Michela Balconi - Neuromanagement - Neuroscience For Organizations-Nova Science Publishers (2021) PDF

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRESS
NEUROMANAGEMENT
NEUROSCIENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONS
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
Additional books and e-books in this series can be found

on Nova’s website under the Series tab.
NEUROMANAGEMENT
NEUROSCIENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONS
MICHELA BALCONI
EDITOR
Copyright © 2021 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to
reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and
locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the
title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by
title, ISBN, or ISSN.
For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact:
Copyright Clearance Center
Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: info@copyright.com.
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is
assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary
damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any
parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts
to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this
book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in
this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject
matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the
services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS
JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A
COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN: H%RRN
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS
Introduction vii
Michela Balconi
Part I: Fundamentals 1
Chapter 1 Leaders’ Brains: How to Discover
and Improve Them 3
Michela Balconi
Chapter 2 Trusting and Rewarded Brains 25
Michela Balconi
Chapter 3 To Be or Not to Be Moral in Organizations? 41
Michela Balconi and Giulia Fronda
Chapter 4 Un-Stressed Mind: Neuroscientific Applications
for Stress Management at the Workplace 67
Michela Balconi and Laura Angioletti
Part II: The Applications 83
Chapter 5 Neuroassessment: Neurometrics
for Assessment in Organizations 85
Michela Balconi
vi Contents
Chapter 6 From the Evaluation of Executive Functions (EFs)

to Neuroempowerment for Organizations 97
Chapter 7 Neurocognitive Enhancement in Organizations:
Challenges and Opportunities 111
Chapter 8 Industry 4.0 and Automation:
The Contribution of Applied Neuroscience 133
Federico Cassioli, Davide Crivelli and
Michela Balconi
Chapter 9 Digital-Learning for Organization:
Insights from Cognitive Neuroscience 147
Davide Crivelli and Michela Balconi
About the Editor 163
Index 165
INTRODUCTION
Michela Balconi, PhD

International Research Center for Cognitive Applied Neuroscience
(IrcCAN), Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy
Research Unit in Affective and Social Neuroscience,
Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart,
Milan, Italy
Why a new discipline, such as that of neuromanagement? What added

value does neuroscience applied to management introduce?
An organizational neuroscience - i.e., neuromanagement - paradigm
would bring three essential benefits, which work in the backstage of this
Introduction.
First, neuromanagement would help extend existing theories.
Specifically, we observed that neuroscientific approach promises a new,
deeper level of analysis for “old” concepts of organizational workplace.
Consequently, neuroscientific investigations will add detail to our accounts
of human behavior, while further linking our field more closely to other
scientific disciplines. In so doing, organizational neuroscience will

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: michela.balconi@unicatt.it
viii Michela Balconi
promote a new spirit of analysis and research. Second, neuromanagement

will encourage new research directions, by using specific and focused tools
able to discover heterogeneous components of our behavior. Third,
perspectives from neuromanagement could help scholars resolve existing
conceptual disagreements of conflicts. Issues that are difficult to
differentiate or resolve at one level of analysis may become more
distinctive at the level of neural processing.
As an example of the first type of benefit furnished by
neuromanagement is the issue of the social environment and its
relationship with the organizational skills, in order to explain how the
neuroscientific approach can “inform” the organizational theories. Indeed,
as a first milestone we can underline that organizational scientists
recognize the importance of the social setting. Phenomena such as work
climates, organizational cultures, and other aspects of the social setting
exert well-documented effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. In the
face of so much evidence, what room is left for biological incidence?
Indeed, some scholars have found the evidence for situational effects so
compelling that they have questioned whether any individual attribute - be
it biological or otherwise – can appreciably affect workplace behavior.
Neuromanagement proffers a unique perspective, suggesting that a
neuroscientific analysis complements rather than supplants a social
scientific one. Human beings are heavily influenced by their social setting
because of their biology. Seen from this point of view, there is no
contradiction between the coexistence of both social and biological
influences. Indeed, the latter helps to generate the former.
The volume deals with the theme of the applications of neuroscience to
organizational contexts and management, evaluating the current impact,
the potential for future developments, as well as the critical issues related
to neuroscientific paradigms and investigation techniques typical of the
neuroscience domain.
The first part of the book focuses on the “neuroscientific mindset” for
changing, considering, between the other, how leadership can be
discovered and empowered by a neuroscientific approach; the
neurophysiological components of trusting behavior in organization; the
Introduction ix
role of moral behavior and decision-making in individual and

organizational well-being, as well as the relationship between stress
regulation and well-being in the workplace.
The second part deals with the application of neuroscience to
organization in term of: how neuromanagement allows us to evaluate and
enhance individuals’ executive functions through neuroassessment
protocols; some other issues deal with the challenge of applying novel
neuroscientific techniques for neuroassessement; or with the development
of new personal and interpersonal skills based on neuroempowerment or,
in addition, the role of enhanced executive functions for management. The
technology and innovative homo sapiens is also considered, elucidating the
impact of 4.0 industry for automation or, finally, the effect digital learning
in workplace.
In other words, this book explores how to discover and “modify”
human beings in organizations through their brains.
PART I: FUNDAMENTALS
In: Neuromanagement ISBN: 978-1-53619-562-0
Editor: Michela Balconi © 2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
LEADERS’ BRAINS:
HOW TO DISCOVER AND IMPROVE THEM

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
Recent advances in neuroscience have allowed a better

understanding of the phenomenon of leadership and its development. In
particular, social and affective neuroscience have developed new
neuroscientific methods and techniques that allow a more in-depth
understanding of the implicit and explicit cognitive and emotional
mechanisms characterizing different leadership styles, opening the field
to new models such as that of “inspirational” and “generative” leadership.
Therefore, the tools of neuroscience make it possible to analyze various
phenomena underlying the style of leadership within the company

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: michela.balconi@unicatt.it.
4 Michela Balconi
context, such as the emotional expression, the types of communication,

and interpersonal relational skills. In particular, a recent neuroscience
paradigm, the “hyperscanning”, has allowed analyzing the mechanisms of
the body and brain synthonization between leader and employee during
real interactional situations to better direct and develop excellent and
functional styles of leadership.
1. DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP
AND NEUROLEADERSHIP
Leadership can be considered a form of social capital involving the

company’s members’ sharing, distribution, and connectivity. Indeed, as
defined by Pearce and Conger (2003), shared leadership can be understood
as a dynamic process in which individuals of the same or different
hierarchical levels influence each other within the organization. Therefore,
leadership turns out to be an essential issue in the organizational context,
influenced by complex organizational dynamics and processes related to
emotions, objectives, intentions, expectations, and cognitive biases, which
have recently increased the interest in neuroscientific approaches.
The interest in this neurosciencientific areas has been increased by the
development of improved methods and protocols for the understanding of
mechanisms underlying individuals’ interactions (Balconi and Canavesio
2013; Balconi, Cassioli, et al. 2019; Balconi and Vanutelli 2017; Balconi,
Venturella, et al. 2019; Balconi et al. 2020; Paulus et al. 2009; Vanutelli et
al. 2017).
In particular, the field of social and affective neuroscience has been
interested in empathic and emotional mechanisms underlying different
leadership styles. Specifically, recently, this neuroscientific contribution
has been possible to identify compelling leadership profiles observing their
main characteristics, focusing in particular on two most widespread
leadership models: the “inspirational” one and the “generative” one
(Balconi, Fronda, et al. 2017; Waldman, Balthazard, and Peterson 2011).
Leaders’ Brains 5
2. LEADERSHIP’S STYLE ONE:

THE “INSPIRATIONAL” LEADER
Starting from the “inspirational” leadership model, several theories

have observed that exceptional leaders, going beyond simple performance-
versus-reward transactions, can have a possible impact on the work-team
and the entire organization, pushing and motivating the creation of new
visions and changes. In particular, the inspirational leaders’ vision is based
on sustained ideological values provoking individuals’ greater energy,
leading them to identify more with this type of vision (Conger and
Kanungo 1998). This latter aspect has been underlined by many
contemporary leadership theories that have emphasized the
transformational, charismatic, and visionary paradigms of this style of
leadership, which increases followers’ trust, intrinsic motivation, and
admiration towards the leader. Therefore, the new vision of “inspirational”
leadership can be seen as a socialized continuum versus the personalized
one. In particular, the central elements that constitute this socialized vision
are social responsibility, altruism, and the inclusion of responsible
followers that allow responding to the group’s interests and needs and
guarantee organizational success (House and Howell 1992). Therefore, the
adoption of a socialized vision involves the implementation of processes
and the achievement of results that are advantageous for the followers, the
stakeholders, the community, and the country of residence of the
organization.
Contrary to the assumption of a socialized vision, the personalized one
is characterized by a centrality of the leader’s figure, the importance of
achieving company objectives, and the prevalence of competition. In this
view, therefore, an obsession towards authority prevails. Thus, a socialized
or personalized vision promotes the development of different relationships
between leaders and followers. In particular, a neuroscientific research,
using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), has observed the
neural correlates associated with leader-employee responses during
inspirational statements (inspirational collective-oriented vs. non-
6 Michela Balconi
inspirational personal oriented; Howell and Shamir 2005) and shared group
membership between followers and leaders (Haslam, Reicher, and Platow
2011). This research has made it possible to investigate the role of specific
brain areas and networks in elaborating an inspirational style of leadership,
providing a complete picture of the link between leaders and followers.
Furthermore, this research has yielded new evidence on leadership’s
neuroscience, compared to previous studies that have used different tools,
such as electroencephalogram (EEG), to obtain information on brain
connectivity mechanisms associated with leadership’s effectiveness
(Waldman, Balthazard, and Peterson 2011). These neuroscientific studies,
therefore, have allowed observing that leadership processes, in terms of
social influence, appear to be determined by a fundamental basis
concerning the categorization of oneself and others in terms of shared
social identity (for example, as “we scholars leadership”). Indeed, it has
been observed that when followers perceive that they belong to a group
shared with the leader, his proposals more influence them, perceive him as
a charismatic figure, support him and respond creatively to his ideas.
Furthermore, the perception of belonging to a shared social group also
influences the functioning of specific brain regions involved in the control
of the semantic processing of inspirational messages oriented to the
community. In this regard, cognitive psychology studies have
demonstrated a phenomenon known as “confirmation bias” which
illustrates how individuals more easily encode information according to
their existing beliefs (Nickerson 1998).
Specifically, information to which individuals are exposed is
selectively encoded after being represented as schemas (cognitive
categories representing prototypical instances of a given stimulus). This
has also been applied to the field of leadership studies, where it has been
observed that followers encode information received from leaders using
previous schemas constructed about them (Shondrick, Dinh, and Lord
2010). In particular, from a neuroscientific point of view, the activation of
specific brain areas, such as the right inferior parietal lobe, bilateral insula,
and left superior temporal gyrus, was observed when the memories that
followers have of leaders are resonant rather than dissonant. Moreover, the
Leaders’ Brains 7
phenomenon of self-representation has been explored by some studies that

have used EEG-based power spectral analysis measures to observe any
differences between leaders who have a more or less complex
representation of themselves.
3. LADERSHIP’S STYLE TWO:

OF THE “GENERATIVE” LEADER
Therefore, as it emerged above, recent research has focused mainly on

the different leadership characteristics to explore new management
methods involving supportive and interpersonal exchange methods. In
particular, great attention has been paid to “transformational” and
“generative” leadership (Ashkanasy 2013; Balconi, Fronda, et al. 2017),
observing how the effectiveness of this style of leadership is correlated
with leaders’ great emotional understanding, balance, self-control,
effective communication skills, intuition and foresight (Balthazard et al.
2012).
The positive effects of a transformational and more cooperative
leadership style have been demonstrated both on individuals’ performance,
with a greater encouragement of relationships between colleagues, and on
the entire organization (Judge and Piccolo 2004), with a greater
individuals’ commitment towards the company (Bass and Bass 2009).
Furthermore, a generative style of leadership appears to be correlated with
a communication style involving others’ co-participation in decision-
making, increasing the work team’s level of motivation and satisfaction.
The effects of adopting a cooperative and generative style of leadership
have also been investigated by some neuroscientific studies that have
observed the activation of specific brain areas, such as the frontal lobes,
which are good predictors of functional leadership and are more involved
in interactional processes (Balthazard et al. 2012) and in monitoring
executive functioning, such as planning, behavioral organization, and self-
regulation. Furthermore, the frontal cortex organizes temporally internal
8 Michela Balconi
and external sensory information integration, regulating behavioral

response patterns (Case 1992; Fuster 1999), that are essential for leaders,
who must have a good ability to control and monitor their own and others’
behavior.
In addition to supporting the organization of behavioral responses, the
frontal cortex is also involved in the regulation of the social and affective
components underlying interpersonal relationships (Levitan, Hasey, and
Sloman 2000) and joint behaviors, such as the performance of cooperative
social tasks (Balconi, Crivelli, and Vanutelli 2017; Balconi, Pezard, et al.
2017; Balconi and Pozzoli 2005).
Contrarily to a generative leadership style, the authoritarian one is
characterized by a more self-centered communication that involves good
productivity but produces dissatisfaction and demotivation in employees.
Indeed, it has been shown that leaders’ communication and emotional
expression influence the level of employees’ motivation (Balconi and
Venturella 2015). In particular, leaders’ emotional expression represents a
fundamental element that appears to be influenced by the level of
emotional intelligence that affects the choice of times and ways to inspire
others (Goleman, Boyzatis, and McKee 2002). High capacities of
emotional intelligence lead leaders to empathize more with their
employees and express their emotions more functionally (Mayer, Salovey,
and Caruso 2008).
Specifically, these different capacities of leaders related to emotional
expression, communication, and emotions’ management have been
investigated in depth thanks to the use of neuroscientific approaches,
which have allowed to explore the brain mechanisms related to the
implementation of certain behavior by informing on the relative conscious
and unconscious individuals’ mental processes (Balconi, Finocchiaro, and
Campanella 2014; Balconi and Vanutelli 2016). In particular,
neuroscience, thanks to the use of different neuroscientific tools such as
EEG, functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), biofeedback, and
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), have allowed to deepen the
knowledge of these processes by functionally intervening on them into the
organization.
Leaders’ Brains 9
Specifically, the EEG permits to record changes in individuals’ cortical

activity by offering an excellent temporal resolution; the fNIRS allows
informing about individuals’ hemodynamic activity, offering a good spatial
resolution and investigating the greater involvement of certain brain areas
in specific processes; the biofeedback permits measuring the variations in
individuals’ peripheral activity (skin conductance, heart rate - HR, blood
pressure, etc.), informing about their emotional involvement and arousal
state; and the TMS allows to stimulate some specific brain regions by
observing the functioning of different processes (Balconi and Venturella
2015).
In addition to using these tools, recent developments in neuroscience
have also made it possible to use a research paradigm, called
“hyperscanning,” applied to the leadership field. Specifically, this
paradigm allows to simultaneously record the activity of two individuals
involved in an interpersonal or social interaction or during a task’s
performance. In particular, several studies that have used different
neuroscientific techniques, such as EEG, fNIRS, fMRI, and biofeedback,
have demonstrated the possibility of hyperscanning to investigate the brain
and peripheral synthonization and desynthonization mechanisms
underlying different social interaction processes involving two or more
individuals. Indeed, hyperscanning studies have been conducted in various
social and interactional situations, such as communicative, cooperative,
prosocial, and conflictual exchanges (Balconi, Fronda, and Bartolo 2020;
Balconi, Fronda, and Vanutelli 2019; Balconi and Vanutelli 2016, 2017;
Frischen, Bayliss, and Tipper 2007). In fact, given the effectiveness of this
paradigm, its application has gone from the use of the observation of
neural and bodily correlates involved in economic or interactive tasks to
the investigation of the synthonization or desynthonization mechanisms in
more real interaction contexts (Balconi, Fronda, and Vanutelli 2019, 2020;
Balconi and Vanutelli 2017, 2018; Dumas et al. 2010; King-Casas et al.
2005; Lindenberger et al. 2009; Montague et al. 2002). Hyperscanning,
therefore, through the biometric analysis of the neural and peripheral
biosignals, can provide information on the mental and bodily strategies that
are syntonic or not in inter-agents individuals. Thus, hyperscanning offers
10 Michela Balconi
information on the level of connectivity and interconnection between two

brains or bodies (inter-cerebral and peripheral connectivity), informing
about the social bond’s strength. In light of this evidence, the
hyperscanning techniques provide a new approach to investigate the
complexity of joint action, observing specific characteristics as
spontaneity, multimodality, and reciprocity, which constitutes a big
challenge for the neuroscientific field.
4. HOW LEADERSHIP STYLE AFFECTS

EMPLOYEES’ EVALUATION
Considering hyperscanning, the use of this paradigm applied to

leadership has made it possible to investigate the neurophysiological
correlates and the interactional dynamics associated with the employees’
evaluation, which is a critical process characterizing managerial direction.
In particular, the application of this specific neuroscientific paradigm
permits to observe the dynamics involved in the communication between
leader and employee, investigating the use of different leadership styles,
such as cooperative and authoritarian ones. Specifically, as demonstrated
by previous studies (Balconi, Venturella, et al. 2019; Balconi et al. 2020),
EEG and biofeedback’s integrated use has allowed identifying those
behavioral and psychophysiological markers of the interaction between
leader and employee, understanding the most functional leadership styles
and communicative methods. Moreover, the application of hyperscanning
has allowed observing the different mechanisms of cerebral and autonomic
synthonization occurring between leaders and employees during the use of
different styles of leadership, corporate roles, and performance evaluations.
In particular, these synthonization mechanisms appear to be
fundamental, representing the basis of solid and cooperative individuals’
interactions (Balconi, Bortolotti, and Gonzaga 2011; Balconi and
Canavesio 2013). Specifically, for the investigation of synthonization
mechanisms underlying different leadership’s characteristics and methods,
Leaders’ Brains 11
individuals (leader and employees) were asked to carry out, through a role-
playing technique, an evaluation interview, in which the leader was
previously requested to use either an authoritarian or a participatory style
of leadership. Some leaders were asked to use an authoritarian leadership
style, characterized by more directive communication, while others were
asked to use a participative leadership style. The levels of excitement or
physiological discomfort perceived by individuals (leaders and employees)
during the interaction have been observed with the simultaneous use of
EEG and biofeedback in hyperscanning, which have allowed obtaining
information about the effects that the leadership’s style of communication
can have on the workers’ organism, health and stress levels. From this
evidence, it has been observed that a generative and charismatic style of
leadership, contrary to an authoritarian one, appears to be associated with a
decrease in stress levels (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008) and a greater
consonance among team members, due to the presence of a greater
empathy (Preston and de Waal 2002; Vanutelli and Balconi 2015).
5. WHEN EMOTIONAL SYNTHONIZATION OCCURS

BETWEEN LEADER AND EMPLOYEE
In addition to evaluating the influence of an authoritarian or

participatory style of leadership in the leader and employees’ brain
synthonization, this study has investigated whether and how a quantitative
evaluation of the performance could influence the relationship between
leader and employees. Indeed, the presence of a score associated with
performance evaluation could generate the perception of an asymmetric
dynamic, with consequent negative feelings involving different cognitive
and emotional processes.
In particular, contrary to what was traditionally thought concerning the
fact that evaluation can improve employees’ performance (Dixon, Rock,
and Ochsner 2010), a meta-analysis by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) has
shown how feedback improve individuals’ performance only in some
12 Michela Balconi
cases. This evidence is in line with the hypotheses of Rock (2008) that
have explicated how feedback, providing a judgment on the ranking and a
consequent sense of status, can represent a threat to individuals causing
social pain experimentation and adverse working condition (Lieberman
and Eisenberger 2008). Therefore, these findings have led companies to
convert traditional feedback modalities into different performance
evaluation forms, focusing on the other effects of quantitative or
qualitative feedback. Indeed, it has been observed that, contrary to
quantitative ones, qualitative feedbacks, more narrative, turn out to attract
more individuals’ attention (Smither and Walker 2004). This evidence was
also confirmed by study results that have demonstrated the presence of
more negative individuals’ reactions correlated to the use of quantitative
feedback, with significant effects on individuals’ cerebral synthonization
levels. Differently, qualitative feedback has appeared more associated with
individuals’ positive feelings, increased synthonization levels, and greater
emotional involvement.
Starting from this evidence, future research could use hyperscanning to
investigate other critical organizational components, such as individual and
team commitment and corporate condition’s understanding. Moreover,
other constructs, such as moral issues and organizational changes related to
gender, age, and other factors concerning the group’s composition, could
be considered.
6. NEURAL SYNTHONIZATION:
FROM SINGLE-BRAIN TO INTER-BRAIN CONNECTIVITY
As reported in the previous paragraphs, several studies have

investigated leaders’ and employees’ neural and behavioral mechanisms of
synthonization to identify the most functional ways to conduct their
relationship. Indeed, the development and application of techniques, such
as hyperscanning, have allowed observing more directly interpersonal
relationships by investigating the level of “brain synthonization” through
connectivity analyses. Specifically, these analyses can be conducted to

observe the level of single individuals’ neural synthonization (single-brain
connectivity) or two individuals’ brain synthonization (inter-brain
connectivity), providing information on the synergy between inter-agents.
In particular, concerning single-brain connectivity, the
interconnectedness of different brain areas in single individuals can be
measured through coherence. Specifically, this method allows to observe
the coordination and communication of different brain regions and is used
to observe complex behaviors requiring multiple cerebral areas, such as
inspirational leadership (Cacioppo, Berntson, and Nusbaum 2008; Nolte,
2002). Typically, coherence is indicated in percentage. A high coherence,
intended as a high degree of coordinated activity between two brain
regions, is indicated with a percentage of 90%. Conversely, a low level of
coherence understood as a poorly coordinated activity between two brain
regions is marked with a percentage of 10%. In particular, the level of
coherence concerning certain brain regions can inform about various
behavioral phenomena. For example, high coherence levels in the right
cerebral hemisphere appear to be correlated with greater integration of
processes related to own and others’ emotions understanding and balance.
Besides, the application of hyperscanning with the use of different
techniques, such as EEG, fNIRS, fMRI, and magnetoencephalography
(MEG), has also allowed observing the levels of inter-brain connectivity,
understood as the synchronization of two oscillators that mutually regulate
their ongoing rhythms during an interaction (Balconi and Molteni 2016).
Specifically, inter-brain connectivity is configured as a fundamental
indicator of individuals’ brain processes (Burgess 2013; Rosenblum et al.
2001) and occurs during the execution of complex behaviors requiring
actions’ regulation and shared rules. Indeed, it has been observed that
neurophysiological synthonization mechanisms can be used to evaluate the
strength of two signals’ coupling occur in different contexts (Balconi and
Vanutelli 2017). For example, EEG studies have shown a greater
coherence during rhythmic, musical, and motor synchronization activities
(Kawasaki et al. 2013; Konvalinka et al. 2014; Sänger, Müller, and
Lindenberger 2012). Moreover, also game theory has highlighted these
14 Michela Balconi
synchronization mechanisms during cooperative activities and the use of

computer-based laboratory paradigms (Astolfi et al. 2012; Balconi and
Vanutelli 2016). In addition, biofeedback studies have observed the
measurement of peripheral synthonization mechanisms of HR during
conversations between spouses, interactions connected by touch, and social
interactions based on trust and group cohesion (Chatel-Goldman et al.
2014; Gottman and Levenson 1986; Mitkidis et al. 2015; Strang et al.
2014).
Evidence emerged from these studies have observed that these
connectivity mechanisms have positive effects on communicative and
understanding processes between inter-agents, improving their relation
(Hasson et al. 2012) and promoting the implementation of cooperatives
and prosocial behaviors (Mogan, Fischer, and Bulbulia 2017; Valdesolo
and DeSteno 2011). In particular, inter-brain connectivity increases the
level of individuals’ behavioral coordination by promoting greater affinity,
involvement, social closeness, empathy, and cooperative behaviors
(Bevilacqua et al. 2018; Dikker et al. 2017; Dumas et al. 2011; Fries 2005;
Hasson et al. 2012; Varela et al. 2001).
7. NEUROSCIENCE AND LEADERSHIP:

