In this chapter, we offer a content analysis of major management journals to examine the extent to which advocates of neuroscience in management pay heed to the ethical ramifications of their work. Based upon our analysis, we are able to robustly refute the claim by Butler and colleagues (1) that Lindebaum’s (2) concerns about the lack of ethical concerns in the proliferation and application of neuroscientific ideas and measurements is basically much ado about nothing. By way of this content analysis, we advance the debate on the ethical ramifications of applying neuroscience in management by demonstrating (i) which ethical issues are recognised and (ii) which ones are not. Doing so has the potential to open up new directions in studying the ethical and practical ramifications of neuroscience in and around work.
Leave a Reply