Search

The research strategy adopted in this article is to connect two different discourses and the ideas, methods, and outputs they contain-these being cognitive neuroscience and organization theory. The main contribution of the article is to present an agenda for the field of organizational cognitive neuroscience. We define what is meant by the term, outline its background, identify why it is important as a new research direction, and then conclude by drawing on Damasio's levels of life regulation as a framework to bind together existing organizational cognitive neuroscience. The article begins by setting the wider debate behind the emergence of organizational cognitive neuroscience by revisiting the nature-nurture debate and uses Pinker to demonstrate that the connection between mind and matter has not been resolved, that new directions are opening up to better understand human nature, and that organizational cognitive neuroscience is one fruitful path forward.

In this article, we identify research possibilities for organizational cognitive neuroscience that emerge from the papers in this special issue. We emphasize the intriguing finding that the papers share a common theme-the use of cognitive neuroscience to investigate the role of emotions in organizational behavior; this suggests a research agenda in its own right. We conclude the article by stressing that there is much yet to discover about how the mind works, especially in organizational settings.

After the application form is submitted, the interview is the most important method of human resource allocation. Previous research has shown that the attractiveness of interviewees can significantly bias interview outcome. We have previously shown that female interviewers give attractive male interviewees higher status job packages compared their average looking counterparts. However, it is not known whether male interviewers exhibit such biases. In the present study, participants were asked to take part in a mock job negotiation scenario where they had to allocate either a high- or low-status job package to attractive or average looking "interviewees." Before each decision was made, the participant's anticipatory electrodermal response (EDR) was recorded. The results supported our previous finding in that female participants allocated a greater number of high-status job packages to attractive men. Additionally, male participants uniformly allocated a greater number of low-status job packages to both attractive men and attractive women. Overall, the average looking interviewees incurred a penalty and received a significantly greater number of low-status job packages. In general, the EDR profile for both male and female participants was significantly greater when allocating the low-status packages to the average looking interviewees. However, the male anticipatory EDR profile showed the greatest change when allocating attractive women with low-status job packages. We discuss these findings in terms of the potential biases that may occur at the job interview and place them within an evolutionary psychology framework.