ADVANTAGES AND CRITICALITIES
Evidence that emerged in previous paragraphs has allowed

understanding and identify those characteristics, innate or cognitively
mediated, necessary and characterizing good leadership skills. These
characteristics and indicators of good and functional leadership styles can
also be predicted by the EEG individuals’ activity. In particular,
investigating these characteristics makes it possible to implement methods
and interventions to improve the company’s leadership skills, enhancing
the entire organization’s functioning. In particular, neuroleadership allows
for better organizational change strategies, providing information on the
basic brain mechanisms of learning and habit formation. Neuroleadership,
indeed, focuses on attention and learning’s expectations permits observing

how individuals’ behaviors and attitudes are more easily modified by the
facilitation of intuition’s moments. In this regard, specific tools, such as
TMS or transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), allow brain
activity manipulation to strengthen specific ways of thinking directly.
Also, less invasive tools such as EEG-based neurofeedback, allowing
individuals to receive real-time feedback on their brain activity, could also
be used to teach individuals to maintain their activity over time by
implementing specific strategies and appropriate behaviors. Therefore,
although these techniques could prove very useful, it is essential to
carefully choose the behaviors to be trained to enhance specific skills to be
implemented in a real work environment. Indeed, the neuroplasticity
resulting from this training could be reversible and dissociated concerning
the desired behavioral changes. Additionally, clinical and business
applications of expensive and advanced technologies are susceptible to
placebo effects, making them easily exploitable applications such as
physician burn-out prevention. These aspects, therefore, underlines the
importance of considering practical and ethical factors in the use of these
techniques for improving some leadership skills.
Certainly, an advantage represented by the use of these neuroscientific
techniques is related to the fact that they allow investigating the
unconscious processes at the basis of effective management relationships,
which influence employees’ state of well-being and health. Moreover,
these techniques enable investigating any disparities in interpersonal
relationships and the provision of care, possible bullying attitudes, and
resistance to adopting new interventions or protocols. Therefore, in light of
this evidence, using these techniques could help investigate individuals’
unconscious prejudices and implicit attitudes to explain any contradictions
between self-referencing perspectives and the implementation of specific
behaviors, highlighting why logical discourse is often ineffective in
promoting organizational change.
16 Michela Balconi
REFERENCES
Ashkanasy, Neal M. 2013. “Neuroscience and Leadership: Take Care Not

to Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater.” Journal of Management
Inquiry 22:311–13. doi:10.1177/1056492613478519.
Astolfi, Laura, Jlenia Toppi, Gianluca Borghini, Giovanni Vecchiato, Eric
J. He, Abhrajeet Roy, Febo Cincotti, et al. 2012. “Cortical Activity and
Functional Hyperconnectivity by Simultaneous EEG Recordings from
Interacting Couples of Professional Pilots.” Paper presented at the
Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society, EMBS, San Diego, United States, August 28-
September 1.
Balconi, Michela, Adriana Bortolotti, and Ludovica Gonzaga. 2011.
“Emotional Face Recognition, EMG Response, and Medial Prefrontal
Activity in Empathic Behaviour.” Neuroscience Research 71:251–59.
doi:10.1016/j.neures.2011.07.1833.
Balconi, Michela, and Ylenia Canavesio. 2013. “Emotional Contagion and
Trait Empathy in Prosocial Behavior in Young People: The
Contribution of Autonomic (Facial Feedback) and Balanced Emotional
Empathy Scale (BEES) Measures.” Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology 35:41–48. doi:10.1080/13803395.
2012.742492.
Balconi, Michela, Federico Cassioli, Giulia Fronda, and Maria Elide
Vanutelli. 2019. “Cooperative Leadership in Hyperscanning. Brain and
Body Synchrony during Manager-Employee Interactions.”
Neuropsychological Trends 26:23–44. doi:10.7358/neur-2019-026-
bal2.
Balconi, Michela, Davide Crivelli, and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2017. “Why
to Cooperate Is Better than to Compete: Brain and Personality
Components.” BMC Neuroscience 18:1–15. doi:10.1186/s12868-017-
0386-8.
Balconi, Michela, Roberta Finocchiaro, and Salvatore Campanella. 2014.
“Reward Sensitivity, Decisional Bias, and Metacognitive Deficits in
Cocaine Drug Addiction.” Journal of Addiction Medicine 8:399–406.

doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000065.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, and Angela Bartolo. 2020. “Affective,
Social, and Informative Gestures Reproduction in Human Interaction:
Hyperscanning and Brain Connectivity.” Journal of Motor Behavior
1–20. doi:10.1080/00222895.2020.1774490.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, Maria Rosaria Natale, and Enrico
Rimoldi. 2017. “Perchè La Leadership Generativa. Il Contributo Delle
Neuroscienze.” Ricerche di Psicologia [“Why Generating Leadership.
The Contribution of Neuroscience”. Research of Psychology] 40:365–
83. doi:10.3280/rip2017-003007.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2019. “Donate
or Receive? Social Hyperscanning Application with FNIRS.” Current
Psychology 38:991–1002. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00247-4.
———. 2020. “When Gratitude and Cooperation between Friends Affect
Inter-Brain Connectivity for EEG.” BMC Neuroscience 21:1–12.
doi:10.1186/s12868-020-00563-7.
Balconi, Michela, and Erika Molteni. 2016. “Past and Future of Near-
Infrared Spectroscopy in Studies of Emotion and Social
Neuroscience.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology 28:129–46.
doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1102919.
Balconi, Michela, Laurent Pezard, Jean L. Nandrino, and Maria Elide
Vanutelli. 2017. “Two Is Better than One: The Effects of Strategic
Cooperation on Intra- and Inter-Brain Connectivity by FNIRS.” PLoS
ONE 12:e0187652. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187652.
Balconi, Michela, and Uberto Pozzoli. 2005. “Morphed Facial Expressions
Elicited a N400 ERP Effect: A Domain-Specific Semantic Module?”
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 46:467–74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2005.00478.x.
Balconi, Michela, and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2016. “Competition in the
Brain. The Contribution of EEG and FNIRS Modulation and
Personality Effects in Social Ranking.” Frontiers in Psychology
7:1587. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01587.
18 Michela Balconi
———. 2017. “Interbrains Cooperation: Hyperscanning and Self-

Perception in Joint Actions.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology 39:607–20. doi:10.1080/13803395.2016.1253666.
———. 2018. “Functional EEG Connectivity during Competition.” BMC
Neuroscience 19:1–11. doi:10.1186/s12868-018-0464-6.
Balconi, Michela, and Irene Venturella. 2015. “Comunicazione, Emozioni
e Neuromanagement.” In Neuroscienze e Management. Nuovi
Strumenti Per La Professione Manageriale [“Communication,
Emotions and Neuromanagement.” In Neuroscience and Management.
New tools for Managerial Prefession], edited by Emanuela M. Salati
and Attilio Leoni, 235–49. Milan: Guerini Next srl.
Balconi, Michela, Irene Venturella, Giulia Fronda, Daniela De Filippis,
Emanuela M. Salati, and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2019. “To Rate or Not
to Rate Autonomic Response and Psychological Well-Being of
Employees during Performance Review.” Health Care Manager
38:179–86. doi:10.1097/HCM.0000000000000257.
Balconi, Michela, Irene Venturella, Giulia Fronda, and Maria Elide
Vanutelli. 2020. “Leader-Employee Emotional ‘Interpersonal Tuning’.
An EEG Coherence Study.” Social Neuroscience 15:234–43.
doi:10.1080/17470919.2019.1696226.
Balthazard, Pierre A., David A. Waldman, Robert W. Thatcher, and Sean
T. Hannah. 2012. “Differentiating Transformational and Non-
Transformational Leaders on the Basis of Neurological Imaging.”
Leadership Quarterly 23:244–58. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.002.
Bass, Bernard M., and Ruth Bass. 2009. The Bass Handbook of
Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Bevilacqua, Dana, Ido Davidesco, Lu Wan, Kim Chaloner, Jess Rowland,
Mingzhou Ding, David Poeppel, and Suzanne Dikker. 2018. “Brain-to-
Brain Synchrony and Learning Outcomes Vary by Student–Teacher
Dynamics: Evidence from a Real-World Classroom
Electroencephalography Study.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
31:401–11. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01274.
Burgess, Adrian P. 2013. “On the Interpretation of Synchronization in

EEG Hyperscanning Studies: A Cautionary Note.” Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience 7:881. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00881.
Cacioppo, John T., Gary G. Berntson, and Howard C. Nusbaum. 2008.
“Neuroimaging as A New Tool in The Toolbox of Psychological
Science.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 17:62–7.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00550.x.
Case, Robbie. 1992. “The Role of the Frontal Lobes in the Regulation of
Cognitive Development.” Brain and Cognition 20:51–73.
doi:10.1016/0278-2626(92)90061-P.
Chatel-Goldman, Jonas, Marco Congedo, Christian Jutten, and Jean Luc
Schwartz. 2014. “Touch Increases Autonomic Coupling between
Romantic Partners.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8:95.
doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00095.
Conger, Jay Alden, and Rabindra N. Kanungo. 1998. Charismatic
Leadership in Organizations. New York: SAGE Publications, Inc.
De Hoogh, Annebel H. B., and Deanne N. Den Hartog. 2008. “Ethical and
Despotic Leadership, Relationships with Leader’s Social
Responsibility, Top Management Team Effectiveness and
Subordinates’ Optimism: A Multi-Method Study.” Leadership
Quarterly 19:297–311. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002.
Dikker, Suzanne, Lu Wan, Ido Davidesco, Lisa Kaggen, Matthias Oostrik,
James McClintock, Jess Rowland, et al. 2017. “Brain-to-Brain
Synchrony Tracks Real-World Dynamic Group Interactions in the
Classroom.” Current Biology 27:1375–80. doi:10.1016/j.cub.
2017.04.002.
Dixon, Phil, David Rock, and Kevin Ochsner. 2010. “Turn the 360
around.” NeuroLeadership Journal 3:78–86.
Dumas, Guillaume, Fanny Lachat, Jacques Martinerie, Jacqueline Nadel,
and Nathalie George. 2011. “From Social Behaviour to Brain
Synchronization: Review and Perspectives in Hyperscanning.” IRBM
32:48–53. doi:10.1016/j.irbm.2011.01.002.
Dumas, Guillaume, Jacqueline Nadel, Robert Soussignan, Jacques
Martinerie, and Line Garnero. 2010. “Inter-Brain Synchronization
20 Michela Balconi
during Social Interaction.” PLoS ONE 5:e12166. doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0012166.
Fries, Pascal. 2005. “A Mechanism for Cognitive Dynamics: Neuronal
Communication through Neuronal Coherence.” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 9:474–80. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.011.
Frischen, Alexandra, Andrew P. Bayliss, and Steven P. Tipper. 2007.
“Gaze Cueing of Attention: Visual Attention, Social Cognition, and
Individual Differences.” Psychological Bulletin 133:694–724.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694.
Fuster, Joaquín M. 1999. “Synopsis of Function and Dysfunction of the
Frontal Lobe.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Supplement 99:51–7.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1999.tb05983.x.
Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyzatis, and Annie McKee. 2002. “Emotional
Intelligence: Leadership Competencies.” The New Leaders:
Transforming the Art of Leadership into the Science of Results 23:273–
74.
Gottman, John M., and Robert W. Levenson. 1986. “Assessing the Role of
Emotion in Marriage.” Behavioral Assessment 8:31–48.
Haslam, Alexander S., Stephen D. Reicher, and Michael J. Platow. 2011.
The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity. Influence and Power.
New York: Psychology Press.
Hasson, Uri, Asif A. Ghazanfar, Bruno Galantucci, Simon Garrod, and
Christian Keysers. 2012. “Brain-to-Brain Coupling: A Mechanism for
Creating and Sharing a Social World.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences
16:114–21. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007.
House, Robert J., and Jane M. Howell. 1992. “Personality and Charismatic
Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 3:81–108. doi:10.1016/1048-
9843(92)90028-E.
Howell, Jane M., and Boas Shamir. 2005. “The Role of Followers in the
Charismatic Leadership Process: Relationships and Their
Consequences.” Academy of Management Review 30:96–112.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.15281435.
Judge, Timothy A., and Ronald F. Piccolo. 2004. “Transformational and
Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative
Validity.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89:755–68. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.89.5.755.
Kawasaki, Masahiro, Yohei Yamada, Yosuke Ushiku, Eri Miyauchi, and
Yoko Yamaguchi. 2013. “Inter-Brain Synchronization during
Coordination of Speech Rhythm in Human-to-Human Social
Interaction.” Scientific Reports 3:1–8. doi:10.1038/srep01692.
King-Casas, Brooks, Damon Tomlin, Cedric Anen, Colin F. Camerer,
Steven R. Quartz, and P. Read Montague. 2005. “Getting to Know
You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange.”
Science 308:78–83. doi:10.1126/science.1108062.
Kluger, Avraham N., and Angelo DeNisi. 1996. “The Effects of Feedback
Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis,
and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory.” Psychological
Bulletin 119:254–84. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
Konvalinka, Ivana, Markus Bauer, Carsten Stahlhut, Lars Kai Hansen,
Andreas Roepstorff, and Chris D. Frith. 2014. “Frontal Alpha
Oscillations Distinguish Leaders from Followers: Multivariate
Decoding of Mutually Interacting Brains.” NeuroImage 94:79–88.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.003.
Levitan, Robert D., Gary Hasey, and Leon Sloman. 2000. “Major
Depression and the Involuntary Defeat Strategy: Biological
Correlates.” In Subordination and Defeat: An Evolutionary Approach
to Mood Disorders and Their Therapy, edited by Leon Sloman and
Paul Gilbert, 95–118. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Lieberman, Matthew D., and Naomi I. Eisenberger. 2008. “The Pains and
Pleasures of Social Life: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach.”
NeuroLeadership Journal 1:38–43.
Lindenberger, Ulman, Shu-Chen Li, Walter Gruber, and Viktor
Müller. 2009. “Brains Swinging in Concert: Cortical Phase
Synchronization While Playing Guitar.” BMC Neuroscience 10:1–12.
doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-22.
22 Michela Balconi
Mayer, John D., Peter Salovey, and David R. Caruso. 2008. “Emotional
Intelligence: New Ability or Eclectic Traits?” American Psychologist
63:503–17. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503.
Mitkidis, Panagiotis, John J. McGraw, Andreas Roepstorff, and Sebastian
Wallot. 2015. “Building Trust: Heart Rate Synchrony and Arousal
during Joint Action Increased by Public Goods Game.” Physiology and
Behavior 149:101–6. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.05.033.
Mogan, Reneeta, Ronald Fischer, and Joseph A. Bulbulia. 2017. “To Be in
Synchrony or Not? A Meta-Analysis of Synchrony’s Effects on
Behavior, Perception, Cognition and Affect.” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 72:13–20. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.009.
Montague, P. Read, Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan D. Cohen, Samuel M.
McClure, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Mukesh Dhamala, Michael C. Wiest, et
al. 2002. “Hyperscanning: Simultaneous FMRI during Linked Social
Interactions.” NeuroImage 16:1159–64. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1150.
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous
Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2:175–
220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.
Nolte, John. 2002. The Human Brain: An Introduction to Its Functional
Anatomy. St. Louis: Mosby.
Paulus, Martin P., Eric G. Potterat, Marcus K. Taylor, Karl F. Van Orden,
James Bauman, Nausheen Momen, Genieleah A. Padilla, and Judith L.
Swain. 2009. “A Neuroscience Approach to Optimizing Brain
Resources for Human Performance in Extreme Environments.”
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 33:1080–88. doi:10.1016/
j.neubiorev.2009.05.003.
Pearce, Craig Lewis, and Jay A. Conger. 2003. Shared Leadership:
Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. New York: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Preston, Stephanie D., and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2002. “Empathy: Its
Ultimate and Proximate Bases.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:1–
20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018.
Rock, David. 2008. “SCARF: A Brain-Based Model for Collaborating with
and Influencing Others.” NeuroLeadership Journal 1:44–52.
Rosenblum, Michael, Arkady Pikovsky, Jürgen Kurths, Carsten Schäfer,

and Peter A. Tass. 2001. “Chapter 9 Phase Synchronization: From
Theory to Data Analysis.” Handbook of Biological Physics 4:279–321.
doi:10.1016/S1383-8121(01)80012-9.
Sänger, Johanna, Viktor Müller, and Ulman Lindenberger. 2012. “Intra-
and Interbrain Synchronization and Network Properties When Playing
Guitar in Duets.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6:312.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312.
Shondrick, Sara J., Jessica E. Dinh, and Robert G. Lord. 2010.
“Developments in Implicit Leadership Theory and Cognitive Science:
Applications to Improving Measurement and Understanding
Alternatives to Hierarchical Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly
21:959–78. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004.
Smither, James W., and Alan G. Walker. 2004. “Are the Characteristics of
Narrative Comments Related to Improvement in Multirater Feedback
Ratings over Time?” Journal of Applied Psychology 89:575–81.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.575.
Strang, Adam J., Gregory J. Funke, Sheldon M. Russell, Allen W. Dukes,
and Matthew S. Middendorf. 2014. “Physio-Behavioral Coupling in a
Cooperative Team Task: Contributors and Relations.” Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
40:145–58. doi:10.1037/a0033125.
Valdesolo, Piercarlo, and David DeSteno. 2011. “Synchrony and the Social
Tuning of Compassion.” Emotion 11:262–66. doi:10.1037/a0021302.
Vanutelli, Maria Elide, and Michela Balconi. 2015. “Empathy and
Prosocial Behaviours. Insights from Intra- and Inter-Species
Interactions.” Rivista Internazionale Di Filosofia e Psicologia
[International Journal of Philosophy and Psychology] 6:88–109.
doi:10.4453/rifp.2015.0007.
Vanutelli, Maria Elide, Laura Gatti, Laura Angioletti, and Michela
Balconi. 2017. “Affective Synchrony and Autonomic Coupling during
Cooperation: A Hyperscanning Study.” BioMed Research
International 2017:3104564. doi:10.1155/2017/3104564.
24 Michela Balconi
Varela, Francisco, Jean Philippe Lachaux, Eugenio Rodriguez, and Jacques

Martinerie. 2001. “The Brainweb: Phase Synchronization and Large-
Scale Integration.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2:229–39.
doi:10.1038/35067550.
Waldman, David A., Pierre A. Balthazard, and Suzanne J. Peterson. 2011.
“Leadership and Neuroscience: Can We Revolutionize the Way That
Inspirational Leaders Are Identified and Developed?” Academy of
Management Perspectives 25:60–74. doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.
59198450.
Chapter 2
TRUSTING AND REWARDED BRAINS

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
Trust represents a central part of all human relationships, including

romantic partnerships, family life, business, politics, and other contexts of
individuals’ life. Indeed, trusting behavior can be represented as an
essential individual need to bond, relate, and develop supportive social
relationships. Moreover, trust affects the organization’s ability to
accomplish its objectives and meet strategic goals because it acts as a
social connector for interpersonal relationships. In particular, the
neuroscientific approach demonstrated that organizations sustaining high
levels of trust have substantially greater engagement by colleagues. This
indicates that organizational trust represents a valuable asset that can be
measured and managed to sustain a competitive advantage over rivals,

26 Michela Balconi
demonstrating the possibility to support some processes that increase the

trust behavior within the organizational context.
1. PERFORMANCE AND WELL-BEING:

