrical brain activity—and thus behavior. Forexample, people with maladies such as attentiondeficit disorder (ADD), depression, sleep disor-ders, anger management issues, and anxiety asso-ciated with phobias now routinely engage in neu-rofeedback therapy activities for the purpose ofcorrecting such problems (Hanslmayer, Sauseng,Doppelmayr, Schabus, & Klimesch, 2005; Monas-tra, 2003; Sterman & Egner, 2006). These thera-pies are based in qEEG research that has identifieddiscriminant functions that delineate neural pat-terns in the normal population (e.g., individualswithout ADD) versus individuals with the malady(e.g., those with ADD). Based on these discrimi-nant functions, neurofeedback training protocolscan be developed that are analogous to playing


video games with one’s brain instead of one’shands. The video game in this instance is designedto provide feedback by rewarding targeted perfor-mance (e.g., providing a soothing sound) and pe-nalizing undesired brain patterns (e.g., providingan unpleasant sound). Accordingly, neurofeed-back represents a form of operant conditioning.Thus, the brain (unconsciously) learns to adapt tothe desired patterns of performance. By repeatingthe process multiple times, the brain learns thedesired pattern in response to a given stimulus,leading toward optimal functioning.

The concept of brain plasticity coupled withemerging techniques associated with neurofeed-back would suggest the third challenge that weaddress in this article: to try to apply findings, suchas the ones described here, to leadership develop-ment. As outlined below, we see two specificpossibilities pertaining to leadership development,one of which can be applied immediately; theother could see applications in the near future. Interms of immediate application, the implicationfor leadership development is relatively clear. Inour work, we have found a small subgroup ofmanagers to have one or more brain profile defi-ciencies. Unfortunately, such conditions can limitan individual from reaching his or her leadershippotential—including being seen as inspiring inthe eyes of followers.

As a case example, one of our participants wasa manager who reported anger management prob-lems. Obviously, someone with such issues mightbe challenged when assuming a leadership role, asemotional equanimity is an important quality. It ishard to imagine that anyone in a leadership posi-tion who “flies off the handle” could be seen asinspirational. With the help of a neurotherapist,we were able to pinpoint the root cause of thebehavior, which as it turns out could be traced toa childhood baseball injury. This injury had af-fected a portion of the brain particularly relevantto an individual’s emotional stability, especiallywith regard to anger issues. Based on knowledgegained through prior qEEG research dealing withthe neurological basis of anger management prob-lems (Fava, 1997; Lubar, Congedo, & Askew,2003; Martens, 2001), with a series of neurofeed-back sessions, the individual was able to rearrange

neuropathways in the affected area, create newpathways with healthy neighboring neurons, andlargely correct the problem. Accordingly, he wasable to set the stage to become a more effectiveleader.

By dealing with the neuronal deficiencies, weare addressing the issue of leadership develop-ment—but only indirectly. That is, we are “clean-ing up” problems that might prevent an individualfrom realizing his or her potential in life, but weare not using neurofeedback to directly developleadership capabilities. To this end, the ultimategoal is to be able to assess leadership potential vianeuroscience technology, and then use neurofeed-back to more directly develop the neurologicalwiring associated with effective leadership behav-iors. For example, it may be possible to “rewire”right frontal pathways to achieve greater coher-ence. In turn, individuals’ potential for effectiveleadership may be enhanced.

Thus, by understanding the neurological basesfor inspirational behavior, we may be better posi-tioned to develop inspirational leaders in a morerealistic and systematic manner. For instance, in-stead of simply putting people through a one-size-fits-all leadership development program, the brainmay give us some insight as to how and whyspecific individuals in leadership roles feel, think,and ultimately learn new behaviors. Armed withthis knowledge, leadership development could bebetter customized to fit the unique neurologicalblueprint of each individual leader. In short, theoverall goal of the type of research described herecould be to identify specific neurological under-pinnings of behaviors associated with inspira-tional leadership, and to then use such knowledgefor development purposes.