THE ROLE OF TRUST AND EMPATHY
Trusting behavior is a fundamental need for individuals who feel the

necessity to develop supportive social relationships with others. Trust,
indeed, appears to be a fundamental element in any human relationship,
considering family, sentimental, business, and political ones.
However, how can trust be defined? Some preliminary definitions of
trust will be proposed below.
Firstly, trust can be defined as a set of behaviors, including acting in a
manner related to another. Furthermore, trust can be defined as the belief
that another individual is likely to act in a certain way. Thirdly, trust can be
characterized as an abstract mental attitude regarding the reliability of
another individual. Otherwise, trust can be defined as a feeling of security
and trust that an individual feels. Finally, trust can be intended as a
complex neural process involving several representations in a semantic
container comprising emotions and beliefs. Trust, therefore, affects
individuals’ lives and the organizations’ ability to achieve their goals
because acting as a social lubricant facilitates interpersonal and social
interactions (Zak and Knack 2001). In particular, organizations’ sociality
and ordinary life require two key factors: identifying a common goal and
developing sufficient trust within the working group (Barraza and Zak
2013). Indeed, as demonstrated by neuroscientific evidence, high levels of
trust within the organizational context lead to greater motivation and
commitment among colleagues. This demonstrates how, within the
organizational context, trust represents a fundamental component that can
be understood and quantified to sustain a competitive advantage over rivals
and direct leadership practices that can directly influence individuals’
levels of trust.
Trusting and Rewarded Brains 27
Thus, policy design to promote trust is generalizable across

organizations. In this regard, three main aspects can be considered in the
description and promotion of trust behavior. Firstly, assuming that certain
emotional states can induce individuals to act in a certain way (Zajonc
1998), trust can be considered an unconscious affective state. In this
regard, for example, it has been shown that the investment decisions of
venture capitalists while reading business plans are not only based on
financial factors but also internal ones, such as expected internal rates of
return. This lack of understanding and the speed with which managers
make judgments about a company after reading a business plan suggests
the involvement of an automatic process. Indeed, as neuroscience also
shows, our brains frequently try to automate the most complex processes to
increase cognitive efficiency.
Secondly, to describe trust, it must be considered that this behavior
occurs not only between people involved in long-term relationships but
also short acquaintances or strangers (Zak 2005). This tendency is
observable, for example, in travelers who place confidence in the airline
pilot’s ability to lead them to their destination, despite not knowing him
and having information about his experience. Furthermore, this is
understandable observing groups similar in ethnicity, language, culture,
and education that are more likely to trust others. This trust characteristic is
essential as it helps in economic growth, transaction costs, and investment
decisions.
Thirdly, trust appears to be supported by two behavioral constructs
consisting of prosocial behavior and empathy.
In particular, prosocial behavior, influenced by individual, emotional,
and social variables (Balconi and Canavesio 2013a, 2013b, 2014; Balconi
and Vanutelli 2017; Carlo et al. 2003; Neff, Turiel, and Anshel 2002;
Vanutelli and Balconi 2015), appears to be strongly correlated with the
psychophysiological emotional reactivity, which allows one to provide
one’s help or support to another individual (Balconi and Canavesio 2013a),
and the ability to empathize with others’ emotional states (Balconi and
Bortolotti 2012; Balconi, Bortolotti, and Gonzaga 2011; Batson 2009;
Lamm, Batson, and Decety 2007; Spinella 2005). Some studies have
28 Michela Balconi
observed that the implementation of prosocial behaviors strengthens

interpersonal relations and social connection between individuals
(Nummenmaa et al. 2012), increasing their cooperative, behavioral, and
brain tuning (Balconi, Fronda, and Vanutelli 2019, 2020; Nowak and
Sigmund 2005). The positive effects of implementing prosocial behavior
on individuals’ levels of cooperation and attunement have been
demonstrated, for example, by a study by Balconi, Fronda, and Vanutelli
(2019, 2020), which explored how a gift exchange increased the level of
cerebral, peripheral, and behavioral cooperation between two interacting
individuals during the performance of an attentional task.
Given these positive effects, implementing prosocial behavior is also
important within the working context, where leaders should see themselves
as information aggregation devices. Indeed, individuals’ effective
management capacity presupposes greater sensitivity and behavioral and
emotional understanding to comprehend in advance others’ behaviors and
needs without waiting for what will be established. Therefore, empathy
turns out to be one of the main characteristics of an effective leader
(Macaluso 2003) because the ability to empathize reduces uncertainty and
satisfies workers’ needs by promoting conditions of trust and efficiency.
In particular, empathy can be defined as the affective response to
another individual’s emotional state (Decety and Jackson 2006; Preston
and de Waal 2002) and concerns the ability to monitor and regulate one’s
emotional states and the empathic resonance processes (Chauhan, Mathias,
and Critchley 2008). Indeed, regulation and emotional recognition are the
basis of empathy (Decety and Svetlova 2012). In particular, concerning
emotional recognition, some studies have demonstrated a positive
correlation between the ability to recognize emotional states expressed
through facial expressions and empathic behavior (Balconi, Bortolotti, and
Gonzaga 2011; Balconi and Canavesio 2013a, 2016; Balconi and Pozzoli
2009). High levels of empathy are closely connected with a more
remarkable ability to recognize facial expressions, which are processed
more quickly (Balconi and Bortolotti 2012; Goldman and Sripada 2005).
The need to empathize is also important on the part of employees
towards leaders. In this case, the increase in employee empathy towards
leaders occurs when the latter can clearly communicate the organization’s
needs by increasing the willingness to cooperate to achieve the proposed
objectives.
2. THE ROLE OF HORMONES IN TRUST
Prosocial behavior and attitude appear to be directly related to a

specific brain chemical: oxytocin (OT) (Barraza and Zak 2013). In
particular, OT is configured as the biological basis of treating others well
and the motivation to reciprocate. Indeed, OT’s production and its effects
on the central and peripheral nervous systems increase individuals’
voluntary cooperative behavior. Hence, systems, organizational processes,
policies, and leadership influence interpersonal relationships by facilitating
or inhibiting OT release, which is configured as the neurochemical
substrate of empathy and trust (Trust Game, TG; Berg, Dickhaut, and
McCabe 1995). Indeed, some studies have observed how to simulate
another individual’s mood results associated with a synthesis of OT and
activate a neural circuit that uses OT receptors, increasing social
cooperation.
In particular, the involvement of OT in empathy and trust has been
demonstrated by several studies that have used sequential cooperative
dilemmas, such as TG. In particular, concerning empathy, the latter must
be considered by referring to two distinct components: one cognitive and
one emotional (Balconi and Bortolotti 2013; Balconi and Canavesio 2013a,
2016), that allow individuals to experience three different perspectives.
The first is related to empathic distress, characterized by reactive and
adverse feelings (e.g., anxiety, worry, and discomfort). The second
concerns empathic concern (compassion), which is mainly associated with
affective states. The third, regarding perspective-taking, concerns others’
mental states, mainly supported by a cognitive process. In particular, the
effects of OT in empathic experience were observed in a Singer et al.
(2008) study that used the empathy-for-pain paradigm and subsequent TG
behavior. Specifically, these authors gave participants either 24 IU of OT
30 Michela Balconi
intranasally or a placebo before observing someone experiencing self-

induced pain or pain itself and then asked them to make decisions on the
TG. The study results showed that OT does not affect brain regions
previously associated with empathy for self-experienced pain or other-
witnessed pain. These results led authors to affirm that OT does not
promote empathy, but it should be emphasized that this evidence only
applies to a particular type of empathy (empathic distress). Conversely,
other studies have observed that empathic concern and perspective-taking
result from the release of endogenous OT (Barraza and Zak 2009). In this
regard, it was observed if OT affects performance on the “Reading the
Mind in the Eyes” (RMET), consisting of a task that measures the ability to
read others’ emotional states, revealing a dysregulation in OT levels in
individuals with social anxiety, borderline personality disorders, and
aggressive traits who exhibit in-group bias instead of cooperation (Zak
2012).
Moreover, some neuroeconomics studies have also investigated the
release mechanisms of OT and its brain and behavioral effects in
individuals, observing how OT produces a reduction in emotional anxiety
levels and promotes cooperation obtaining beneficial social effects.
Following this evidence, it is, therefore, possible to affirm that in the
organizational context, high levels of trust and high content of OT
represent a fundamental basis for the effective functioning of the entire
organization. Indeed, the crucial role of trust in achieving common goals is
also highlighted by for-and non-profit organizations. In light of this
evidence, to increase the likelihood of achieving the organization’s goals,
managers should be concerned about activating a climate of trust within
the organization and recreating an environment where employees interact
in a trusting way.
3. TRUSTING AND LEADERSHIP
So how can trust within organizations be increased? Within

organizations, it is possible to strengthen trustful behaviors based on some
managerial processes useful for promoting organizational well-being,

developing cohesion and positive stimuli for strengthening individuals and
collective resources. In particular, a recent model by Zak (2017)
highlighted the role of these factors. Specifically, this model has
underlined how, in the increase of organizational trust, a fundamental role
is played by explicit recognitions, called “ovations,” which consist in the
ability to recognize individuals’ successes adequately. Indeed, recognizing
one’s successes by others induces OT synthesis and promotes dopamine
release (Skuse and Gallagher 2009). In particular, the latter rewards for
paying attention to something new in the surrounding environment and
establishes pathways in the brain through which this new knowledge can
be accessed in the future. In other words, the working principle of
dopaminergic learning can be summarized as: “This is important,
remember it and do it in the future.” In addition to explicit recognitions,
expectations, which occur when colleagues take on challenges as a group,
also result in being important for the release of OT and trust increasing
among team members.
The importance of challenge design has also been demonstrated at the
neurobiological level, as the brain, functioning as an economic system,
saves energy by producing only neurochemicals such as OT when
necessary (Zak 2014). Hence, OT is more likely to be released and
enhanced cooperative effectiveness is promoted when there is a compelling
reason to work as a team. Therefore, to stimulate the group, managers
should set challenging but achievable expectations to promote OT
synthesis in their co-workers’ brains. Indeed, if the challenges and set
goals are not feasible but impossible, they are stressful for collaborators by
inhibiting OT synthesis through epinephrine release.
In addition to explicit recognitions and expectations, yield, which
occurs when colleagues choose how to perform a task, is also an essential
factor for the OT release. In particular, yield concerns the acceptance of
different execution methods, facilitates the control of work and reduces the
perception of high workloads, improves their management and promotes a
vision of error as a learning opportunity. Another critical factor for the
release of OT and, therefore, for the promotion of trust is transfer ability,
32 Michela Balconi
which promotes the self-management of work by allowing collaborators to

decide for what project work. Therefore, transfer ability allows developing
a greater mastery of different skills, allowing collaborators to effectively
use different competencies and experiences, reduce uncertainty and chronic
stress, and increase teamwork motivation in completing projects (Zak
2014).
High levels of commitment at work are not only promoted by
professional development but also by personal growth. Indeed, the ability
to bring energy and passion to working is inhibited by a dysfunctional
personal life. For this reason, organizations that promote high levels of
trust invest in the professional and personal growth of employees,
subsidizing their growth opportunities and measuring them. In fact, when
organizations invest in colleagues’ professional growth and development,
this represents an important sign of trust. High-investment organizations
have been shown to retain talented team members longer (Zak 2017).
Furthermore, to foster high levels of trust, organizations need to be led
by natural and reliable leaders. Instead of being directive, natural leaders
ask for help, are open to discussion, and accept positive or negative
decisions’ results. Indeed, as demonstrated by previous studies, vulnerable
leaders promote OTs’ release in observers (Zak, Kurzban, and Matzner
2004, 2005) and appear more sympathetic, empathetic, and able to be
forgiven when committed errors. However, vulnerable leaders only
generate trust if they are perceived as competent. Conversely, incompetent
leaders, who ask others for help, are not perceived as integrity and
trustworthy. So, except in serious situations where leaders may impose the
need for some changes, in other situations, leaders who admit not having
all the answers create greater trust with the work team, involving their
collaborators more in the realization of business objectives. Therefore, in
light of this evidence, developing a climate of greater trust within the
organizational context has positive effects on the work team. Indeed, in
high-trust environments, people can discuss and resolve problems
productively and respectfully, while in low-trust environments, conflict is
institutionally arbitrated in a slow and costly manner.
Furthermore, low levels of trust lead individuals, who are primarily

motivated by fear, to focus their energies on their protection and survival.
In this case, mental resources are not used to focus on creativity and
excellence but are spent on vigilance, safety, and survival. Indeed, the
human brain, having limited resources, quickly adapts to the environment
from which it is stimulated and automatically creates prejudices and
behaviors that are difficult to eliminate.
Finally, another essential factor for promoting trust is related to the
empowerment of others. It has been observed how high levels of autonomy
are connected with higher productivity and employee morale. Conversely,
as a study of British employees observed, low levels of autonomy are more
associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and a higher
mortality rate. Indeed, higher stress levels suppress OT and promote
cortisol release, the primary human stress hormone, which produces a
series of responses that damage the heart and other organs. Autonomy,
therefore, appears to be an essential factor for the promotion of trust since,
as the human being is not primarily configured as “homo economicus,”
innately selfish, but as “homo reciprocans,” who trust others when trust is
given. So the human brain works like this: it only trusts when trust is
returned.
4. THE VALUE OF PROMISES IN PROMOTING TRUST
In addition to the above, recent studies have observed that another

critical factor in promoting trust appears to be the promise. Indeed, the
promise was one of the primary means of establishing social contracts in
society before developing complex social and legal systems. In fact, there
were basic forms of cooperative agreements in early human society to
maintain social connections, such as trust and cooperation. Like these
forms of primitive agreement, the promise is expressed orally, not binding,
but it conveys information on an individual’s reliability in social
interactions. In fact, even in contemporary society, the promise, despite its
non-exhaustive nature, but given its simplicity, validity, and efficiency,
34 Michela Balconi
represents the basis of various social exchanges. Keeping one’s word and
then orally guaranteeing certain subsequent acts is configured as a
powerful social norm, informing about a person’s reliability.
The sense of trust and cooperative behavior at the basis of social
relationships was investigated in behavioral and experimental economics
research through the use of TG. In particular, the TG consists of a strategic
game in which two individuals are involved, one of whom receives the role
of “investor” and the other of “trustee.” The game requires that the investor
be given a series of tokens that must decide whether to keep all of them or
invest a part in the trustee, knowing that the tokens invested are multiplied.
At this point, the trustee can decide whether to keep all the multiplied
tokens or to repay the investor with a certain amount of tokens. In the TG
experimental setting, players’ monetary exchanges are not directly affected
by factors such as revenge, reputation, and punishment. This fact implies
that there is, on a theoretical level, no valid economic reason that drives the
trustee to return the payment received from the investor rationally. On
these assumptions, referring to the Nash equilibrium, the investor should
choose to keep all the tokens supplied for himself without investing them.
Despite the predictions of classic game theory, it has been observed
that many investors have invested considerable sums and many trustees
have exhibited some degree of reciprocity (Declerck, Boone, and Emonds
2013). This shows how investors’ and trustees’ decisions can be influenced
by social preference, trust, and reliability. Specifically, some neuroimaging
studies have investigated the neural correlates of trustees’ decisions to keep
or break a promise (Baumgartner et al. 2009). These studies found that
breach of a promise causes emotional conflict related to non-obedience to
social norms, as evidenced by increased activation of the dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and
amygdala.
Furthermore, the deliberate violation of a promise can be predicted by
the activation of the anterior insula, the ACC, and the inferior frontal gyrus
before the action takes place. This evidence then informs us how the
trustees perceive the promise and the breach of the promise. On the
contrary, concerning investors, there is still no clear evidence about
cerebral correlates associated with decisions to keep or break a promise

(Ma et al. 2014).
Overall, the evidence from these studies demonstrates how making a
promise promotes cooperative behavior and that individuals’ brains must
believe in the need to cooperate to become rewarded brains to trust.
REFERENCES
Balconi, Michela, and Adriana Bortolotti. 2012. “Empathy in Cooperative

versus Non-Cooperative Situations: The Contribution of Self-Report
Measures and Autonomic Responses.” Applied Psychophysiology
Biofeedback 37:161–69. doi:10.1007/s10484-012-9188-z.
———. 2013. “Emotional Face Recognition, Empathic Trait (BEES), and
Cortical Contribution in Response to Positive and Negative Cues. The
Effect of RTMS on Dorsal Medial Prefrontal Cortex.” Cognitive
Neurodynamics 7:13–21. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9210-4.
Balconi, Michela, Adriana Bortolotti, and Ludovica Gonzaga. 2011.
“Emotional Face Recognition, EMG Response, and Medial Prefrontal
Activity in Empathic Behaviour.” Neuroscience Research 71:251–59.
doi:10.1016/j.neures.2011.07.1833.
Balconi, Michela, and Ylenia Canavesio. 2013a. “Emotional Contagion
and Trait Empathy in Prosocial Behavior in Young People: The
Contribution of Autonomic (Facial Feedback) and Balanced Emotional
Empathy Scale (BEES) Measures.” Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology 35:41–8. doi:10.1080/13803395.2012.
742492.
———. 2013b. “Prosocial Attitudes and Empathic Behavior in Emotional
Positive versus Negative Situations: Brain Response (ERPs) and
Source Localization (LORETA) Analysis.” Cognitive Processing
14:63–72. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0525-1.
———. 2014. “High-Frequency RTMS on DLPFC Increases Prosocial
Attitude in Case of Decision to Support People.” Social Neuroscience
9:82–93. doi:10.1080/17470919.2013.861361.
36 Michela Balconi
———. 2016. “Is Empathy Necessary to Comprehend the Emotional

Faces? The Empathic Effect on Attentional Mechanisms (Eye
Movements), Cortical Correlates (N200 Event-Related Potentials) and
Facial Behaviour (Electromyography) in Face Processing.” Cognition
and Emotion 30:210–24. doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.993306.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2019. “A Gift
for Gratitude and Cooperative Behavior: Brain and Cognitive Effects.”
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 14:1317–27. doi:10.1093/
scan/nsaa003.
———. 2020. “When Gratitude and Cooperation between Friends Affect
Inter-Brain Connectivity for EEG.” BMC Neuroscience 21:1–12.
doi:10.1186/s12868-020-00563-7.
Balconi, Michela, and Uberto Pozzoli. 2009. “Arousal Effect on Emotional
Face Comprehension. Frequency Band Changes in Different Time
Intervals.” Physiology and Behavior 97:455–62. doi:10.1016/j.
physbeh.2009.03.023.
Balconi, Michela, and Maria Elide Vanutelli. 2017. “Interbrains
Cooperation: Hyperscanning and Self-Perception in Joint Actions.”
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 39:607–20.
doi:10.1080/13803395.2016.1253666.
Barraza, Jorge A., and Paul J. Zak. 2009. “Empathy toward Strangers
Triggers Oxytocin Release and Subsequent Generosity.” Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 1167:182–89. doi:10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2009.04504.x.
———. 2013. “Oxytocin Instantiates Empathy and Produces Prosocial
Behaviors.” In Oxytocin, Vasopressina and Related Peptides in the
Regulation of Behavior, edited by Elena Choleris, Donald W. Pfaff,
and Martin Kavaliers, 331–42. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Batson, C. Daniel. 2009. “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related
But Distinct Phenomena.” In Social Neuroscience. The Social
Neuroscience of Empathy, edited by Jean Decety and William Ickes,
3–15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baumgartner, Thomas, Urs Fischbacher, Anja Feierabend, Kai Lutz, and

Ernst Fehr. 2009. “The Neural Circuitry of a Broken Promise.” Neuron
64:756–70. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.11.017.
Berg, Joyce, John Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe. 1995. “Trust,
Reciprocity, and Social History.” Games and Economic Behavior
10:122–42. doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027.
Carlo, Gustavo, Anne Hausmann, Stacie Christiansen, and Brandy A.
Randall. 2003. “Sociocognitive and Behavioral Correlates of a
Measure of Prosocial Tendencies for Adolescents.” Journal of Early
Adolescence 23:107–34. doi:10.1177/0272431602239132.
Chauhan, Bina, Christopher J. Mathias, and Hugo D. Critchley. 2008.
“Autonomic Contributions to Empathy: Evidence from Patients with
Primary Autonomic Failure.” Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and
Clinical 140:96–100. doi:10.1016/j.autneu.2008.03.005.
Decety, Jean, and Philip L. Jackson. 2006. “A Social-Neuroscience
Perspective on Empathy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science
15:54–8. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00406.x.
Decety, Jean, and Margarita Svetlova. 2012. “Putting Together
Phylogenetic and Ontogenetic Perspectives on Empathy.”
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 2:1–24. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.
2011.05.003.
Declerck, Carolyn H., Christophe Boone, and Griet Emonds. 2013. “When
Do People Cooperate? The Neuroeconomics of Prosocial Decision
Making.” Brain and Cognition 81:95–117. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.
09.009.
Goldman, Alvin I., and Chandra Sekhar Sripada. 2005. “Simulationist
Models of Face-Based Emotion Recognition.” Cognition 94:193–213.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.005.
Lamm, Claus, C. Daniel Batson, and Jean Decety. 2007. “The Neural
Substrate of Human Empathy: Effects of Perspective-Taking and
Cognitive Appraisal.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19:42–58.
doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42.
Ma, Qingguo, Huijian Fu, Tao Xu, Guanxiong Pei, Xiaojian Chen, Yue
Hu, and Chao Zhu. 2014. “The Neural Process of Perception and
38 Michela Balconi
Evaluation for Environmental Hazards: Evidence From Event-Related

Potentials.” Neuroreport, 25:607–11. doi:10.1097/WNR.000000000
0000147.
Macaluso, Janet C. 2003. “Leading with Empathy Model What You Want
to See in Others.” Executive Excellence 20:9.
Neff, Kristin D., Elliot Turiel, and Daphne Anshel. 2002. “Reasoning
about Interpersonal Responsibility When Making Judgments about
Scenarios Depicting Close Personal Relationships.” Psychological
Reports 90:723–42. doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.90.3.723.
Nowak, Martin A., and Karl Sigmund. 2005. “Evolution of Indirect
Reciprocity.” Nature 437:1291–98. doi:10.1038/nature04131.
Nummenmaa, Lauri, Enrico Glerean, Mikko Viinikainen, Iiro P.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta Hari, and Mikko Sams. 2012. “Emotions Promote
Social Interaction by Synchronizing Brain Activity across
Individuals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 109:9599–604. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1206095109.
Preston, Stephanie D., and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2002. “Empathy: Its
Ultimate and Proximate Bases.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:1–
20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018.
Singer, Tania, Romana Snozzi, Geoffrey Bird, Predrag Petrovic, Giorgia
Silani, Markus Heinrichs, and Raymond J. Dolan. 2008. “Effects of
Oxytocin and Prosocial Behavior on Brain Responses to Direct and
Vicariously Experienced Pain.” Emotion 8:781–91. doi:10.1037/
a0014195.
Skuse, David H., and Louise Gallagher. 2009. “Dopaminergic-
Neuropeptide Interactions In The Social Brain.” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 13:27–35. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.007.
Spinella, Marcello. 2005. “Prefrontal Substrates of Empathy: Psychometric
Evidence in a Community Sample.” Biological Psychology 70:175–81.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.01.005.
Vanutelli, Maria Elide, and Michela Balconi. 2015. “Empathy and
Prosocial Behaviours. Insights from Intra- and Inter-Species
Interactions.” Rivista Internazionale Di Filosofia e Psicologia
[International Journal of Phylosophy and Psychology] 6:88–109.

doi:10.4453/rifp.2015.0007.
Zajonc, B. Robert. 1998. “Emotions.” In The Handbook of Social
Psychology, edited by Daniel Todd Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and
Gardner Lindzey, 591–632. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Zak, Paul J. 2005. “Trust: A Temporary Human Attachment Facilitated By
Oxytocin.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:368–69. doi:10.
1017/S0140525X05400060.
———. 2012. The Moral Molecule: The Source of Love and Prosperity.
New York: Random House.
———. 2014. Why Your Brain Loves Good Storytelling. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Review.
———. 2017. “The Neuroscience of Trust.” Harvard Business Review
95:84–90.
Zak, Paul J., and Stephen Knack. 2001. “Trust and Growth.” Economic
Journal 111:295–321. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00609.
Zak, Paul J., Robert Kurzban, and William T. Matzner. 2004. “The
Neurobiology of Trust.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1032:224–27. doi:10.1196/annals.1314.025.
———. 2005. “Oxytocin Is Associated with Human Trustworthiness.”
Hormones and Behavior 48:522–27. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.07.009.
Chapter 3
TO BE OR NOT TO BE MORAL
IN ORGANIZATIONS?
Michela Balconi*, PhD and Giulia Fronda

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
Moral decision-making is a complex process composed of different

decisional systems supported by controlled, automatic, cognitive, and
emotional processes. Specifically, moral decision-making regards the
evaluation of the possible consequences, implications, and acceptability
of our own decisions on others’ behavior. Neuroscience, thanks to the use
of new and innovative methods, has allowed investigating the implicit
and explicit correlates underlying moral decision-making in different
contexts, such as the organizational one. Especially within the
organizational context, neuroscience has proved useful for investigating
*
42 Michela Balconi and Giulia Fronda
the cerebral and peripheral mechanisms underlying the moral decision

process through the use of classical paradigms consisting of monetary
choices and social decision tasks. Therefore, the use of neuroscience in
the investigation of company moral behavior has allowed highlighting the
brain areas most involved in moral judgment and the analysis of
decisions’ costs and benefits and the bodily responses associated with
decisions more engaging for individuals.
1. THE MORAL DECISION-MAKING AS A DUAL PROCESS:

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Recently, several fields of neuroscientific investigation have focused

their interest on the moral decision process. Indeed, moral decision-making
is configured as a complex process relating to the acceptability of
decisions, judgments, or evaluations with moral implications (Garrigan,
Adlam, and Langdon 2018). Therefore, moral decision-making refers to
the area of ethical behavior that concerns the implementation of personal
or directed towards others behaviors that are normatively appropriate,
being the result of communicative, strengthening, and decision-making
processes (Mayer et al. 2012).
The multidimensionality of decision-making with moral implications
has extended the interest in investigating this construct in various daily life
situations, such as the company’s moral decisions. In particular, within the
organizational context, the assumption or not of leaders’ ethical behavior
can have positive or negative effects on the entire organizational culture,
influencing employees and consumers’ behavior, their health and safety,
and the well-being and quality of the entire organization (Balconi and
Fronda 2019, 2020; Minas et al. 2014). The possible business implications
and the impact of moral decisions have recently been explored by
psychological and neuroscientific fields, interested in the neurobiological
foundations of emotions underlying moral decision-making. In particular,
the neuroscientific contribution to the study of moral emotions, through
observing the brain structures involved in this process, has made it possible
to investigate the individual and situational influencing variables. This
To Be or Not to Be Moral in Organizations? 43
investigation has allowed observing this construct more in-depth than

previous studies, only focused on applying different theoretical guides in
daily management decisions (Minas et al. 2014).
Furthermore, the recent development of theoretical models
investigating the individual and organizational factors influencing moral
decision-making has shed light on company moral behavior.
Firstly, it was thoroughly investigated whether moral reasoning can be
considered a dependent variable or an antecedent of organizational
behavior. In this regard, specifically, some studies referring to intuitionist
decision-making models have proposed that decision-making does not
derive from an a priori ethical reasoning but from the attribution of
meaning that occurred due to the fact happened. Therefore, according to
these models, decisions can be considered intuitively elaborated, without
conscious awareness, on which rationalizations aimed at the appearance
and social approval are subsequently built (Haidt and Bjorklund 2008;
Sonenshein 2007).
Secondly, moral decision-making has been investigated as a rational
process. Concerning this point, while traditional psychological theories
have emphasized the function of higher cognition in moral judgment
(Kohlberg 1969), the role of emotions in moral decision-making has only
recently been emphasized. This investigation has led to the development of
new theories highlighting the moral decision process as a synthesis of
cognition and emotion. In particular, according to this research flows,
moral decision-making would be mediated by cognitive processes,
supported by rational and deductive reasoning on costs/benefits of moral
decisions, and by emotional ones, related to the evaluation of socially
relevant stimuli as right or wrong (Brand, Labudda, and Markowitsch
2006; Greene et al. 2004; Loewenstein et al. 2001). In this approach,
decision-makers can be considered as both rational and emotional agents.
Therefore, this perspective, associated with neuroscience and neuroethics’
findings, has led to developing a model of moral decision-making double
processing, which explains how decision-makers would refer to two
processing modes in their decisions. In particular, the first, defined as X-
System, consists of an automatic and intuitive processing mode; the
second, defined as C-System, would refer to a cognitive processing

modality involving higher-order conscious reasoning processes.
Specifically, it has been observed that the automatic and intuitive
processing mode is considered as a means that speeds up the decision-
making process in complex situations dictated by time pressure. On the
contrary, the second elaboration method is more complex and implemented
with hypothetical or real moral dilemmas without a ready solution
(Oliveira-Souza, Zahn, and Moll 2015).
Therefore, the processes, situational, and individuals variables
underlying moral decision-making have been widely explored by
neuroscientific studies through social decision-making tasks involving the
use of monetary paradigms developed in the field of game theory (Sanfey
2007). Although useful for investigating players’ choice behavior, these
paradigms have not allowed investigating the emotional correlates
underlying moral decision-making thoroughly. For this reason,
neuroscience has used social decision tasks such as the Ultimatum Game
(UG) or its variants (Balconi and Fronda 2019; Sanfey et al. 2003),
consisting of monetary paradigms that allow the investigation of fairness
and altruistic behavior perception requiring two players (proposer, who
proposes how to divide the sum of money, and respondent, who can accept
or reject the offer) to divide a sum of money.
Indeed, neuroscientific studies, using certain paradigms, have made it
possible to investigate in depth the neurophysiological correlates and
processes underlying moral decision-making, informing about
interpersonal dynamics and elaboration and emotional mechanisms
(Wagner et al. 2012).
In particular, previous research has shown the advantages of using
neuroscientific approaches with specific tools, such as
psychophysiological, electrophysiological, and neuroimaging techniques,
to observe brain and body mechanisms associated with moral decision-
making. For example, some studies that have observed the brain correlates
underlying moral decision-making funded a greater involvement of the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex (DLPFC). Specifically, the VMPFC is more implicated in social and
cultural norms coding, moral value attribution, and mental representation.

The DLPFC, instead, is mainly involved in cognitive control processes,
utilitarian analysis, and problem-solving (Greene et al. 2004).
In addition to brain activity, other neuroscientific studies have also
investigated peripheral activity’s variations during moral decision-making,
observing an increase in skin conductance response (SCR) and heart rate
(HR) during unfairness perception (Balconi and Fronda 2019; Sarlo et al.
2013). Finally, a recent study by Balconi and Fronda (2019, 2020), with
the use of electroencephalography (EEG), functional Near-Infrared
Spectroscopy (fNIRS), and biofeedback, has investigated the neural and
peripheral correlates associated with organizational moral decision-
making, recording the activity of 14 managers during a moral decision
task. This task, consisting of a modified version of the UG, proposed
individuals to make decisions concerning three different choice contexts
(professional, company, and prosocial) and three types of offers proposed
(fair for the respondent, unfair for the respondent, and neutral) (Figure 1).
In particular, the contexts of choice proposed managers to accept or reject a
sum of money for various reasons: the first (professional) for a job done
together with a colleague; the second (company) for the introduction of
some benefits in the working environment; the third (prosocial) to
financially help a relative of a sick colleague. A different brain and
peripheral activity has emerged from the study results concerning the
different contexts of choice and offers proposed. Specifically, an increase
in frontal EEG activity has emerged during moral decision-making. A
different frontal hemispheric lateralization has emerged concerning the
various offers’ types, following individuals’ emotional evaluation and
personal interests. Instead, regarding hemodynamic response, a greater
involvement of VMPFC, DLPFC, and superior temporal sulcus was
observed during moral decision-making. Finally, autonomic activity has
revealed an increase in skin conductance and cardiovascular activity
concerning individuals’ emotional response and cognitive assessment
processes.
Figure 1. Representation of the modified version of the UG used for the investigation
of moral decision-making (Balconi and Fronda 2019, 2020).
2. COGNITION AND EMOTION IN MORAL DECISION-

MAKING: THE ROLE OF EMPATHY AT THE WORKPLACE
In recent years, therefore, neuroscience has made it possible to

investigate in-depth the processes underlying moral decision-making and
the role of emotions and empathy in fair and unfair organizational
decisions (Balconi, Finocchiaro, and Campanella 2014). In particular, the
perception of fairness, understood as adaptive mechanisms driven by
justice and cooperation, and unfairness, associated with the
experimentation of negative emotions involving the rejection of unfair
offers, has been extensively investigated. Specifically, unfairness
perception, which consists of an aversion to inequality perceived by
individuals, has attracted particular attention within the organizational
context (Strobel et al. 2011; White et al. 2014). From a neuroscientific
point of view, indeed, it has been observed that unfair offers activate those
brain regions, such as the striatal cerebral area, involved in individuals’
gratification and reward mechanisms. In particular, a study by Tabibnia,
Satpute, and Lieberman (2008), using a paradigm similar to Sanfey and
colleagues (2003), has demonstrated the involvement of cerebral areas and
structures involved in reward mechanisms, like the insula, and the presence
of negative emotions during unfairness perception, that always led

individuals to the rejection of unfair offers. On the contrary, individuals
who accepted unfair offers showed the neural reward network’s activation,
observable from an increase of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activity.
Indeed, participants who accepted unfair offers ignored their negative
emotions to perceive an economic gain that was not satisfactory.
On the contrary, this study has observed how the fairness perception,
consisting of an automatic, intuitive, and intrinsically rewarding process
which almost always led to accepting fair offers, caused greater activation
of different brain areas and structures, like the amygdala, the VMPFC, and
the ventral striatum. Moreover, Hsu, Anen, and Quartz (2008) have
investigated the association between fairness and efficiency of
distributional outcomes by asking participants to distribute limited
resources among third parties. This study has revealed that efficiency and
fairness were elaborated in different cerebral areas. In particular, efficiency
was associated with the putamen’s activity, while fairness and unfairness
perception was associated with the insula’s activity. Indeed, as
demonstrated by this study, options perceived as unfair produced greater
activation of the insula and were not selected even when they produced
more efficient results than fair options. Therefore, this study has
demonstrated how fairness perception results from moral intuition and
emotional processes, rather than ethical principles and cognitive
considerations on economic efficiency.
Furthermore, the fairness and unfairness perception appears to be
mediated by empathic processes, essential for moral behavior (Van Vugt et
al. 2011). In particular, empathy, as a cognitively and emotionally
mediated behavioral response of an individual towards another (Balconi
and Bortolotti 2012; Batson 2010; Pavlovich and Krahnke 2012), appears
to influence moral decision-making above within the organizational
context. In this regard, some researchers have investigated the effects of
emotions such as empathy and compassion in moral decision-making
(Eisenbeiss, Maak, and Pless 2014; Hofmann and Baumert 2010). For
example, Mencl and May (2009) have observed how empathy is
configured as a moral sentiment, highly correlated with greater awareness
of the possible negative consequences of stakeholders’ decisions. Besides,

Eisenbeiss, Maak, and Pless (2014) have also demonstrated that empathy
and compassion represent the basis for compassionate solutions to moral
dilemmas. Therefore, within the organizational context, empathy allows to
investigate choices’ social benefits better, observing the implications,
consequences, and responsibilities that decisions can have on others’ well-
being. Low levels of empathy, indeed, lead to less consideration of
decisions’ moral implications and the use of a utilitarian decision-making
process. In particular, concerning the role of empathy in morality, the
involvement of specific brain regions has been observed, such as the
insula, which is part of the cerebral cortex, and the anterior cingulate
cortex (ACC) and the amygdala (Decety and Lamm 2006), belonging to
the limbic system. Specifically, the ACC, located within the forehead and
behind the brain’s frontal lobe, has connections with the limbic system and
the prefrontal cortex and is involved in emotional mechanisms, reward
anticipation, decision-making, and impulse control.
On the other hand, the amygdala is located deep in the brain and is
involved in the processing of emotional stimuli and others’ emotions
sharing (Adolphs et al. 1994).
This evidence highlights how moral decision-making represents a
complex process. To better investigate moral cognition, some authors such
as Greene et al. (2001) have observed some individuals’ neural response
during different dilemmas, from non-moral ones to variations of the
“trolley dilemma”. This dilemma, specifically, requires individuals to
choose whether to save the lives of five people from being hit by a cart by
sacrificing one. In particular, this study has revealed the activation of
specific brain areas, such as the angular gyrus, the posterior cingulate
gyrus, and the medial frontal gyrus, during moral dilemmas with a high
degree of personal involvement. Furthermore, it was found that during the
personal condition, the areas associated with cognition were less involved.
Therefore, different brain regions support cognitive and emotional
mechanisms involved in moral decision-making and the regulation of
emotions and thoughts appears to be fundamental for a good moral
decision process (Waldman et al. 2017).
3. THE INFLUENCE OF UNCONSCIOUS PROCESSES

IN MORAL DECISION-MAKING
In addition to cognitive and emotional mechanisms, moral decision-

making appears to be strongly influenced by unconscious and implicit
cerebral processes (Burns and Bechara 2007). Indeed, individuals’
behaviors result from the interaction between different systems and
neurophysiological processes influencing our behaviors’ directionality
(Johnson 2004). This antecedent is essential because it allows
understanding how logic behaviors are often different from their real
causes, pushing individuals to take decisive actions in uncertain conditions
driven by subjective realities different from objective ones. These
mechanisms are essential in moral decision-making and can have
significant consequences, especially within the organizational context.
Therefore, this fact can lead to a logical, consistent, and predictive
description of individual future results’ intentions and actions, but to
inaccurately describe the different mechanisms underlying our behaviors.
Moreover, this fact explains why many individuals cannot communicate
their decision-making processes that occur unconsciously and are therefore
inaccessible to conscious thinking. It also informs why it is often difficult
for individuals to modify and recognize their discriminatory behaviors.
Indeed, individuals tend to underestimate the role of the implicit process by
emphasizing conscious deliberation and intention. In this regard,
neuroscience observes that most of what is perceived as a unified
experience is the result of conscious and unconscious neural processes,
which are not always unified (Balconi and Pozzoli 2005; Blackmore 2005),
leading individuals to believe to know the real reasons behind their actions
also driven by unconscious processes. This process is defined as the
“binding problem” related to the awareness that individuals’ perceptions,
thoughts, and decisions derive from unitary processes, although the role of
disunited and unconscious neural mechanisms. In particular, the perception
of this sense of unity is often adaptive as it allows individuals to simplify
their experience, facing life situations with greater confidence. However,
this phenomenon has other implications. Specifically, individuals’ thought
internal functioning, being inaccessible to direct introspection or external

relationship, cannot be assessed using ordinary self-observation procedures
(Sanfey et al. 2003).
4. THE NEURAL CORRELATES OF MORALITY

AND MORAL DECISION-MAKING
In the context of morality, fairness and unfairness perception appears

to be associated with the activation of different brain areas (Tabibnia,
Satpute, and Lieberman 2008). In particular, fairness perception activates
specific brain regions, such as the left lingual gyrus, the left hippocampus,
and the bilateral insula (Rilling, King-Casas, and Sanfey 2008). On the
contrary, unfairness perception activates the anterior cingulate cortex and
the DLPFC, involved in processes concerning the detection of cognitive
conflicts and the set objectives’ control. In particular, both the DLPFC,
involved in short and long-term benefit choices’ evaluation, and the
VMPFC, involved in decisions’ judgment and emotional processing,
appear to be mainly involved in moral decision-making (Hare et al. 2010;
Levy and Glimcher 2011). Other studies, using functional Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to investigate the brain responses associated
with judging others’ positive, negative, and neutral actions and considering
decisions’ moral implications, have observed the implication of other
cerebral areas in moral decision-making. In particular, during decisions
about a goal to be finalized appear to be involved the DLPFC, the superior
medial prefrontal cortex (SMPFC), the parietal lobe (Amodio and Frith
2006; Jack, Greenwood, and Schapper 2012), the premotor and
sensorimotor cortex, and the striatum (Balleine, Delgado, and Hikosaka
2007; Poldrack et al. 2001). Most of these structures are located in the
prefrontal cortex (PFC), situated in the brain’s front behind the forehead.
Specifically, the PFC is divided into DLPFC, ventrolateral (VPFC), and
orbitofrontal (OFC) and is involved in the control and monitoring higher
cognitive functions. The DLPFC, located in the upper part of the PFC and
connected to the brain areas of attention and cognition, is involved in the
cognitive processes associated with the decision, and it appears to be

activated when individuals consider multiple sources of information to
make a decision, especially in uncertain conditions, in which activation of
the right side of the DLPFC is observed.
On the contrary, the VPFC, located on the side of the forehead, appears
to be associated with the brain regions involved in emotional processes.
Finally, the OFC, located above the eyes, is involved in decisions
involving the recovery of partially observable consequences. Furthermore,
this brain region appears to be involved in integrating emotional
information from limbic areas, useful for determining the value of
decisions’ results. The VMPFC and ACC are also involved in integrating
cognition and emotion (Decety and Svetlova 2012) (Figure 2).
5. HOW PERSONAL OR OTHER INTERESTS

INFLUENCE MORAL DECISION-MAKING
As emerged in the previous paragraphs, fairness perception has been

thoroughly investigated by some studies that have observed its association
with self-referential thinking and the theory of mind (ToM) (Robertson et
al. 2007). In particular, the latter consists of a partially automatic process
that allows individuals to infer and simulate others’ mental states, feeling
empathy. Indeed, ToM appears to be particularly associated with empathy,
but allows us to simulate, in addition to others’ emotional responses, also
their intentions, beliefs, and objectives (Gallagher and Frith 2003).
Figure 2. The figure represents the main cortical and subcortical brain areas involved
in decision-making.
The influence of ToM in fairness perception has been investigated, for

example, by a study by Singer et al. (2006) that has observed how
individuals were more likely to sacrifice their personal gain in order to
punish injustice only when victims of injustice were perceived as loyal
players. Furthermore, recent studies have observed how moral sensitivity
to fairness is based both on individuals’ emotional responses, but also on
cognitive inferences concerning others’ emotional states. Some studies, in
particular, have reported the activation of different brain regions
concerning the presentation of fairness’ moral dilemmas and economic
gain, highlighting a cerebral modular model. Specifically, different
research has shown a greater involvement of individuals concerning
injustice towards themselves rather than others (Tabibnia, Satpute, and
Lieberman 2008). Indeed, it has been observed that often, although
individuals are concerned that others are being treated fairly, they ignore
the unfair treatment of members of the external group (Clayton and
Opotow 2003). Furthermore, it was observed that the fairness perception
also derives from unconscious brain processes that strongly influence this
construct, emphasizing once again how implicit processes influence
equity’s considerations.
Personal interest is configured as the main human drive and their
consideration is fundamental in the sphere of morality concerning the
possible implications within the organizational context. Therefore, given
the centrality of the self in individual concerns, the fairness perception and
personal interests’ processing should be mediated by the same brain
regions. In this regard, a study by Ferraro, Pfeffer, and Sutton (2005) has
shown that leaders’ preconceptions about human nature can influence the
organizational management’s strategies. Specifically, if leaders are
motivated by self-centered and personal interests, they design management
systems based on this aspect. In addition to leaders’ preconceptions, the
fairness elaboration for oneself and others can also influence the implicit
automatic reactions to unfairness perception within the organizational
context (Frith and Frith 2008). Indeed, it has been observed that the neural
processing of the fairness perception in different social contexts can be
influenced by implicit negative attitudes.
Within the organizational context, diversity within the work team and
the company can represent a barrier to the fairness perception. For
example, the perception of extraneousness concerning the reference group
would disable individuals’ implementation of empathic responses and
justice’s development. This fact explains why, at times, unjust and
discriminatory actions are taken towards some individuals of a particular
group. Thus, neuroscience, by deepening the investigation of some
theoretical aspects, allows us to follow and suggest new research
directions, leading to consider new elements compared to classical
theories. For example, motivation and organizational behavior theories
have always considered mostly explicit individuals’ behaviors and
decisions, despite the presence of evidence regarding the role of implicit
and unconscious goals and processes that can influence motivational drive
and individuals’ behavior (Latham, Stajkovic, and Locke 2010). Thus,
neuroscience allows us to understand that brain research must largely
consider the existence of unconscious processes, which should be
considered by organizations along with deliberative ones.
6. THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-MONITORING SKILLS AND