While at first glance this may seem far-fetchedor even science fiction, there is some precedentfor using neurofeedback in the workplace. Specif-ically, neurofeedback has been used to help with“peak performance.”5 Business executives as wellas top athletes are using neurofeedback as a“coach” for their minds. It works by helping thebrain to focus and be present in the moment with

5 Refer to Vernon (2005) and Gruzelier, Egner, & Vernon (2006) forevidence of the efficacy of neurofeedback for optimizing performance.


employees, customers, and teammates. Trainingthe brain, much as one might train the body withphysical exercise, allows it to learn to regulateitself and function better. For example, neurofeed-back can help improve one’s ability to regulatecertain bodily reactions, such as responding tostress with less reactivity and intensity. As such,neurofeedback may be useful for those who wantto function to the best of their capabilities.

On the basis of such developments in neuro-feedback technology, we may be able to directlyaddress the neural pathways associated with inspi-rational leadership behaviors. At this point, it isstill too early to predict our potential ability tosuccessfully use this knowledge to develop moreeffective leaders. First, the current research fo-cused on one variable, coherence, in one portionof the brain. It could be that other neurologicalvariables in additional portions of the brain maybe relevant to the display of effective leader be-haviors. That is, using broader data collectionefforts, it may be possible to expand our currentfocus on coherence to a number of other variablesidentified through qEEG analyses. If a normativepattern can be identified in these variables thatdelineates the neurological basis of visionary orinspirational behaviors from less effective behav-iors, there is the possibility of applying neurolog-ical feedback strategies for the purpose of self-development (i.e., training the brain for betterleadership performance). Such techniques couldbe cost-effective and even pursued in the privacyof a leader’s office or home.

Second, we may perhaps find that to achievemaximum results, we will need to join neurofeed-back techniques with other, more traditional,leadership development approaches, such as 360-degree feedback and executive coaching. In otherwords, we do not expect that neurofeedback willreplace these more traditional approaches. Rather,through neurofeedback, a leader may have a stron-ger basis for pursuing the type of behavioralchange suggested through 360-degree feedbackand coaching.

It should be clear that both the research andpractice implications described above requiremore than just lip service with regard to interdis-ciplinary efforts. Indeed, such efforts are abso-

lutely critical. For example, neuroscience, behav-ioral, and management expertise would need to befused to achieve the type of broadened approachto leadership development suggested here. Wesuggest that the key to going down this road is notfor single individuals to develop all of the neces-sary expertise. Rather, the practical solution is toform research or application teams containingthat expertise. Obviously, efforts of this nature canrun counter to traditions, norms, and even orga-nizational structures that may have been focusedon the development and application of knowledgewithin particular specialties (e.g., organizationalbehavior, human resource management, and soforth).

As we move forward, it is also important torecognize the moral and ethical implications ofwork directed toward linking neuroscience andleadership. The forms of leadership investigatedhere represent positive, constructive approachestoward influencing individuals and groups. How-ever, we acknowledge that a darker side existswith regard to leadership in the form of manipu-lation and personalized vision (House & Howell,1992). It is imperative that future efforts to useneurofeedback for the purpose of leadership devel-opment be cognizant of such distinctions, and thatattempts be made to promote only positive uses ofsuch technologies.

FutureResearchDirections

We envision additional research directions be-yond what has been described here. For ex-ample, in line with the vast majority of

existing leadership theory and research, we havefocused on individual leaders who occupy formalhierarchical roles. A broader perspective depictsleadership as a process of positive influence inwhich formal leaders are only a part (Day, 2000).Day, Gronn, and Salas (2004) suggested that theoverall leadership capacity of an entity is a form ofsocial capital that involves the sharedness, distrib-utedness, and connectivity of members of the en-tity. Along related lines, Pearce and Conger(2003) defined shared leadership in terms of adynamic process of mutual influence among peersor individuals at differing hierarchical levels in anorganization. Accordingly, to fully understand


leadership effectiveness, neuroscience assessmentmay need to be applied to multiple members ofgroups or entities.

We also foresee research that goes beyond lead-ership phenomena per se. Three areas pertainingspecifically to decision-making processes are evi-dent. First, neuroeconomics is an emerging trans-disciplinary field that utilizes the measurementtechniques of neuroscience to understand howpeople make economic decisions (Camerer, Loe-wenstein, & Prelec, 2005; Zak, 2007). One par-ticular area of interest to neuroeconomists is howpeople make decisions around trust (e.g., Zak,2007). Despite the large literature that exists onthe importance of trust in organizations (e.g.,Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; McAllister,1995), we know very little about why some peoplechoose to trust, or how they become trustworthy.However, because decisions involving trust havebeen deemed to be largely an unconscious process,neurophysiological measurement during trust ex-periments has allowed researchers to gain insightsinto how people make decisions around trust,even when they themselves are unaware of howthey make such decisions. Organizational trustresearchers may benefit from these findings andmethodologies.

Second, there may be implications in terms ofthe upper echelons perspective (Hambrick & Ma-son, 1984), which views strategic choice as a func-tion of the demographic and psychological com-position of an organization’s top managementteam. Research might address potential neurolog-ical differences between executives who tend topursue bolder or more risky alternatives and thosewho are more conservative or risk-averse in theirdecision making. Relatedly, Ashkanasy (2003, p.15) discussed the neurological basis of the “freez-ing response” or the tendency to “freeze with fear.”Referring to the work of Le Doux (1995), Ashka-nasy (2003) described how the fear response ap-pears to involve linkages between the cortex orthalamus and the limbic areas, specifically theamygdala. For a review of such findings, see Phelps(2006). The point here is that it is possible thatspecific aspects of brain activity may identify stra-tegic decision makers who are risk-averse, in thatsuch individuals are more prone to the freezing

response described by Ashkanasy (2003) whenconsidering potentially bold or risky decisions.

Third, moral judgment is also relevant to deci-sion making. Neuroimaging has established thatlocations in the frontal cortex are involved inmoral judgment and evaluations of fairness, aswell as morally based emotions such as compas-sion, indignation, and guilt (Knabb, Welsh, Zie-bell, & Reimer, 2009). Dysfunction in these loca-tions can result in a variety of moral deficienciesrelevant to decision making, including apathy,impulsiveness, lack of consideration, and inabilityto maintain goal-directed behavior. Greene andcolleagues found that when an individual reasonsthrough a variety of moral dilemmas, a network ofprefrontal areas is activated (Greene, Sommer-ville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001). Theactivation is greater when the moral decision in-volves potential negative consequences for otherpeople. What is not clear at this point is whetherpatterns of brain activity can be identified forthose who tend to make more ethical or moraljudgments and decisions, versus those who do not.

We also believe that it is important to recog-nize the potential contributions of additional syn-ergistic research intersections to illuminate lead-ership and organizational theory. Of particularpromise may be the future integration of neuro-science, genetics, evolutionary psychology, andleadership research. For instance, there is earlyevidence (Lee & Chamberlain, 2007) that genet-ics may influence brain processes, such as theefficiency of the prefrontal cortex and sensitivityof the amygdala, which in turn may affect leader-ship behaviors. Similarly, recent empirical workintegrating behavioral genetics and leadership re-search has concluded, based on samples of twins,that about 30% of the individual differences inleadership role occupancy can be attributed tolatent genetic factors (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson,Zhang, & McGue, 2006; Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, &Kruger, 2007). However, the impact of geneticfactors can be lessened by the leader’s social en-vironment (Zhang, Ilies, & Arvey, 2009).

Further, evolutionary psychology (Pinker,2002) is a field predicated on the notion that thehuman brain has evolved and changed due toenvironmental and social circumstances—and


will continue to do so. It suggests that althoughmuch of the human brain remains fixed by geneticfactors, certain portions may be enhanced or mod-ified over time. For example, the enlargement ofthe human brain over time has allowed for in-creased capacity in learning and memory. This, inturn, has led to the development of more sophis-ticated skill sets such as the ability to be flexibleand adaptable to new situations (Pinker, 2002), acompetency often associated with effective lead-ership. Additional leadership implications of evo-lutionary psychology rest on the idea that someleadership behaviors may be hardwired, renderingthem difficult to change, while others may bedevelopable (Nicholson, 1998). A recognition ofboth the limitations and possibilities of the brain’smalleability and potential for adaptability is im-portant to future investigations of leadership phe-nomena through the use of neuroscience method-ologies.