MORAL SELF IN MORAL DECISION-MAKING
As noted above, self-monitoring plays an essential role in morality. In

particular, self-monitoring consists of the individual’s ability to seek
internally or externally stimuli to implement appropriate behaviors
concerning a given situation. Besides, self-monitoring also consists in the
individual’s ability to exercise conscious control over their expression,
presentation, and the manifestation of emotional expressions and behaviors
(Snyder 1974). Within the organizational context, self-monitoring allows
leaders to refer to their values to guide future decisions or look for
appropriate behavioral signals in the external situation. In addition to the
leader’s self-monitoring capabilities, the ethical organizational climate
concerns the rules implemented for resolving ethical issues and is
characterized by ethical decision norms and the reference group used by

organizational members. Finally, the organizational ethical climate is
influenced by ethical leadership, which is the concept of the “moral self”.
The latter is characterized as a multicomponent phenomenon composed of
stable affective and cognitive components that influence moral thoughts
and actions and is driven by a series of behaviors, such as the disposition
of moral judgment deriving from neural activity that influences leaders’
ideology (Lee, Senior, and Butler 2012; Senior, Lee, and Butler 2011). The
moral self is supported by the “default mode network” (DMN), involved in
the processes of moral reasoning that influence leadership and ethical
ideology (Boyatzis, Rochford, and Jack 2014; Koenigs et al. 2007), which
can be seen from the relativist orientation as the set of ethical norms and
moral behaviors that depend on the individual situation.
On the contrary, the idealist orientation considers ethical ideology as
the ensemble of moral principles and universal ethical rules that must be
respected in all contexts. Therefore, according to the relativist orientation,
individuals would decide whether to follow specific principles based on the
importance attributed to their personal interests and goals. Relativist
leaders, therefore, show themselves more inconsistent in making moral
decisions, with a lesser ability to establish principles and norms within the
group. On the contrary, according to the idealistic orientation, individuals
would decide in all situations, concerning moral and ethical principles, not
to cause harm to others, even without pursuing their gains.
Therefore, in predicting future ethical leadership skills, the interaction
between neural activity and ideological/cognitive aspects is considered.
Previous studies, indeed, have already observed that some leaders’
characteristics, such as personal dispositions, orientations, and personality
traits, helped define future leadership skills. For example, a study by
Brown and Treviño (2006) has predicted future leadership skills by
measuring leaders’ personalities. Other studies, instead, have considered
moral identity and moral reasoning skills (Jordan et al. 2013; Mayer et al.
2012). In addition to these, a study by Waldman and colleagues (2017) has
predicted future leadership skills, social cognition, and organizational
behavior by recording individuals’ neural activity using a neuroscientific
approach. Indeed, the use of a neuroscientific approach allows

understanding better the neurophysiological basis of leadership skills
(Healey and Hodgkinson 2014; Powell 2011), observing the intrinsic or
responsive brain activity that informs about individuals’ mental and
behavioral functioning (Balconi, Finocchiaro, and Campanella 2014;
Balconi, Grippa, and Vanutelli 2015; Balconi, Vanutelli, and Grippa 2017;
Raichle and Snyder 2007). The intrinsic brain activity is beneficial for
observing individuals’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral differences,
such as ideology, ethical leadership, self-awareness, and self-regulation,
which are better measured as stable traits than responses to temporary
stimuli (Buckner and Carroll 2006).
Specifically, we need to consider three aspects of brain activity that
allow us to identify a reliable ethical leadership profile. The first concerns
the ethical leadership profile most involved in this process and associated
with some leadership characteristics; the second considers the neural
connectivity; the third is related to hemispheric asymmetry.
Referring in particular to the first aspect, the main involvement of the
frontal area in the composition of the leader’s socialized vision was
observed (Waldman, Balthazard, and Peterson 2011). In addition to the
frontal cortex, the involvement of complex brain networks, such as DMN,
has also been observed, involving in social cognition, self-projection,
decision-making, and moral judgment (Buckner and Carroll 2006;
Lindquist et al. 2012). The DMN, indeed, is composed of different brain
regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex, the medial, lateral, and
inferior parietal cortices, the medial temporal lobe, and the posterior
cingulate (Raichle 2010).
Referring to neural connectivity, on the other hand, intended as the
synchronous activity of different brain regions, it can inform about
cognition and leadership behavior (Balconi et al. 2019, 2020; Buckner,
Andrews-Hanna, and Schacter 2008; Hannah et al. 2013). Neural
connectivity can inform about the degree of similarity of simultaneous
neurophysiological signals in two distinct brain regions (Thatcher, North,
and Biver 2008). Some studies have shown that brain connectivity informs
about different processes, such as monitoring the external environment,
attention, moral awareness, and individuals’ processing and social

competence (Buckner, Andrews-Hanna, and Schacter 2008; Schreiner et
al. 2014). Finally, referring to hemispheric asymmetry, the latter informs
about the processes, thinking, and processing behavior of the right and left
hemispheres. In this regard, Hellige (1990) observed a greater activation of
the left hemisphere in the rational and analytical evaluation processes
underlying moral decision-making. Other studies, on the other hand, have
shown the involvement of the right and left hemisphere in the processes of
emotional processing, with greater activation of the right hemisphere in
emotional regulation and moral judgment (Balconi, Grippa, and Vanutelli
2015; Bennet and Bennet 2008; Cacioppo, Berntson, and Nusbaum 2008).
Therefore, emotional regulation is a fundamental element for ethical
leadership, which is negatively affected by inadequate emotional
management skills, leading to freezing in the face of intense moral
situations and engaging in inappropriate behavior. A good corporate ethical
climate is influenced by the organizational ethical culture, the individual
components of the leader and their cerebral attitude.
REFERENCES
Adolphs, Ralph, Daniel Tranel, Hanna Damasio. & Antonio R. Damasio.

(1994). “Impaired Recognition of Emotion in Facial Expressions
Following Bilateral Damage to the Human Amygdala.” Nature, 372,
669–72. doi:10.1038/372669a0.
Amodio, David M. & Chris D. Frith. (2006). “Meeting of Minds: The
Medial Frontal Cortex and Social Cognition.” Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 7, 268–77. doi:10.1038/nrn1884.
Balconi, Michela. & Adriana Bortolotti. (2012). “Empathy in Cooperative
versus Non-Cooperative Situations: The Contribution of Self-Report
Measures and Autonomic Responses.” Applied Psychophysiology
Biofeedback, 37, 161–69. doi:10.1007/s10484-012-9188-z.
Balconi, Michela, Federico Cassioli, Giulia Fronda. & Maria Elide
Vanutelli. (2019). “Cooperative Leadership in Hyperscanning. Brain
and Body Synchrony during Manager-Employee Interactions.”

Neuropsychological Trends, 26, 23–44. doi:10.7358/neur-2019-026-
bal2.
Balconi, Michela, Roberta Finocchiaro. & Salvatore Campanella. (2014).
“Reward Sensitivity, Decisional Bias, and Metacognitive Deficits in
Cocaine Drug Addiction.” Journal of Addiction Medicine, 8, 399–406.
doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000065.
Balconi, Michela. & Giulia Fronda. (2019). “Physiological Correlates of
Moral Decision-Making in the Professional Domain.” Brain Sciences,
9, 229. doi:10.3390/brainsci9090229.
———. (2020). “Morality and Management: An Oxymoron? FNIRS and
Neuromanagement Perspective Explain Us Why Things Are Not like
This.” Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20, 1336–48.
doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00841-1.
Balconi, Michela, Elisabetta Grippa. & Maria Elide Vanutelli. (2015).
“What Hemodynamic (FNIRS), Electrophysiological (EEG) and
Autonomic Integrated Measures Can Tell Us about Emotional
Processing.” Brain and Cognition, 95, 67–76. doi:10.1016/
j.bandc.2015.02.001.
Balconi, Michela. & Uberto Pozzoli. (2005). “Morphed Facial Expressions
Elicited a N400 ERP Effect: A Domain-Specific Semantic Module?”
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 467–74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2005.00478.x.
Balconi, Michela, Maria Elide Vanutelli. & Elisabetta Grippa. (2017).
“Resting State and Personality Component (BIS/BAS) Predict the
Brain Activity (EEG and FNIRS Measure) in Response to Emotional
Cues.” Brain and Behavior, 7, e00686. doi:10.1002/brb3.686.
Balconi, Michela, Irene Venturella, Giulia Fronda. & Maria Elide
Vanutelli. (2020). “Leader-Employee Emotional ‘Interpersonal
Tuning’. An EEG Coherence Study.” Social Neuroscience, 15, 234–
43. doi:10.1080/17470919.2019.1696226.
Balleine, Bernard W., Mauricio R. Delgado. & Okihide Hikosaka. (2007).
“The Role of the Dorsal Striatum in Reward and Decision-Making.”
Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 8161–65. doi:10.1523/JNEURO

SCI.1554-07.2007.
Batson, C. Daniel. (2010). “Empathy-Induced Altruistic Motivation.” In
Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our
Nature, edited by Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver, 15–34.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bennet, Alex. & David Bennet. (2008). “The Human Knowledge System:
Music and Brain Coherence.” VINE, 38, 277–95. doi:10.1108/
03055720810904817.
Blackmore, Susan. (2005). Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyatzis, Richard E., Kylie Rochford. & Anthony I. Jack. (2014).
“Antagonistic Neural Networks Underlying Differentiated Leadership
Roles.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 114. doi:10.3389/
fnhum.2014.00114.
Brand, Matthias, Kirsten Labudda. & Hans J. Markowitsch. (2006).
“Neuropsychological Correlates of Decision-Making in Ambiguous
and Risky Situations.” Neural Networks, 19, 1266–76. doi:10.1016/
j.neunet.2006.03.001.
Brown, Michael E. & Linda K. Treviño. (2006). “Ethical Leadership: A
Review and Future Directions.” Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.
Buckner, Randy L., Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna. & Daniel L. Schacter.
(2008). “The Brain’s Default Network: Anatomy, Function, and
Relevance to Disease.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1124, 1–38. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.011.
Buckner, Randy L. & Daniel C. Carroll. (2006). “Self-Projection and The
Brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 49–57. doi:10.1016/
j.tics.2006.11.004.
Burns, Kelly. & Antoine Bechara. (2007). “Decision Making and Free
Will: A Neuroscience Perspective.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law
25:263–80. doi:10.1002/bsl.751.
Cacioppo, John T., Gary G. Berntson. & Howard C. Nusbaum. (2008).
“Neuroimaging as a New Tool in the Toolbox of Psychological
Science: Commentary.” Current Directions in Psychological Science,

17, 62–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00550.x.
Clayton, Susan. & Susan Opotow. (2003). “Justice and Identity: Changing
Perspectives on What Is Fair.” Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7, 298–310. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_03.
Decety, Jean. & Claus Lamm. (2006). “Human Empathy through the Lens
of Social Neuroscience.” The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146–63.
doi:10.1100/tsw.2006.221.
Decety, Jean. & Margarita Svetlova. (2012). “Putting Together
Phylogenetic and Ontogenetic Perspectives on Empathy.”
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 1–24. doi:10.1016/
j.dcn.2011.05.003.
Eisenbeiss, Silke Astrid, Thomas Maak. & Nicola M. Pless. (2014).
“Leader Mindfulness and Ethical Decision Making.” In Advances in
Authentic and Ethical Leadership, edited by Linda L. Neider and
Chester A. Schriesheim, 191–208. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Ferraro, Fabrizio, Jeffrey Pfeffer. & Robert I. Sutton. (2005). “Economics
Language and Assumptions: How Theories Can Become Self-
Fulfilling.” Academy of Management Review, 30, 8–24.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.15281412.
Frith, Chris D. & Uta Frith. (2008). “Implicit and Explicit Processes in
Social Cognition.” Neuron, 60, 503–10. doi:10.1016/ j.neuron.
2008.10.032.
Gallagher, Helen L. & Christopher D. Frith. (2003). “Functional Imaging
of ‘Theory of Mind’.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 77–83.
doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00025-6.
Garrigan, Beverley, Anna L. R. Adlam. & Peter E. Langdon. (2018).
“Moral Decision-Making and Moral Development: Toward an
Integrative Framework.” Developmental Review, 49, 80–100.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2018.06.001.
Greene, Joshua D., R. Brian Sommerville, Leigh E. Nystrom, John M.
Darley. & Jonathan D. Cohen. (2001). “An FMRI Investigation of
Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment.” Science, 293, 2105–08.

doi:10.1126/science.1062872.
Greene, Joshua D., Leigh E. Nystrom, Andrew D. Engell, John M. Darley.
& Jonathan D. Cohen. (2004). “The Neural Bases of Cognitive
Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment.” Neuron, 44, 389–400.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027.
Haidt, Jonathan. & Fredrik Bjorklund. (2008). “Social Intuitionists Reason,
as Normal Part of Conversation.” In Moral Psychology Volume 2. The
Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity, edited by
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, 241–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hannah, Sean T., Pierre A. Balthazard, David A. Waldman, Peter L.
Jennings. & Robert W. Thatcher. (2013). “The Psychological and
Neurological Bases of Leader Self-Complexity and Effects on
Adaptive Decision-Making.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 393–
411. doi:10.1037/a0032257.
Hare, Todd A., Colin F. Camerer, Daniel T. Knoepfle. & Antonio Rangel.
(2010). “Value Computations in Ventral Medial Prefrontal Cortex
during Charitable Decision Making Incorporate Input from Regions
Involved in Social Cognition.” Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 583–90.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4089-09.2010.
Healey, Mark P. & Gerard P. Hodgkinson. (2014). “Rethinking the
Philosophical and Theoretical Foundations of Organizational
Neuroscience: A Critical Realist Alternative.” Human Relations, 67,
765–92. doi:10.1177/0018726714530014.
Hellige, Joseph B. (1990). “Hemispheric Asymmetry.” Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 55–80. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000415.
Hofmann, Wilhelm. & Anna Baumert. (2010). “Immediate Affect as a
Basis for Intuitive Moral Judgement: An Adaptation of the Affect
Misattribution Procedure.” Cognition and Emotion, 24, 522–35.
doi:10.1080/02699930902847193.
Hsu, Ming, Cédric Anen. & Steven R. Quartz. (2008). “The Right and the
Good: Distributive Justice and Neural Encoding of Equity and
Efficiency.” Science, 320, 1092–95. doi:10.1126/science.1153651.
Jack, Gavin, Michelle Greenwood. & Jan Schapper. (2012). “Frontiers,

Intersections and Engagements of Ethics and HRM.” Journal of
Business Ethics, 111, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1427-y.
Johnson, Steven. (2004). Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and The
Neuroscience of Everyday Life. New York: Scribner.
Jordan, Jennifer, Michael E. Brown, Linda K. Treviño. & Sydney
Finkelstein. (2013). “Someone to Look Up To: Executive-Follower
Ethical Reasoning and Perceptions of Ethical Leadership.” Journal of
Management, 39, 660–83. doi:10.1177/0149206311398136.
Koenigs, Michael, Liane Young, Ralph Adolphs, Daniel Tranel, Fiery
Cushman, Marc Hauser. & Antonio Damasio. (2007). “Damage to the
Prefrontal Cortex Increases Utilitarian Moral Judgements.” Nature,
446, 908–11. doi:10.1038/nature05631.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1969). “Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-
Developmental Approach To Socialization.” In Handbook of
Socialization Theory, edited by David A. Goslin, 347–480. New York,
NY: Rand McNally.
Latham, Gary P., Alexander D. Stajkovic. & Edwin A. Locke. (2010).
“The Relevance and Viability of Subconscious Goals in the
Workplace.” Journal of Management, 36, 234–55.
doi:10.1177/0149206309350777.
Lee, Nick, Carl Senior. & Michael J. R. Butler. (2012). “The Domain of
Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience: Theoretical and Empirical
Challenges.” Journal of Management, 38, 921–31.
doi:10.1177/0149206312439471.
Levy, Dino J. & Paul W. Glimcher. (2011). “Comparing Apples and
Oranges: Using Reward-Specific and Reward-General Subjective
Value Representation in the Brain.” Journal of Neuroscience, 31,
14693–707. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2218-11.2011.
Lindquist, Kristen A., Tor D. Wager, Hedy Kober, Eliza Bliss-Moreau. &
Lisa Feldman Barrett. (2012). “The Brain Basis of Emotion: A Meta-
Analytic Review.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 121–43.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X11000446.
Loewenstein, George, Elke U. Weber, Christopher K. Hsee. & Ned Welch.

(2001). “Risk as Feelings.” Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–86.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.
Mayer, David M., Karl Aquino, Rebecca L. Greenbaum. & Maribeth
Kuenzi. (2012). “Who Displays Ethical Leadership, and Why Does It
Matter? An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences of Ethical
Leadership.” Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151–71.
doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0276.
Mencl, Jennifer. & Douglas R. May. (2009). “The Effects of Proximity and
Empathy on Ethical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Investigation.”
Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 201–26. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-
9765-5.
Minas, Randall, Robert Potter, Alan Dennis, Valerie Bartelt. & Soyoung
Bae. (2014). “Putting on the Thinking Cap: Using NeuroIS to
Understand Information Processing Biases in Virtual Teams.” Journal
of Management Information Systems, 30, 49–82.
doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222300403.
Oliveira-Souza, Ricardo, Roland Zahn. & Jorge Moll. (2015). “Neural
Correlates of Human Morality: An Overview.” In A Multidisciplinary
Perspective, edited by Jean Decety and Thalia Wheatley, 197–220.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pavlovich, Kathryn. & Keiko Krahnke. (2012). “Empathy, Connectedness
and Organisation.” Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 131–37.
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0961-3.
Poldrack, Russell A., Jill Clark, E. Juliana Paré-Blagoev, Daphna
Shohamy, J. Cabero Moyano, Catherine E. Myers. & Mark A. Gluck.
(2001). “Interactive Memory Systems in The Human Brain” Nature,
414, 546–50. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0800472X.
Powell, Thomas C. (2011). “Neurostrategy.” Strategic Management
Journal, 32, 1484–99. doi:10.1002/smj.969.
Raichle, Marcus E. (2010). “Two Views of Brain Function.” Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 14, 180–90. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.008.
Raichle, Marcus E. & Abraham Z. Snyder. (2007). “A Default Mode of

Brain Function: A Brief History of an Evolving Idea.” NeuroImage,
37, 1083–90. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.041.
Rilling, James K., Brooks King-Casas. & Alan G. Sanfey. (2008). “The
Neurobiology of Social Decision-Making.” Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 18, 159–65. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2008.06.003.
Robertson, Diana, John Snarey, Opal Ousley, Keith Harenski, F. Du Bois
Bowman, Rick Gilkey. & Clinton Kilts. (2007). “The Neural
Processing of Moral Sensitivity to Issues of Justice and Care.”
Neuropsychologia, 45, 755–66. doi:10.1016/ j.neuropsychologia.
2006.08.014.
Sanfey, Alan G. (2007). “Social Decision-Making: Insights from Game
Theory and Neuroscience.” Science, 318, 598–602. doi:10.1126/
science.1142996.
Sanfey, Alan G., James K. Rilling, Jessica A. Aronson, Leigh E. Nystrom.
& Jonathan D. Cohen. (2003). “The Neural Basis of Economic
Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game.” Science, 300, 1755–58.
doi:10.1126/science.1082976.
Sarlo, Michela, Lorella Lotto, Daniela Palomba, Simona Scozzari. & Rino
Rumiati. (2013). “Framing the Ultimatum Game: Gender Differences
and Autonomic Responses.” International Journal of Psychology, 48,
263–71. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.656127.
Schreiner, Matthew J., Katherine H. Karlsgodt, Lucina Q. Uddin, Carolyn
Chow, Eliza Congdon, Maria Jalbrzikowski. & Carrie E. Bearden.
(2014). “Default Mode Network Connectivity and Reciprocal Social
Behavior in 22q11. 2 Deletion Syndrome.” Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 9, 1261–67. doi:10.1093/scan/nst114.
Senior, Carl, Nick Lee. & Michael Butler. (2011). “Organizational
Cognitive Neuroscience.” Organization Science, 22, 804–15.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0532.
Singer, Tania, Ben Seymour, John P. O’Doherty, Klaas E. Stephan,
Raymond J. Dolan. & Chris D. Frith. (2006). “Empathic Neural
Responses Are Modulated by the Perceived Fairness of Others.”
Nature, 439, 466–69. doi:10.1038/nature04271.
Snyder, Mark. (1974). “Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior.” Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–37. doi:10.1037/
h0037039.
Sonenshein, Scott. (2007). “The Role of Construction, Intuition, and
Justification in Responding to Ethical Issues at Work: The
Sensemaking-Intuition Model.” Academy of Management Review, 32,
1022–40. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26585677.
Strobel, Alexander, Jan Zimmermann, Anja Schmitz, Martin Reuter,
Stefanie Lis, Sabine Windmann. & Peter Kirsch. (2011). “Beyond
Revenge: Neural and Genetic Bases of Altruistic Punishment.”
NeuroImage, 54, 671–80. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.051.
Tabibnia, Golnaz, Ajay B. Satpute. & Matthew D. Lieberman. (2008).
“The Sunny Side of Fairness: Preference for Fairness Activates
Reward Circuitry (and Disregarding Unfairness Activates Self-Control
Circuitry): Research Article.” Psychological Science, 19, 339–47.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02091.x.
Thatcher, Robert W., Duane M. North. & Carl J. Biver. (2008).
“Development of Cortical Connections as Measured by EEG
Coherence and Phase Delays.” Human Brain Mapping, 29, 1400–15.
doi:10.1002/hbm.20474.
Van Vugt, Eveline, John Gibbs, Geert Jan Stams, Catrien Bijleveld, Jan
Hendriks. & Peter Van Der Laan. (2011). “Moral Development and
Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 1234–50.
doi:10.1177/0306624X11396441.
Wagner, Ullrich, Lisa Handke, Denise Dörfel. & Henrik Walter. (2012).
“An Experimental Decision-Making Paradigm to Distinguish Guilt and
Regret and Their Self-Regulating Function via Loss Averse Choice
Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 431. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2012.00431.
Waldman, David A., Pierre A. Balthazard. & Suzanne J. Peterson. (2011).
“Leadership and Neuroscience: Can We Revolutionize the Way That
Inspirational Leaders Are Identified and Developed?” Academy of
Management Perspectives, 25, 60–74. doi:10.5465/ AMP.2011.