Conclusion

In this article, we have identified three key chal-lenges in the pursuit of applications of neuro-science to leadership assessment and develop-

ment. Based on the early findings summarizedhere, we believe that research may now have thepotential to advance our understanding of thebrain’s role in producing effective leadership be-havior and to explore how the brain itself mightbe used to better develop exemplary leadershippotential. This knowledge could be useful to or-ganizations that undertake extensive efforts toidentify and improve leadership skills and behav-iors.

ReferencesAdolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social

knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 693–716.Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., &

McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership roleoccupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leader-ship Quarterly, 17, 1–20.

Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kruger, R. F.(2007). Developmental and genetic determinants ofleadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 92, 693–706.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: Amulti-level perspective. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 2,9–54.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in theworkplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy ofManagement Executive, 16, 76–86.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexaminingthe components of transformational and transactionalleadership using the Multifactor Leadership Question-naire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 72, 441–462.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affectmatter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspec-tives, 21, 36–59.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational lead-ership development: Manual for the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). Bass handbook of leadership:Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.).New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational lead-ership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadershipresearch: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515–549.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Devel-oping sustainable leaders through coaching and compas-sion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5,8–24.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all therules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently.New York: Simon & Shuster.

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Lorig, T. S., Norris, C. J.,Rickett, E., & Nusbaum, H. (2003). Just because you’reimaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using yourhead: A primer and set of first principles. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 85, 650–661.

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2008).Neuroimaging as a new tool in the toolbox of psycho-logical science. Current Directions in Psychological Science,17(2), 62–67.

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005).Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform eco-nomics. Journal of Economics Literature, 43, 9–64.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The roleof perceived organizational performance in organiza-tional identification, adjustment and job performance.Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972–992.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me:Narcissistic CEOs and their effects on company strategyand performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52,351–386.

Classen, J., Gerloff, C., Honda, M., & Hallett, M. (1998).Integrative visuomotor behavior is associated with inter-regionally coherent oscillations in the human brain. TheAmerican Physiological Society, 79, 1567–1573.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic lead-ership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review incontext. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadershipcapacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857–880.


Fava, M. (1997). Psychopharmacologic treatment of patho-logic aggression. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20,427–51.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1996). Strategic leadership:Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul,MN: West Publishing.

Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend me your wallets:The effect of charismatic leadership on external supportfor an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25,309–330.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role ofemotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard BusinessReview, 76, 93–102.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primalleadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley,J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation ofemotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293,2105–2108.

Gruzelier, J., Egner, T., & Vernon, D. (2006). Validatingthe efficacy of neurofeedback for optimising perfor-mance. Progress in Brain Research, 159, 421–431.

Hagmann, P., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Meuli, R., &Honey, C. J. (2008). Mapping the structural core ofhuman cerebral cortex. PLoS Biology, 6, 1–15.

Haines, S. (2009). Bankrupt leadership development? Train-ing, 46, 64.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons:The organization as a reflection of its top managers.Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.

Hanslmayer, S., Sauseng, P., Doppelmayr, M., Schabus, M.,& Klimesch, W. (2005). Increasing individual upperalpha by neurofeedback improves cognitive performancein human subjects. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeed-back 30(1), 1–10.

Heisel, A. D., & Beatty, M. J. (2006). Are cognitive repre-sentations of friends’ request refusals implemented in theorbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices? A cog-nitive neuroscience approach to ‘theory of mind’ inrelationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,23, 249–265.

Hines, T. (1987). Left brain/right brain mythology andimplications for management and training. Academy ofManagement Review, 12, 600–606.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific studyof leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23,409–474.

House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality andcharismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81–108.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers inthe charismatic leadership process: Relationships andtheir consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30,96–112.

Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotionalleadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493–504.

Jasper, H. H. (1958). Recent advances in our understandingof ascending activities of the reticular system. In H. Y.

Jasper, L. D. Proctor, R. S. Knighton, W. C. Noshay, andR. T. Costello (Eds), Reticular formation of the brain (pp.319–332). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational andtransactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of theirrelative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how ithappens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Knabb, J. J., Welsh, R. K., Ziebell, J. G., & Reimer, K. S.(2009). Neuroscience, moral reasoning, and the law.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 219–236.

Le Doux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain.Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 209–235.

Lee, N., & Chamberlain, L. (2007). Neuroimaging andpsychophysiological measurement in organizationalresearch: An agenda for research in organizational cog-nitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 1118, 18–42.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trustand distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, 438–458.

Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: Areview of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,259–289.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transac-tional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQliterature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

Lubar, J. F., Congedo, M., & Askew, J. H. (2003). Low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (LORETA) ofcerebral activity in chronic depressive disorder. Interna-tional Journal of Psychophysiology, 49, 175–185.

Martens, W. H. (2001). Agitation therapy for antisocial andpsychopathic personalities: An outline. American Journalof Psychotherapy, 55, 234–250.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trustas foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organi-zations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

Mintzberg H. (1976). Planning on the left side and manag-ing on the right side. Harvard Business Review, 54, 49–58.

Monastra, V. J. (2003). Clinical applications of electroen-cephalographic biofeedback. In M. Schwartz and F. An-draskik (Eds), Biofeedback: A practitioner’s guide (3rd ed.),pp. 438–463. New York: Guilford.

Morse, G. (2006). Decisions and desire. The Harvard Busi-ness Review, 84, 42–51.

Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role ofemotion in decision making: A cognitive neuroscienceperspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science,15, 260–264.

Nicholson, N. (1998). How hardwired is human behavior?Harvard Business Review, July–August, 135–147.

Niedermeyer, E., & Silva, F. L. (1995). Electroenceph-alography: Basic principles, clinical applications and relatedfields. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Nolte, J. (2002). The human brain: An introduction to itsfunctional anatomy. St. Louis: Mosby.


Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emer-gence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychol-ogist, 56, 717–734.

Paulus, M. P., Rogalsky, C., Simmons, A., Feinstein, J. S., &Stein, M. B. (2003). Increased activation in the rightinsula during risk-taking decision making is related toharm avoidance and neuroticism. NeuroImage, 19,1439–1448.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago:The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. InC. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership:Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, pp. 1–18. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights fromstudies of the human amygdala. Annual Review of Psy-chology 57, 27–53.

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: Modern denial of humannature. New York: Penguin Books.

Salloway, S. P., Malloy, P. F., & Duffy, J. D. (2001). Thefrontal lobes and neuropsychiatric illnesses. Washington,DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E.,& Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economicdecision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300,1755–1758.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). Themotivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.

Sterman, M. B., & Egner, T. (2006). Foundation and prac-tice of neurofeedback for the treatment of epilepsy. Ap-plied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, 31, 21–36.

Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., Waldman, D. A., &

House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholderand economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptionsof leadership and firm performance. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 53, 626–654.

Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008).The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness acti-vates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness acti-vates self-control circuitry). Psychological Science, 19,339–347.

Thatcher, R. W., Krause, P., & Hrybyk, M. (1986). Corti-cocortical association fibers and EEG coherence: A twocompartmental model. Electroencephalography and Clini-cal Neurophysiology, 64, 123–143.

Thatcher, R. W., North, D., & Biver, C. (2007). Develop-ment of cortical connections as measured by EEG coher-ence and phase delays. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 1400–1415.

Vernon, D. J. (2005). Can neurofeedback training enhanceperformance? An evaluation of the evidence with impli-cations for future research. Applied Psychophysiology &Biofeedback, 30, 347–364.

Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009).Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion,personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psycho-logical Science, 4, 274–290.

Zak, P. J. (2007). The neuroeconomics of trust. In R. Franz(Ed.), Renaissance in behavioral economics (chapter 2).New York: Routledge.

Zhang, Z., Ilies, R., & Arvey, R. D. (2009). Beyond geneticexplanations for leadership: The moderating role of thesocial environment. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 110, 118–128.


article leadership and neuroscience

Documents