59198450.
Waldman, David A., Danni Wang, Sean T. Hannah. & Pierre A.
Balthazard. (2017). “A Neurological and Ideological Perspective of
Ethical Leadership.” Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1285–
1306. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0644.
White, Stuart F., Sarah J. Brislin, Stephen Sinclair. & James R. Blair.
(2014). “Punishing Unfairness: Rewarding or The Organization of A
Reactively Aggressive Response?.” Human Brain Mapping, 35, 2137–
47. doi:10.1002/hbm.22316.
Chapter 4
UN-STRESSED MIND: NEUROSCIENTIFIC

APPLICATIONS FOR STRESS MANAGEMENT
AT THE WORKPLACE
Michela Balconi*, PhD and Laura Angioletti

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
This contribution outlined recent strategies and technology-based

training for stress management interventions (SMIs) at the workplace,
dedicated to professionals at each level. Specific attention has been given
to mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), wearable brain-and-body
sensing technologies, biofeedback (BF) and neurofeedback (NF) training,
and virtual reality. Despite the promising evidence at the neural,
psychophysiological, cognitive, and behavioral level of a neuroscientific
*
68 Michela Balconi and Laura Angioletti
approach combining MBI and BF/NF training, there are still limited
opportunities in the application of SMIs at the workplace. Introducing
valuable and intensive stress management training for professionals at the
workplace, with the support of wearable technologies, may help to
contain health-related complications due to stress. It may also improve
the physical and psychological well-being of the workforce, with a large
impact in standard welfare intervention and productivity.
1. EFFECTS OF STRESS IN THE WORKPLACE
Stress consists of non-specific individual organism response to an

internal or external stimulus that, thanks to its intensity or duration,
involves implementing an adaptive behavior to restore a condition of
homeostasis and cope with the stimulus (Selye 1975).
This definition underlines how stress can be considered a primary
adaptive response to an event perceived by the individual as positive or
negative, although it is also influenced by contextual factors and cognitive
events’ evaluations (Matthews, Lin, and Wohleber 2017). Indeed, by
emphasizing stress as an adaptive response, the latter allows individuals,
who perceive to have sufficient capacity and resources to respond to
contextual requests, to implement controlled responses and problem-
solving. In this sense, therefore, stress is essential to allow the body to cope
with a situation or event in a suitable manner. On the contrary, when the
stress responses are too severe or prolonged too long over time, they
become dysfunctional due to a failure of the physiological adaptation and
homeostatic regulation mechanisms (Dhabhar 2014). Indeed, contrary to
the optimal ones located at the center of the stress curve, extremely high or
low-stress levels correlate with the inability to implement adaptive
responses and a worsening of cognitive performance. Furthermore, it has
been shown that chronic exposure to high levels of stress can have serious
clinical implications, altering mental abilities, consuming cognitive
resources, and worsening individuals’ performance (Chrousos 2009).
These physiological and psychological responses also occur when
individuals experience everyday stressful situations, such as conducting an
Un-Stressed Mind 69
exam (Saleh, Camart, and Romo 2017), which can significantly affect
subjective self-perception, performance, and well-being.
This underlines how stress is experienced in different social and daily
life situations, such as working contexts. In particular, what can be said
about stress at the workplace? Indeed, within the working context, all
workers are subject to experiencing stress levels. However, especially
those who hold managerial positions, which require the performance of
tasks characterized by a high cognitive load, are subject to continually
experience stressful situations. Indeed, these professionals’ work
performance is characterized and influenced by high workload, high
responsibility, and demand to achieve excellent results (Mohr and Wolfram
2010; Schieman and Glavin 2016). Therefore, the relevance of the topic of
stress within the working context leads to the need to expand systematic
research on the topic. Currently, existing studies underline the negative
impact of professional stress on managers’ mood, perceived health, and
performance effectiveness (Schieman and Glavin 2016).
In particular, an interesting study by Cavanaugh et al. (2000) analysed
the self-report stress differentiating it between challenge stress, related to
work stress reported following demanding job requests, and hindrance
stress, which can be defined as the self-report stress related to job demands
or work circumstances that involve excessive or undesirable constraints
interfering with individual’s ability to achieve valuable goals. In particular,
this study showed that self-report stress, depending on the individual’s
assessment of the situation as a positive challenge or a negative obstacle,
correlates differently with job satisfaction and job search behavior.
This evidence demonstrates how the investigation of the possible
implications of stress and the ways to manage it represent a fundamental
topic within the working context, having an impact on successful work
performance, personal well-being (Balconi et al. 2017; Crivelli and
Balconi 2017; Little, Simmons, and Nelson 2007), and compromising
individuals’ quality of life due to interpersonal conflicts and interference
with private life (Schieman and Glavin 2016). Indeed, working stress has
been observed to increase cardiovascular risk and alter cardiovascular
activity’s neural regulation (Backé et al. 2012). In particular, stress alters
the functionality of the endocrine and immune systems, thus increasing

individual susceptibility to various diseases (Chandola, Heraclides, and
Kumari 2010), and influences the reactivity and autonomic regulation, with
increased heart rate (HR), blood pressure, and reduced vagal tone in
working and resting conditions. The reduction of vagal tone, in particular,
reduces the ability of the parasympathetic system to downregulate the
autonomic arousal associated with various conditions, such as that of
chronic suffering (Lucini et al. 2007).
Furthermore, sustained exposure to stressful conditions also affects
individuals’ neural response and the effectiveness of the cognitive systems
involved in attention regulation (Ptak 2012). Specifically, the
hyperactivation caused by stress affects the ability to correctly implement
certain cognitive processes such as executive, decision-making, attentional
and mnemonic ones and the processes of self-monitoring and emotional
regulation (Arnsten 2015; Girotti et al. 2018).
Considering the effects of stress on individuals’ neural and
psychophysiological response, it is therefore important to intervene and
train the ability to capitalize on the initial increase in stress-related
psychophysical reactivity through the use of appropriate stress
management techniques or interventions, preventing any dysfunctional
consequences (Subhani et al. 2018), increasing the effectiveness of
individuals’ neural, cognitive and behavioral reactions to stressful
situations and promoting an improvement in subjective well-being.
Specifically, these SMIs have been classified as primary when they
address the source of stress in the workplace and involve the organizational
or group plan; secondary, when they consider the individual level of stress
of the employee; and tertiary, when they are aimed at improving levels of
stress already existing in individual members of the organization (Le
Fevre, Kolt, and Matheny 2006; Quick, Quick, and Nelson 1998). Given
the specific purposes, primary interventions require the organization’s
active involvement and the activation of support groups. In contrast,
secondary interventions include different approaches, such as somatic
ones, relaxation techniques, meditation and visualization, cognitive
exercise, psychotherapy, biofeedback techniques, or a multimodal
Un-Stressed Mind 71
combination of these approaches. These secondary interventions do not

eliminate work-related and organizational stressors but focus on
organizational members’ reactions to stress and possible ways to manage
these stressors. The idea behind these SMIs is that individuals’ positive or
negative reaction to stress depends on the evaluation of the event and on
the methods to cope with the stress factors (Le Fevre, Kolt, and Matheny
2006).
The next paragraph describes the potential of some of these secondary
SMIs integrated with some neuroscientific tools’ contribution.
2. TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS FOR THE

MANAGEMENT OF STRESS IN THE COMPANY
Among the secondary SMIs, techniques and methods inherited from

the neuroscientific field applied to the managerial field can be considered.
In particular, concerning the management of work stress, using an
integrated approach involving several techniques, as mindfulness-based
interventions supported by wearable neurofeedback devices, has proved
useful and effective.
Among the most common protocols for stress management in the
company context, relaxation techniques, cognitive-behavioral
psychological training, and meditation practices (Richardson and Rothstein
2008) have found to be effective for the negative influence of exposure to
stress factors, which can be translated into health risks and worsening of
cognitive performance.
In particular, MBIs are functional and effective in reducing stress
levels related to clinical and non-clinical contexts (Creswell 2017).
Indeed, several literature studies have shown that mindfulness causes a
significant modulation of the neurophysiological markers associated with
stress. Furthermore, this technique was advantageous within the workplace
for stress management (Janssen et al. 2018; Ravalier, Wegrzynek, and
Lawton 2016). Although some methodological limitations (e.g., work on
long-term outcomes and effects, follow-up) and negative results (Bartlett et

al. 2019; Jamieson and Tuckey 2017; Vonderlin et al. 2020), MBIs are
effective in improving well-being, awareness, and job satisfaction by
causing a reduction in individuals’ stress levels, burnout, mental distress
development, and somatic disorders (Vonderlin et al. 2020).
In addition to MBIs, recently, well-designed app-based wearable
devices have also been identified as possible options for work stress
management by facilitating the awareness processes of individuals,
allowing recording physiological responses in real-time, as indicators of
stress levels, and informing individuals when to act (Patel, Asch, and
Volpp 2015). The advantages reported by these systems are that they act as
a reminder of SMIs, monitor change over time by increasing motivation in
practice and the achievement of significant progress, alerting the worker to
the moment of stress, and helping him implement better stress management
strategies promoting a more adaptive response.
Specifically, it was observed that these wearable devices, which
involve the integration of elementary functions (for example, heart rate
sensors, app notifications, and tactile vibrations) and cognitive and
physiological experimental processes, can reduce stress levels and increase
the attentional levels of employees (Fallon, Spohrer, and Heinzl 2019,
229–39), by acting as facilitators and not drivers of behavior change (Patel,
Asch, and Volpp 2015). Despite this early evidence, research on the
effectiveness of these stress monitoring devices in the workplace should be
supported by more significant effectiveness. Instead, this was found for
more advanced wearable body and brain-sensing devices that have proven
effective in reducing stress levels, causing benefits to employees and
managers (Balconi and Crivelli 2019; Balconi, Fronda, and Crivelli 2019;
Balconi et al. 2018; Crivelli et al. 2019).
Besides MBIs and well-designed app-based wearable devices, another
accessible, low-cost, and easy-to-use system for applying work stress
reduction and management interventions is BF. This tool, in particular, has
proved effective in improving psychological (self-report work stress scale)
and stress indicators (i.e., electromyography, temperature, cortisol and
heart rate variability, HRV) in the workplace (De Witte, Buyck, and Van
Un-Stressed Mind 73
Daele 2019; Kotozaki et al. 2014; Murphy, Nimmo-Smith, and Lawrence

2003; Sutarto, Wahab, and Zin 2012). Specifically, this tool’s effectiveness
with wearable devices on self-reported stress has been demonstrated in
clinical and non-clinical settings (Goessl, Curtiss, and Hofmann 2017). For
example, a study by Munafò, Patron, and Palomba (2016) has
demonstrated the positive impact of a BF intervention for respiratory sinus
arrhythmia (RSA) of five weekly sessions for 45 minutes on a sample of
sixteen managers with high-level job responsibilities, with a decrease in
resting heart rate activity, anxiety levels and an improvement in the quality
of life. Moreover, this tool’s effectiveness in reducing stress levels has also
been demonstrated in combination with MBIs (Brinkmann et al. 2020).
In particular, some studies, which have observed the conscious and
unconscious mechanisms of MBIs supported by an NF wearable device in
emotion regulation and stress management, have found the effectiveness of
these new approaches, which integrate mental training practices with
wearable brain sensing devices, in improving individuals’ cognitive
performance and stress management (Balconi and Crivelli 2019; Balconi et
al. 2017; Bhayee et al. 2016; Crivelli et al. 2019). Specifically, these
studies have shown how MBIs can help regulate affective responses,
improving negative emotions management. Furthermore, this integrated
protocol has also proved beneficial for the empowerment of stress
management skills and increased neurocognitive efficiency in stressful
professional contexts with people occupying high managerial levels
characterized by high responsibilities and managerial duties (Crivelli et al.
2019). These studies’ results have observed decreased stress levels after
two intensive weeks of intervention with NF. In particular, at the end of
NF treatment, a decrease in stress, anxiety, anger, and mental fatigue and
an increase in electrophysiological markers of relaxation and effective
recovery from the stress response has been observed. In addition, a
significant increase in vagal tone has emerged, with an increase in HRV
both at rest and during exposure to a cognitive stress factor. The increase in
HRV values indicates that the intense MBIs with NF promoted effective
psychophysiological reactivity and homeostatic mechanisms with
observable effects on the physiological response markers to stress.
Moreover, this increase in HRV was also observed in rest conditions,

highlighting how these skills trained by constant practice have positive
implications in daily life. Indeed, this index reflects the effect of stressors
on individuals and is configured as a reliable metric that shows the
capacity of physiological coping skills with practical consequences for the
assessment and intervention on stress management in different contexts
(Subhani et al. 2018). A decrease in self-perceived stress, reported levels of
anxiety and anger, and mental fatigue was also found at a psychological
level. Therefore, these studies show how this protocol can have positive
effects on single individuals and the entire organization. Indeed, it was
observed that managerial staff stress has negative impacts on working and
interpersonal life and on well-being, productivity, and effectiveness of the
working team and the entire organization (Little, Simmons, and Nelson
2007). Furthermore, extensive literature has also shown the relationship
between occupational stress and cardiovascular disease (Backé et al. 2012;
Collins, Karasek, and Costas 2005; Eller, Kristiansen, and Hansen 2011).
Considering the positive and promising results of the implementation of
this protocol, short in terms of overall duration and timing of the daily
practices required, it could prove to be a useful tool for those professionals,
with high work duties and limited time, for whom traditional stress
management programs may be too demanding and easily abandoned.
Finally, although some studies have shown the effectiveness of virtual
reality (VR) treatments in reducing stress and anxiety, only a review by
Naylor, Ridout, and Campbell (2020) and other exploratory studies
(Ahmaniemi et al. 2017; Straßmann et al. 2019; Thoondee and Oikonomou
2018; Yin et al. 2019) have demonstrated its usefulness in the workplace.
Specifically, these studies have adopted both subjective and objective
outcome measures reporting higher relaxation effects and lower stress
levels in participants. In particular, individuals responded positively to the
possibility of using VR to promote a condition of relaxation and
interruption of stress control by immersing in the scene, thus distracting
themselves from thoughts and work tasks (Ahmaniemi et al. 2018;
Thoondee and Oikonomou 2018). In this regard, a more positive mental
state was observed after the condition of relaxation, no feeling of simulator
Un-Stressed Mind 75
sickness, and the importance of the intervention’s adaptability to the user’s

choice has emerged (Straßmann et al. 2019). The biophilic and natural
design of VR also promoted a reduction in stress and improved
individuals’ creativity (Yin et al. 2019).
Despite this few pieces of evidence, the issue of using VR for the
management of work stress deserves a broader investigation. Therefore,
future studies and research should focus on the standardization of possible
scientific protocols, methodologically and statistically complete, that adopt
a robust randomized controlled study design that includes an objective
measure (such as HR, HRV, or neural indices) to observe the regulation of
work stress through virtual reality interventions.
CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, in which some effective

neuroscientific techniques and interventions in the management of work
stress have been described, the introduction of effective and intensive
training designed, supported by the use of wearable devices, could help
reduce stress levels of professionals at risk by decreasing negative health
effects. It also lowers potential costs for the company and improves the
workforce’s physical and psychological well-being, with limited
investment in standard welfare interventions. Furthermore, a reduction in
stress levels with a consequent improvement in professionals’ well-being
would positively affect management levels for the work team and the
entire organization, increasing its productivity.
Despite the potential that emerged from applying these tools, the
number of studies demonstrating their effectiveness is still limited. It
would be necessary to expand the research and literature on this topic,
further corroborating the current empirical observations. Furthermore, it
might be helpful to verify these protocols’ effectiveness and the robustness
of these practices’ effects even on samples of managers from distinct
organizations or different categories of high-risk professionals. Finally, it
could also help collect data on work experience, company climate,
employee productivity, level of satisfaction, and work autonomy

(Mühlhaus and Bouwmeester 2016). The inclusion and observation of
these factors could help build a clearer picture of the effect that
personalized training could have on the organization’s top positions at the
group and company level and better estimate the related potential
economic and psychological benefits.
REFERENCES
Ahmaniemi, Teemu, Harri Lindholm, Kiti Muller. & Tapio Taipalus.

(2017). “Virtual Reality Experience as a Stress Recovery Solution in
Workplace.” Paper presented at the IEEE Life Sciences Conference
(LSC), Sydney, Australia, December 13–15.
Arnsten, Amy F. T. (2015). “Stress Weakens Prefrontal Networks:
Molecular Insults to Higher Cognition.” Nature Neuroscience, 18,
1376–85. doi:10.1038/nn.4087.
Backé, Eva Maria, Andreas Seidler, Ute Latza, Karin Rossnagel. &
Barbara Schumann. (2012). “The Role of Psychosocial Stress at Work
for the Development of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic
Review.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 85, 67–79. doi:10.1007/s00420-011-0643-6.
Balconi, Michela. & Davide Crivelli. (2019). “Wearable Devices for Self-
Enhancement and Improvement of Plasticity: Effects on
Neurocognitive Efficiency.” In Quantifying and Processing
Biomedical and Behavioral Signals, edited by Anna Esposito, Marcos
Faundez-Zanuy, Francesco Carlo Morabito, and Eros Pasero, 11–22.
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Balconi, Michela, Davide Crivelli, Giulia Fronda. & Irene Venturella.
(2018). “Neuro-Rehabilitation and Neuro-Empowerment by Wearable
Devices. Applications to Well-Being and Stress Management.” Paper
presented at the 4th International Conference on Neurorehabilitation,
Pisa, Italy, October 16–20.
Un-Stressed Mind 77
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda. & Davide Crivelli. (2019). “Effects of

Technology-Mediated Mindfulness Practice on Stress:
Psychophysiological and Self-Report Measures.” Stress, 22, 200–9.
doi:10.1080/10253890.2018.1531845.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, Irene Venturella. & Davide Crivelli.
(2017). “Conscious, Pre-Conscious and Unconscious Mechanisms in
Emotional Behaviour. Some Applications to the Mindfulness
Approach with Wearable Devices.” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 7,
1280. doi:10.3390/app7121280.
Bartlett, Larissa, Angela Martin, Amanda L. Neil, Kate Memish, Petr
Otahal, Michelle Kilpatrick. & Kristy Sanderson. (2019). “A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Workplace Mindfulness
Training Randomized Controlled Trials.” Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 24, 108–26. doi:10.1037/ocp0000146.
Bhayee, Sheffy, Patricia Tomaszewski, Danie H. Lee, Graeme Moffat, Lou
Pino, Sylvain Moreno. & Norma A. S. Farb. (2016). “Attentional and
Affective Consequences of Technology Supported Mindfulness
Training: A Randomised, Active Control, Efficacy Trial.” BMC
Psychology, 4, 1–14. doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0168-6.
Brinkmann, Amelie Edith, Sophia Antonia Press, Eduard Helmert, Martin
Hautzinger, Inna Khazan. & Jan Vagedes. (2020). “Comparing
Effectiveness of HRV-Biofeedback and Mindfulness for Workplace
Stress Reduction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Applied
Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 45, 307–22. doi:10.1007/s10484-020-
09477-w.
Cavanaugh, Marcie A., Wendy R. Boswell, Mark V. Roehling. & John W.
Boudreau. (2000). “An Empirical Examination of Self-Reported Work
Stress among U.S. Managers.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–
74. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65.
Chandola, Tarani, Alexandros Heraclides. & Meena Kumari. (2010).
“Psychophysiological Biomarkers of Workplace Stressors.”
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 51–7. doi:10.1016/
j.neubiorev.2009.11.005.
Chrousos, George P. (2009). “Stress and Disorders of the Stress System.”

Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 5, 374–81. doi:10.1038/ nrendo.
2009.106.
Collins, Sean M., Robert A. Karasek. & Kevin Costas. (2005). “Job Strain
and Autonomic Indices of Cardiovascular Disease Risk.” American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48, 182–93. doi:10.1002/ajim.20204.
Creswell, J. David. (2017). “Mindfulness Interventions.” Annual Review of
Psychology, 68, 491–516. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139.
Crivelli, Davide. & Michela Balconi. (2017). “Agentività e competenze
sociali: riflessioni teoriche e implicazioni per il management.”
Ricerche Di Psicologia [“Agency and Social Skills: Theoretical
Remarks and Implications for Management.” Research of Psychology],
40, 349–63. doi:10.3280/RIP2017-003006.
Crivelli, Davide, Giulia Fronda, Irene Venturella. & Michela Balconi.
(2019). “Stress and Neurocognitive Efficiency in Managerial Contexts:
A Study on Technology-Mediated Mindfulness Practice.”
International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 12, 42–56.
doi:10.1108/IJWHM-07-2018-0095.
De Witte, Nele A. J. De, Inez Buyck. & Tom Van Daele. (2019).
“Combining Biofeedback with Stress Management Interventions: A
Systematic Review of Physiological and Psychological Effects.”
Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 44, 71–82. doi:10.1007/
s10484-018-09427-7.
Dhabhar, Firdaus S. (2014). “Effects of Stress on Immune Function: The
Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful.” Immunologic Research, 58, 193–
210. doi:10.1007/s12026-014-8517-0.
Eller, Nanna Hurwitz, Jesper Kristiansen. & Ase Marie Hansen. (2011).
“Long-Term Effects of Psychosocial Factors of Home and Work on
Biomarkers of Stress.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 79,
195–202. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.10.009.
Fallon, Monica, Kai Spohrer. & Armin Heinzl. (2019). “Wearable Devices:
A Physiological and Self-Regulatory Intervention for Increasing
Attention in the Workplace.” In Information Systems and
Un-Stressed Mind 79
Neuroscience, edited by Fred D. Davis, Jan vom Brocke, Pierre-

Majorique Léger, and Adriane B. Randolph, 229–39. Cham: Springer.
Girotti, Milena, Samantha M. Adler, Sarah E. Bulin, Elizabeth A. Fucich,
Denisse Paredes. & David A. Morilak. (2018). “Prefrontal Cortex
Executive Processes Affected by Stress in Health and Disease.”
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry,
85, 161–79. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.07.004.
Goessl, Vera C., Joshua E. Curtiss. & Stefan G. Hofmann. (2017). “The
Effect of Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback Training on Stress and
Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Medicine, 47, 2578–86.
doi:10.1017/S0033291717001003.
Jamieson, Stephanie D. & Michelle R. Tuckey. (2017). “Mindfulness
Interventions in the Workplace: A Critique of the Current State of the
Literature.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 180–93.
doi:10.1037/ocp0000048.
Janssen, Math, Yvonne Heerkens, Wietske Kuijer, Beatrice Van Der
Heijden. & Josephine Engels. (2018). “Effects of Mindfulness-Based
Stress Reduction on Employees’ Mental Health: A Systematic
Review.” PLoS ONE, 13, e0191332. doi:10.1371/ journal.
pone.0191332.
Kotozaki, Yuka, Hikaru Takeuchi, Atsushi Sekiguchi, Yuki Yamamoto,
Takamitsu Shinada, Tsuyoshi Araki, Kei Takahashi., et al. (2014).
“Biofeedback-Based Training for Stress Management in Daily Hassles:
An Intervention Study.” Brain and Behavior, 4, 566–79.
doi:10.1002/brb3.241.
Le Fevre, Mark Le, Gregory S. Kolt. & Jonathan Matheny. (2006).
“Eustress, Distress and Their Interpretation in Primary and Secondary
Occupational Stress Management Interventions: Which Way First?.”
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 547–65. doi:10.1108/
02683940610684391.
Little, Laura M., Bret L. Simmons. & Debra L. Nelson. (2007). “Health
among Leaders: Positive and Negative Affect, Engagement and
Burnout, Forgiveness and Revenge.” Journal of Management Studies,
44, 243–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00687.x.
Lucini, Daniela, Silvano Riva, Paolo Pizzinelli. & Massimo Pagani.

(2007). “Stress Management at the Worksite: Reversal of Symptoms
Profile and Cardiovascular Dysregulation.” Hypertension, 49, 291–97.
doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000255034.42285.58.
Matthews, Gerald, Jinchao Lin. & Ryan Wohleber. (2017). “Personality,
Stress and Resilience: A Multifactorial Cognitive Science
Perspective.” Psihologijske Teme, 26, 139–62. doi:10.31820/pt.26.1.6.
Mohr, Gisela. & Hans Joachim Wolfram. (2010). “Stress Among
Managers: The Importance of Dynamic Tasks, Predictability, and
Social Support in Unpredictable Times.” Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 15, 167–79. doi:10.1037/a0018892.
Mühlhaus, Julia. & Onno Bouwmeester. (2016). “The Paradoxical Effect
of Self-Categorization on Work Stress in a High-Status Occupation:
Insights from Management Consulting.” Human Relations, 69, 1823–
52. doi:10.1177/0018726715626255.
Munafò, Marianna, Elisabetta Patron. & Daniela Palomba. (2016).
“Improving Managers’ Psychophysical Well-Being: Effectiveness of
Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia Biofeedback.” Applied
Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 41, 129–39. doi:10.1007/s10484-015-
9320-y.
Murphy, Fionnuala C., Ian Nimmo-Smith. & Andrew D. Lawrence.
(2003). “Functional Neuroanatomy of Emotions: A Meta-Analysis.”
Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 207–33.
doi:10.3758/CABN.3.3.207.
Naylor, Matthew, Brad Ridout. & Andrew Campbell. (2020). “A Scoping
Review Identifying the Need for Quality Research on the Use of
Virtual Reality in Workplace Settings for Stress Management.”
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23, 506–18.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2019.0287.
Patel, Mitesh S., David A. Asch. & Kevin G. Volpp. (2015). “Wearable
Devices as Facilitators, Not Drivers, of Health Behavior Change.”
JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 313, 459–60.
doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14781.
Un-Stressed Mind 81
Ptak, Radek. (2012). “The Frontoparietal Attention Network of the Human

Brain: Action, Saliency, and a Priority Map of the Environment.”
Neuroscientist, 18, 502–15. doi:10.1177/1073858411409051.
Quick, Jonathan D., James Campbell Quick. & Debra L. Nelson. (1998).
“The Theory of Preventive Stress Management in Organizations.” In
Theories of Organizational Stress, edited by Cary L. Cooper, 246–68.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ravalier, Jermaine M., Paulina A. Wegrzynek. & Simon Lawton. (2016).
“Systematic Review: Complementary Therapies and Employee Well-
Being.” Occupational Medicine, 66, 428–36. doi:10.1093/
occmed/kqw047.
Richardson, Katherine M. & Hannah R. Rothstein. (2008). “Effects of
Occupational Stress Management Intervention Programs: A Meta-
Analysis.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 69–93.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69.
Saleh, Dalia, Nathalie Camart. & Lucia Romo. (2017). “Predictors of
Stress in College Students.” Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 19.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00019.
Schieman, Scott. & Paul Glavin. (2016). “The Pressure-Status Nexus and
Blurred Work–Family Boundaries.” Work and Occupations, 43, 3–37.
doi:10.1177/0730888415596051.
Selye, Hans. (1975). “Stress and Distress.” Comprehensive Therapy, 1, 9–
13. doi:10.1177/0022002185016004003.
Subhani, Ahmad Rauf, Nidal Kamel, Mohamad Naufal Mohamad Saad,
Nanda Nandagopal, Kenneth Kang. & Aamir Saeed Malik. (2018).
“Mitigation of Stress: New Treatment Alternatives.” Cognitive
Neurodynamics, 12, 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11571-017-9460-2.
Sutarto, Purwandini Auditya, Muhammad Nubli Abdul Wahab. & Nora
Mat Zin. (2012). “Resonant Breathing Biofeedback Training for Stress
Reduction among Manufacturing Operators.” International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 18, 549–61.
doi:10.1080/10803548.2012.11076959.
Straßmann, Carolin, Sabrina C. Eimler, Alexander Arntz, Dustin Keßler,
Sarah Zielinski, Gabriel Brandenberg, Vanessa Dümpel. & Uwe
Handmann. (2019). “Relax Yourself - Using Virtual Reality to

Enhance Employees’ Mental Health and Work Performance.” Paper
presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Glasgow Scotland, May 8–13.
Thoondee, Krsna Das. & Andreas Oikonomou. (2018). “Using Virtual
Reality to Reduce Stress at Work.” Paper presented at the Computing
Conference, London, United Kingdom, July 18–20.
Vonderlin, Ruben, Miriam Biermann, Martin Bohus. & Lisa Lyssenko.
(2020). “Mindfulness-Based Programs in the Workplace: A Meta-
Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Mindfulness, 11, 1579–98.
doi:10.1007/s12671-020-01328-3.
Yin, Jie, Nastaran Arfaei, Piers MacNaughton, Paul J. Catalano, Joseph G.
Allen. & John D. Spengler. (2019). “Effects of Biophilic Interventions
in Office on Stress Reaction and Cognitive Function: A Randomized
Crossover Study in Virtual Reality.” Indoor Air, 29, 1028–39.
doi:10.1111/ina.12593.
PART II: THE APPLICATIONS
Chapter 5
NEUROASSESSMENT: NEUROMETRICS
FOR ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
The term “neuroassessment” refers to the application of

neurometrics, neuroscientific methods and techniques for the assessment
practices conducted in the organizational contexts. So far, despite the
significance of dynamic cognitive and social processes, as well as their
potential function as precursors to self-regulation and other key
professional soft skills, the neuromanagement area lacks an overarching
structure for assessing these processes in the professional contexts.
Therefore, a neurocognitive triadic model for the evaluation of individual
professional potential and neuroenhancement has been here proposed.

86 Michela Balconi
Within this framework, two application examples of neuroassessment to

the evaluation of the potential practices and the professional interpersonal
interactions in the company have been discussed. These examples
intended to emphasize the advantages of integrating the neuroscientific
perspective into the organizational contexts, provide an overview of what
has been done so far, and stimulate new ideas on what could be done in
the companies contexts in the future.
1. INTEGRATING NEUROSCIENCE DISCIPLINE

INTO THE COMPANY FOR ASSESSMENT
The primary goal of the neuroscience applied to the managerial context

is the definition of an organizational neuroscientific perspective capable of
understanding and integrating the cognitive, emotional, and relational
processes underlying the actions of individuals in specific organizational
areas. The discipline of neuromanagement was indeed conceived from the
necessity to comprehend mental processes subserving motives, attitudes,
and behaviors of professionals in organizations, with the ultimate aim of
predicting, modifying, and enhancing them (Balconi and Venturella 2017;
Balconi et al., 2017; Murray and Antonakis 2019). Despite the
neuromanagement discipline is relatively young and constantly evolving to
adapt to changing professional challenges, also the “mere” integration of
social neuroscience and organizational disciplines in the company field
already proved to be useful for theoretical, methodological, and technical
purposes. There are at least three key reasons for which the integration of
social neuroscience and neuromanagement in the organizational field
constitute an added value.
To begin with the first reason, neuroscience has the principal aim of
exploring and understanding brain functioning and its higher-order
cognitive and social mechanisms.
Neuroassessment 87
Neuroscientific disciplines application is based on the integration of

multiple levels of analysis - from the explicit level of information (“overt”
behavior and self-reported subjective experiences) to the implicit
information processing (the “covert” central and peripheral physiological
mechanisms), the last goes hand in hand with the first level and support it.
Secondly, the neuroscience approach frequently employs
methodologies and tools that have been demonstrated to effectively tap on
mental processes that govern self-regulation, social skills, and higher
cognition even in the workplace. This aspect could allow the development
and identification of mission-critical professions, as well as the effective
design of Human Resources (HR) management practices and policies.
Finally, the discipline of neuromanagement may provide a sustainable
avenue for better defining and developing specific protocols that can be
used to set new practices for the assessment in a variety of ways, ranging
from assessing the potential, to the assessment of the work performance,
until the implementation of new pathways for cognitive, emotional, and
relationship skills enhancement.
Whereas in the current chapter, the focus will be above all on the
advantages of integrating the neuroscientific perspective into the
assessment procedures carried out in companies. Indeed with the term
“neuroassessment,” we refer to the application of neurometrics,
neuroscientific methods and techniques, and neuroscience-based tools for
the assessment practices conducted in the organizational contexts.
Conscious of the ethical issues and implications of neurocognitive
applications on individuals and community, as well as the advantages and
challenges of implementing it specifically in environments oriented to the
promotion of well-being (Fronda, Crivelli, and Balconi 2019), newly
developed cognitive neuroempowerment protocols hold promise for
improving organizational effectiveness and efficiency and will be
addressed in the following chapters.
88 Michela Balconi
2. THE TRIADIC MODEL (TRM MODEL)

FOR NEUROASSESSMENT AND NEUROEMPOWERMENT
So far, despite the significance of dynamic cognitive and social

processes, as well as their potential function as precursors to self-
regulation and other key professional soft skills, the neuromanagement
area lacks an overarching structure for examining these processes in the
professional context.
To fill this gap, we recently proposed a triadic model for the evaluation
of individual professional potential and neuroenhancement (Balconi,
Angioletti, and Crivelli 2020), according to which professionals’ potential
can be examined by considering three main areas of competencies, which
are include in the TRM Model (Technical, Relational, Metacognitive
Model): (i) technical-analytical skills, (ii) metacognitive skills, and (iii)
relational skills (Figure 1).
Starting from the first cluster of competencies, technical skills regard a
precise function and business area and they are based on an individual’s
educational and work experience (Dessler 2016; Silzer and Church 2009).
The logical reasoning involved in solving a specific problem is an example
of these skills. Whereas analytical skills, in contrast to technical skills,
have a lower degree of specificity in terms of organizational roles, since
they regard domain-independent skills such as selective attention,
cognitive flexibility, work-load capacity, and working memory, which are
needed in transversal areas of applications.
The second level consider the relational skills, which are a central
component in most accessible models on the determinants of talent in
organizations, include the individual capability to consider, comprehend
and track own and others’ affective states (emotional empathy component),
as well as others’ point of view, values, and intentions, in terms of the
capacity of perspective-taking (cognitive empathy component). They also
enclosed the ability to manage social interactions, as well as the inclination
towards interpersonal relationships. These features belong to the overall
Neuroassessment 89
construct of emotional intelligence and may lead to the success of a

professional in organizational and social life.
Lastly, cluster of competencies encompasses metacognitive skills that
are higher-order cognitive processes that, in addition to being required for
efficient and autonomous daily functioning, become increasingly important
as the scope of the acting context rises, all the way up to the highest levels
of professional life. They include the implementation of complex
behavioral and cognitive strategies, understanding of one’s own cognitive
and affective processes, and the adoption of supervision skills over mental
process information to track and manage them, allowing for proper
cognitive resource allocation (Dunning, Heath, and Suls 2018). Therefore,
in the current model, metacognitive skills, in which also executive
functions (EFs) are partly included, enclose strategic planning, problem-
solving, decision-making, learning flexibility, creativity, self-awareness
(e.g., the ability to assess subjective strong and weak points); and ability to
focus on intrinsic motivational drives.
Figure 1. Triadic model (TRM Model: Technical, Relational, Metacognitive Model)

for the evaluation of individual professional potential and neuroenhancement (retrieved
from Balconi 2020).
90 Michela Balconi
It worth noting that on a theoretical level, the internal structure of the

triadic model and the interdependent set of skills that constitute its three
clusters is transversely connoted by specific mental processes that
constitute the core of human EFs – i.e., inhibition mechanisms, working
memory, and information-processing capacity (Diamond 2013; Miyake et
al., 2000) – consistent with latest integrated accounts of EFs and self-
regulation (Hofmann, Schmeichel, and Baddeley 2012).
While on a practical level, the model may be used to profile high-level
competencies and hard/soft skills needed for optimal job-related
performance, as well as to build and incorporate new integrated protocols
for talent growth and neurocognitive empowerment in the workplace.
To date, the model has already proven to be a useful framework for
mapping the progress and the effects of group-based interventions on stress
management and neurocognitive efficiency for senior management roles
(Crivelli, Fronda, and Balconi 2019; Crivelli et al., 2019; Fronda, Crivelli,
and Balconi 2019), as well as customized age-management interventions
based on tailored neurocognitive empowerment protocols for EFs assisted
by wearable neurotechnologies.
3. NEUROASSESSMENT APPLIED TO THE EVALUATION

OFTHE HUMAN POTENTIAL
The term “potential” is usually used to mean that a person possesses

the attributes (i.e., motivation, talents, abilities, experiences, and other
skills) necessary to successfully perform and participate in wider or
different positions in the organization at some point in the future.
In this sense, the “potential” specifically applies to future growth
opportunities instead of just current performance concerns. Its evaluation
refers to the assessment (i.e., the identification) of a person’s latent abilities
and skills, which he or she may or may not be aware of.
Potential assessment is a future-oriented appraisal and the main aim of
potential assessment, as future-oriented appraisal, is to define and analyze
Neuroassessment 91
the potential of workers to assume higher roles and duties (i.e.,

responsibilities) in the operational applications of an organization, while
also achieving the following objectives:
 to educate workers about their potential prospects;

 to assist the company in creating a management succession plan;
 to update training and recruiting activities;
 to inform employees about the work that needs to be done to boost
their job opportunities.
Potential assessment assists in the detection of what could happen in

the future so that it can be driven and focused toward individual and
organizational development and goals. Figure 2 shows a graphical
representation of employee potential evaluation, as future-oriented process.
For the organization to be in an adequate position to set up and realize
the potential evaluation system, it proves necessary that the functions, the
qualities required to perform these functions, indicators of these qualities,
and mechanisms for generating these indicators are clear and well-defined.
The establishment of this situation requires clarity in the policy of the
organization and the systematization of its endeavors.
Among the widely spread methods to investigate the potential in an
individual (or in a group of people), there are assessment practices and
peer-appraisal, psychological and psychometric scales/tests, or interactive
management games, like role-playing.
Figure 2. Representation of a possible model for the potential evaluation of the

employee.
92 Michela Balconi
If the organization invests and believes in the development of the

human resources that compose it, it should work to generate a climate of
openness among its members: this climate is necessary and essential to
facilitate employees in understanding their strengths and weaknesses and
to create real development opportunities.
A good and effective potential assessment system should provide each
employee with the chance to be informed and to deepen the outcome of
his/her assessment. Each employee should be helped to understand which
requirements are actually necessary to perform the role for which he/she
aspires and thinks to have the potential, the methods and criteria used by
the organization to assess the potential and, as anticipated, the detailed
outcome of the evaluation. These procedures take place during periodic
counseling and guidance sessions operated and promoted by the personnel
department or managers concerned. An organization that intends to
develop a good potential assessment system must strive to continually
provide such opportunities to the employee so that he/she is able i) to
recognize his/her strengths and weaknesses, and ii) to develop realistic
self-perception and plan his/her career and development.
Nonetheless, in the traditional models of assessment some limitations
can be identified, that are mainly linked to, firstly, the absence of
systematic considerations related to relational aspects, secondly, to the lack
of differentiation between the cognitive functions mentioned above in the
triadic model (and in particular there is a lack of specific evaluation of
metacognitive functions); thirdly, there is an underestimation of the impact
of these skills on one’s team and extended workgroup, two situations in
which the potential can be limited. Therefore, a key aspect that deserves
more attention is that the contextual impact considered as the condition
closest to the individual (i.e., the working group) or in the broad sense (i.e.,
the organization and its social constraints) should be adequately taken into
account and included when addressing potential evaluation.
Neuroassessment 93
4. NEUROASSESSMENT APPLIED TO
THE INTERPERSONAL INTERACTIONS
As far as concern the evaluation of the interpersonal interactions in the

organizational contexts, the necessary conditions for assessing the
performance related to the relational level were recently evaluated in a
neuroscientific protocol developed by Balconi and colleagues (Balconi
unpublished). In particular, this protocol exploited the potential of the
hyperscanning technique described in chapter 1.
Specifically, by collecting the inter-brains synchronous behavior of
two interagents in the role of sales manager and manager of management
(a total of twelve couples of individuals) it was displayed how the context
of interaction (consisting of short interactive scripts) could modify the
synchronous response of the two brains. The variations in terms of higher
or lower neural and interpersonal tuning in relation to the overt and covert
purposes of the interactive exchange were observed.
With regard to the neuroscientific methodology and neurometrics
adopted during the assessment, the hemodynamic and peripheral responses
of the individuals involved in the interpersonal interactive exchange were
measured through the use of functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy
(fNIRS) and biofeedback applied in hyperscanning. In particular, for the
interactive exchange, scripts consisting of possible scenarios and plots
were created based on problematic and recurring situations within the
organizational context of belonging (such as the use of an app to track the
tasks of sales and documentation relating to the reporting policy for
company sales).
At the end of the experimental procedure, multiple levels of analysis
were performed starting from the overt communication level. Indeed, the
application of discourse analysis, performed on a standard basis, allowed to
map the semantic areas discussed by the managers and made it possible to
highlight the relevant topics addressed during the role-playing.
94 Michela Balconi
In addition, the correlation of this semantic mapping with the pattern

of hemodynamic and autonomic responses of the individuals, allowed to
identify the variations of inter-cerebral and body tuning mechanisms of the
two interagents in relation to the topics and roles discussed and filled
during the interactive exchange. Put in other words, the application of the
hyperscanning technique allowed to skip from the single brain analysis to
the two interacting brain neuroassessment and, by the simultaneously
record the activity of the two individuals involved in the interaction,
allowed to create connectivity maps relating to the brain and autonomic
activity of the interagents by observing how they tuned (i.e., how they
were synchronized at the brain-and-body level) according to the various
topics addressed during the communicative interaction.
In another recent work, the analogous neuroscientific approach was
used to examine the corporate brand image in a sample of bank employees
recruited from an Italian banking institution. The sample underwent semi-
structured interviews, and realistic role-playing of business contexts while
interpersonal neurometrics (brain-to-brain coupling, through an
electroencephalographic hyperscanning paradigm) were collected. As
general consideration on the different set of results, the covert emotional
and representational aspects that emerged from the analyses have disclosed
a wide range of attitudes and resistances toward the brand, some of which
were in direct contrast to explicit and overt representations.
Overall, the applied examples described in the previous paragraphs
intend to emphasize the potential of the application of neurometrics,
neuroscientific methods and techniques for the various assessment
procedures conducted in the organizational contexts, from the evaluation of
the potential to the assessment of relational dynamics. As a take-home
message, they also intend to provide an overview of what has been done so
far in organizational contexts and to stimulate the reflection on what could
be done in the companies in the future.
Neuroassessment 95
REFERENCES
Balconi, Michela, and Irene Venturella. 2017. “Neuromanagement. What

about Emotion and Communication.” Neuropsychological Trends
21:9-21. doi: https://10.7358/neur-2017-021-balc.
Balconi, Michela, Laura Angioletti, and Davide Crivelli. 2020. “Neuro-
Empowerment of Executive Functions in the Workplace: The Reason
Why.” Frontiers in Psychology 11:1519. doi: https://10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.01519.
Balconi, Michela, Maria Rosaria Natale, Nadia Benabdallah, and Davide
Crivelli. 2017. “New Business Models: The Agents and Inter-Agents
in a Neuroscientific Domain.” Neuropsychological Trends 21:53-63.
doi: https://10.7358/neur-2017-021-nata.
Balconi, Michela. 2020. “From the Executive Functions To
Neuroempowerment Programs. New Perspectives for
Neuroassessment.” In Neuromanagement. People and Organizations,
edited by Michela Balconi, 55-65. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie
[Milan: LED University Editions].
Crivelli, Davide, Giulia Fronda, and Michela Balconi. 2019.
“Neurocognitive Enhancement Effects of Combined Mindfulness-
Neurofeedback Training in Sport.” Neuroscience 412:83-93. doi:
https://10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.05.066.
Crivelli, Davide, Giulia Fronda, Irene Venturella, and Michela Balconi.
2019. “Supporting Mindfulness Practices with Brain-Sensing Devices.
Cognitive and Electrophysiological Evidences.” Mindfulness 10:301-
11. doi: https://10.1007/s12671-018-0975-3.
Dessler, Gary. 2016. Fundamentals of Human Resource Management.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Diamond, Adele. 2013. “Executive Functions.” Annual Review of
Psychology 64:135-68. doi: https://10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-
143750.
Dunning, David, Chip Heath, and Jerry M. Suls. 2018. “Reflections on
Self-Reflection: Contemplating Flawed Self-Judgments in the Clinic,
96 Michela Balconi
Classroom, and Office Cubicle.” Perspectives on Psychological

Science 13:185-89. doi: https://10.1177/1745691616688975.
Fronda, Giulia, Davide Crivelli, and Michela Balconi. 2019.
“Neurocognitive Enhancement: Applications and Ethical Issues.”
NeuroRegulation 6:161-161. doi: https://10.15540/nr.6.3.161.
Hofmann, Wilhelm, Brandon J. Schmeichel, and Alan D. Baddeley. 2012.
“Executive Functions and Self-Regulation.” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 16:174-80. doi: https://10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006.
Miyake, Akira, Naomi P. Friedman, Michael J. Emerson, Alexander H.
Witzki, Amy Howerter, and Tor D. Wager. 2000. “The Unity and
Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex
‘Frontal Lobe’ Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis.” Cognitive
Psychology 41:49-100. doi: https://10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.
Murray, Micah M., and John Antonakis. 2019. “An Introductory Guide To
Organizational Neuroscience.” Organizational Research Methods
22:6-16. doi: https://10.1177/1094428118802621.
Silzer, Rob, and Allan H. Church. 2009. “The Pearls and Perils of
Identifying Potential.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology
2:377-412. doi: https://10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01163.x.
Chapter 6
FROM THE EVALUATION

OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS (EFS)
TO NEUROEMPOWERMENT
FOR ORGANIZATIONS
Michela Balconi1,2,, PhD and Laura Angioletti1,2

1
2
Department of Psychology,
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart,
Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
The interest of the neuroscientific approach, recently, is aimed to

implement methodologies and tools to investigate the mental processes
underlying different individuals’ abilities, such as self-regulation, social

skills, and higher cognition at the workplace. Indeed, neuroscience allows

investigating the human mind and its own higher cognitive and social
functions, called Executive Functions (EFs), by integrating several
analyses, including overt behavior and covert neurophysiological
correlates. Therefore, neuromanagement allows to evaluate and enhance
individuals’ EFs controlling different top-down mental processes, as
inhibition, working memory, attention, learning, pianification and
cognitive flexibility. Particularly, neuroscience applied to the
management field could offer valid evidence useful to the implementation
of specific protocols for the development of new evaluation potential and
performances and the enhancement of individuals’ cognitive, emotional
and relationship skills.
1. THE WHAT AND WHY OF DEEPENING

EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS
In a challenging environment like the competitive market in which we

find ourselves, companies can gain and retain a competitive edge by
focusing on the identification and development of valuable human capital
(Collings, Mellahi and Cascio 2019; Obisi 2011).
For the successful achievement of pre-determined work goals and for
taking advantage of the ability to react adequately to workplace demands,
both effective and versatile cognitive and social functioning are required.
Moreover, the current professional challenges necessitated a high degree of
flexibility and adaptability to new circumstances, as well as the ability to
find innovative solutions to problems, be proficient in handling work-
related stressors and be successful in communicating and building positive
interpersonal relationships (Balconi, Fronda et al. 2017; Balconi and
Venturella 2017).
A consistent panel of functions constitutes the reservoir of abilities that
can be used to assess the performance and potential of growth of the
Human Resources (HR) in the company, and that can be strengthened
using neuroscience methods, for example neurocognitive techniques for
neuroempowerment. This panel encompasses the EFs, that, according to
former studies, play a crucial role in job performance, since successful
From the Evaluation of Executive Functions (EFs) … 99
professionals are characterized by high social, cognitive, and executive

functioning (Bailey 2007; Willoughby and Blair 2016).
But what is meant for EFs? EFs are a family of top-down mental
processes that, among the others, include behavioral control (for example
the self-regulation and interference control), cognitive flexibility, and
working memory (Diamond 2013; Miyake et al. 2000). They are high-level
cognitive functions that promote goal-directed behavior and are needed for
sustained focusing, attention resource management, automatic responses,
and rapid and versatile response to changing environmental demands.
Another collection of complex cognitive functions (i.e., reasoning,
planning, decision-making [DM], innovation, and problem-solving) is
considered essential for professional achievement and optimal workplace
efficiency. Taken as a whole, these mental functions form a valuable
“mental resource” for adapting to continuously evolving situations and
unexpected challenges.
In particular, according to the self-regulatory model of Hofmann,
Schmeichel, and Baddeley (2012), three main functions, that are working
memory ability, behavioral inhibition, and task-switching, serve as the
basis for developing an active representation of multiple self-regulatory
objectives. Indeed, these functions are the foundation for adapting
cognitive resources to individual objectives while actively inhibiting
distracters, suppressing maladaptive and mindless conducts, managing
excessive affective reactions, and regulating dysfunctional distress
behaviors. The ability to self-regulate is then intimately related to EFs, as
is the ability to reflexively become aware of own communication,
relational, and affective schemata, as well as to perceive others’ mental
states.
It is also worth noting that EFs orchestrate all complex behaviors and
sustain both emotion regulation and social competencies, which are
essential for effective interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, and
adaptive stress management (Cacioppo and Cacioppo 2020). Besides EFs
deserve special attention with implications for both assessment and HR
development programs because they also enable the growth of a domain-
independent repertoire of soft skills, for instance, interpersonal and
communication efficacy, and empathy (intended as the ability to interpret

and understand others’ intentions, desires, and affective states) in both its
cognitive and emotional components.
Considering the complexity of this family of functions, it is not
surprising that their neural substrates coincide with the most evolved part
of the central nervous system, that is the prefrontal cortex (PFC), as shown
in figure 1. Indeed, the PFC is a highly integrated structure, whose
functioning is the target of neuroscientific-based assessment and
neuroempowerment protocols. Given these premises, it is understandable
the reason why the demand for assessment procedures and empowerment
protocols dedicated to the EFs is growing rapidly.
Figure 1. Representation of the multiple executive processes regulated by the PFC

structures.
Nevertheless, despite the importance of EFs as the foundation for

complex cognitive and social processes, as well as their potential position
as precursors to self-regulation and other core professional soft skills, the
neuromanagement area lacks an overarching structure for exploring EFs at
work.
The triadic model devised by Balconi, Angioletti, and Crivelli (2020)
described in chapter 5 on the neuroscientific methods for the company’s
assessment practices stands as a first attempt to concretely systematize the
crucial skills to be evaluated and strengthened in organizational contexts,
and it transversely includes, within the various clusters that compose it, the
EFs.
To offer an overview of the relevance of EFs for professionals’
cognitive, affective, and relational functioning, some recent protocols for
the investigation and development of EFs at the workplace will be
described in the present chapter.
Through some recent examples of protocols developed and applied in
the neuroscientific field, the challenges and future opportunities for the
research and practical implementation of effective integration of
neuroscientific models and methods with the development of human
resources will be discussed.
2. NEUROSCIENCE-BASED TOOL FOR

ASSESSING EFS IN THE COMPANY
As we underlined in the previous paragraph, EFs include higher-level

cognitive processes implicated in the formation of successful goal-directed
behavior, encompassing planning and initiating behaviors, anticipating
(positive and negative) consequences of actions, and the ability to adjust
behaviors based on environmental feedback. Specifically, planning,
judgment, set-shifting, anticipation, reasoning, the suppression of
unnecessary information, the inhibition of inappropriate responses and DM
could be considered as crucial cognitive processes required for the
successful completion of any complex behavioral or cognitive task,

including work daily duties.
We recently developed a neuroscience-based tool for assessing EFs,
but more specifically DM, in the organizational context. DM is a
composited process constituted of cognitive and emotional factors that
determine the selection of an action between different possible alternatives.
The discipline that, in the neuroscience field, has so far dealt with further
deepening the DM processes in organizations is neuroeconomics. It deals
with investigating the proximate causes of DM behavior, i.e., the causes
that are immediately responsible and those of a specific type of choice, as
well as the neurophysiological and behavioral correlates associated with it
(Camerer, Loewenstein and Prelec 2005; Glimcher 2003).
Among the most in-depth topics of the neuroeconomic discipline, there
are a broad variety of processes and phenomena, including the search and
acquisition of rewards, DM processes in conditions of risk and uncertainty,
DM strategies, the delay mechanisms of gratification, learning, cooperation
and competition processes, moral DM dynamics, and the game theory.
Among the others, DM is particularly relevant for the companies since
it involves each different level and sector of an organization, from the
individual employee (at any professional rank), who must face ordinary
decisions related to the management of his/her daily work commitments
and goals, up to the widest system, in which the members of the
organization as a group should decide policies, strategic action plans and
relevant management changes that may influence the entire company.
Having adequate DM skills in the company allows an individual to have
the self-confidence – typically owned by professionals who know they
have the adequate tools for taking a decision – to be able to make the best
choice with a low probability of error. This means knowing how to choose
the most effective and efficient solution for the organization, which may
have a great impact on its performance and consequently on its
competitiveness.
Despite the relevance and the impact of functional DM capability into
the organizational context, to date, to the best of our knowledge there are
no neuroscience-based tools that explore professionals’ DM ability,
considering all its complex facets and components. Neuroscientific

literature provides several psychometric tests, behavioral tasks, and
techniques to measure the DM process, and those have been previously
adopted in the organizational contexts (Butler et al. 2016), for evaluating
specific categories of DM, such as financial (Frydman and Camerer 2016)
or moral DM (Balconi and Fronda 2019, 2020) in top managers. However,
a comprehensive tool for assessing the different dimensions of DM ability
of professionals is actually lacking.
Therefore in the recent tool for the neuroscientific study of DM
processes developed in my laboratory, together with the research team I
supervised, the construct of DM has been explored as a process of
managing thought and action, which is developed based on the analysis of
the context and the related information available, and that, if functionally
implemented, it is characterized by effective and efficient actions, that
allows individuals to make choices that have a reduced risk of damage or
failure.
The structure of the tool is based on a dynamic and modular process
approach, which takes into account different levels of DM, which are
independent one from each other but intrinsically correlated. It
comprehends five domains, evaluating the following DM dimensions: 1)
the decisional styles; 2) the decisional strategies; 3) the decisional
effectiveness; 4) the decisional awareness; 5) the decisional metacognition
(figure 2).
Figure 2. Graphical description of the five domains composing the tool for DM
evaluation.
Going in-depth within the tool definition, the decisional styles

measured in the first domain of the tool are well-established skills and
competencies conceived as a stable trait of the individual: these are
components difficult to change and resistant to the context. Before DM
style has been defined as “a habitual pattern individuals use in decision-
making”, and “the learned, habitual response pattern exhibited by an
individual when confronted by a decision situation” (Scott and Bruce
1995). Therefore, in the present tool DM styles evaluation was placed as
the first domain to investigate, since it assesses the structural and relatively
dynamic level of DM.
Instead, the second domain determines the repertoire of decisional
strategies, that is the knowledge of how to represent, plan and adopt
complex plans of DM strategies, with attention to the context and internal-
external requests: therefore, these components are adaptable to the context
and flexible. This second domain assesses the recursive functional level of
the DM process.
The decisional effectiveness can be examined through the third
domain: it appraises the know-how to act with effective, timely, and
balanced decisions with respect to internal-external costs. Indeed it
explores the efficacy and the evidence-based level of DM.
The fourth domain concerns the estimation of decisional awareness,
intended as the awareness of mental processes, representations, the plan
implemented, and the organizational role in the DM process: in this sense,
it evaluates the extended awareness level of the DM process.
Finally, the fifth and last domain is dedicated to the decisional
metacognition that explores the degree of self-awareness and self-
regulation in full awareness of the decision. It assesses the level of EFs
regulations and this fifth domain consists of the maximum degree of self-
awareness in decision, achievable with full DM maturity, which allows
management of it in full autonomy.
Each domain can be administered independently from the others, and it
is composed of distinct subcomponents that aim at assessing distinct
aspects of the domain-specific dimension. These subcomponents have been
operationalized and investigated in multiple ways, through questionnaires
and scales, scripts (i.e., descriptions of real situations connected to the

professional context in which the individual should make a decision), as
well as cognitive-behavioral tasks and neuroscientific measures. Regarding
the application of the tool, it can be easily administered via a digital
interface, and behavioral indices (such as reaction times and accuracy rate)
can be collected for each level of measure and individually taken into
consideration in the final evaluation.
Given the specificity of this measuring tool, the future challenges and
opportunities for neuromanagement research could be the integration of
neuroscientific techniques in the evaluation of DM in professional
contexts, but also the practical implementation of an effective
neurocognitive protocol for the empowerment of this key mental process.
3. APPLIED NEUROCOGNITIVE PROTOCOLS

FOR “NEUROEMPOWERING” EFS
As mentioned above, there is a widespread necessity for valuable,

effective, and expendable protocols aimed not only at evaluating but also at
enhancing professionals’ EFs and DM skills in the neuromagement field.
To attempt to meet this need, we have recently designed and tested an
innovative neurocognitive protocol of intervention based on wearable
neurotechnologies and specially developed for improving stress
management abilities, attentional focus, executive control processes in
highly-demanding professional contexts, with managers occupying top-
level ranks (Crivelli et al. 2019a). Specifically, this neuroempowerment
protocol involves the combination of mindfulness-based practice and EFs
enhancement, thanks to the support of wearable neurofeedback (NF)
system managed via an app on a smartphone. In the last few years, several
neuroscientific research validated its effectiveness in both experimental
and applied contexts (Balconi, Crivelli and Angioletti 2019; Balconi,
Fronda and Crivelli 2019; Balconi, Natale et al. 2017; Crivelli et al. 2019a,
2019b).
Regarding its specific application in the managerial context, the

feasibility and efficacy of the neuroempowerment protocol have been
tested on a sample of sixteen managers (Crivelli et al. 2019a). The
neuroempowerment protocol was based on breathing awareness practices
derived from mindfulness practice, which were supported by a dedicated
wearable NF device – namely, a non-invasive electroencephalographic
(EEG) recording system connected to a smartphone app that was devised
to support mental practices and help foster self-awareness and self-
regulation via real-time acoustic feedbacks on changes of the EEG
signature of practicer’s mindset. The training period lasted two weeks and
was constituted by brief daily activities, delivered in incremental sessions.
After the training period, the group of managers who took part in the
experimental NF sessions displayed greater neurocognitive efficiency
during challenging cognitive tasks, improved electrophysiological markers
of relaxation and attentional focus, and improved autonomic markers of
parasympathetic recovery when exposed to cognitive stressors.
They also showed lower levels of perceived stress, anxiety, anger, and
mental fatigue. In addition to the proportional innovativeness of the
protocol applied in this study, this project can also be considered one of the
first systematic investigations on the effects of a neurotechnology-
mediated empowerment protocol in an organization and with top
management professionals.
This first experimentation was, however, mainly aimed at only two
fundamental skills: self-awareness and executive control of resources for
attention and stress reaction. Instead, the implementation of a revised
neuroempowerment protocol that goes deep into the proposed triadic
model for talent evaluation and development (Balconi, Angioletti and
Crivelli 2020) has been the subject of our most recent applied research
activities.
This revised protocol was designed to help individuals to train jointly
the three core clusters of competencies of the triadic model and, in
particular, to provide a customized training opportunity for aging senior
managers to empowering their analytical, executive, metacognitive, and
social skills. Concerning the practical application of the protocol, the
integrated training phase begins with a comprehensive evaluation of the

individual’s cognitive, executive, and affective functioning, after which the
previously mentioned NF training through the wearable device is
integrated into a training schedule with tasks dedicated to both i) technical
and analytical skills (cognitive flexibility, working memory, and
reasoning), ii) metacognitive skills (problem-solving, multitasking, and
creativity), and iii) relational skills (perspective-taking, social self-
awareness, and self-regulation), the three cornerstones of the triadic model.
At the end of the neurocognitive training, findings suggested a greater
neurocognitive efficiency featured by an improvement in working memory
performance, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, inhibitory control,
self-awareness, and self-regulation, as well as a reduction in perceived
stress levels both at the behavioral and neurophysiological level.
These application examples can promote the future development of
targeted protocols for the training of a specific subset of functions and
neuroempowerment aimed at specific populations, interested in promoting
their neurocognitive well-being. Furthermore, in high-level professional
contexts, these neurocognitive protocols may be considered as a feasible
alternative solution for preventive age management interventions.
To conclude, together with the development of effective
neurocognitive protocols for the empowerment of the DM process in the
organizational field, one of the current challenge for neuroscientific
research will consist of keeping up with the digitization process in the
companies and translating these assessment procedures and
neuroempowerment practices into a digital modality of use, which can also
be administered and applied remotely or via online systems.
REFERENCES
Bailey, Charles E. 2007. “Cognitive Accuracy and Intelligent Executive

Function in the Brain and in Business”. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1118:122 - 41. doi:10.1196/annals.1412.011.
Balconi, Michela, Angioletti, Laura and Crivelli, Davide. 2020. “Neuro-

Why”. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1519. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2020.
01519.
Balconi, Michela, Crivelli, Davide and Angioletti, Laura. 2019. “Efficacy
of a Neurofeedback Training on Attention and Driving Performance:
Physiological and Behavioral Measures”. Frontiers in Neuroscience,
13:996. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00996.
Balconi, Michela, and Fronda, Giulia. 2019. “Physiological Correlates of
Moral Decision-Making in the Professional Domain”. Brain Sciences,
9:229. doi:10.3390/brainsci9090229.
———. 2020. “Morality and Management: An Oxymoron? FNIRS and
Neuromanagement Perspective Explain Us Why Things are not like
This”. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20:1336 -
48. doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00841-1.
Balconi, Michela, Fronda, Giulia and Crivelli, Davide. 2019. “Effects of
Psychophysiological and Self-Report Measures”. Stress, 22:200 - 9.
doi:10.1080/10253890.2018.1531845.
Balconi, Michela, Fronda, Giulia, Venturella, Irene and Crivelli, Davide.
2017. “Conscious, Pre-Conscious and Unconscious Mechanisms in
Approach with Wearable Devices”. Applied Sciences, (Switzerland)
7:1280. doi:10.3390/app7121280.
Balconi, Michela, Natale, Maria Rosaria, Benabdallah, Nadia and Crivelli,
Davide. 2017. “New Business Models: The Agents and Inter-Agents in
a Neuroscientific Domain”. Neuropsychological Trends, 21:53 - 63.
doi:10.7358/neur-2017-021-nata.
Balconi, Michela and Venturella, Irene. 2017. “Neuromanagement. What
about Emotion and Communication”. Neuropsychological Trends,
21:9 - 21. doi:10.7358/neur-2017-021-balc.
Butler, Michael J. R., O’Broin, Holly L. R., Lee, Nick and Senior, Carl.
2016. “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, 18:542 - 59. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12071.
Cacioppo, Stephanie and Cacioppo, John T. 2020. Introduction to Social
Neuroscience. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
Camerer, Colin, Loewenstein, George and Prelec, Drazen. 2005.
“Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics”.
Journal of Economic Literature, 43:9 - 64. doi:10.1257/ 00220510
53737843.
Collings, David G., Mellahi, Kamel and Cascio, Wayne F. 2019. “Global
Talent Management and Performance in Multinational Enterprises: A
Multilevel Perspective”. Journal of Management, 45:540 - 66.
doi:10.1177/0149206318757018.
Crivelli, Davide, Fronda, Giulia, Venturella, Irene and Balconi, Michela.
2019a. “Stress and Neurocognitive Efficiency in Managerial Contexts:
A Study on Technology-Mediated Mindfulness Practice”.
International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 12:42 - 56.
doi:10.1108/IJWHM-07-2018-0095.
———. 2019b. “Supporting Mindfulness Practices with Brain-Sensing
Devices. Cognitive and Electrophysiological Evidences”. Mindfulness,
10:301 - 11. doi:10.1007/s12671-018-0975-3.
Diamond, Adele. 2013. “Executive Functions”. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64:135 - 68. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
Frydman, Cary and Camerer, Colin F. 2016. “The Psychology and
Neuroscience of Financial Decision Making”. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 20:661 - 75. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.003.
Glimcher, Paul W. 2003. “The Neurobiology of Visual-Saccadic Decision
Making”. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 26:133 - 79. doi:10.1146/
annurev.neuro.26.010302.081134.
Hofmann, Wilhelm, Schmeichel, Brandon J. and Baddeley, Alan D. 2012.
“Executive Functions and Self-Regulation”. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 16:174 - 80. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006.
Miyake, Akira, Friedman, Naomi P., Emerson, Michael J., Witzki,
Alexander H., Howerter, Amy and Wager, Tor D. 2000. “The Unity
and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to
Complex ‘Frontal Lobe’ Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis”.

Cognitive Psychology, 41:49 - 100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.
Obisi, Chris. 2011. “Employee Performance Appraisal and Its Implication
for Individual and Organizational Growth”. Australian Journal of
Business and Manegement Research, 1:92 - 7.
Scott, Susanne G. and Bruce, Reginald A. 1995. “Decision-Making Style:
The Development and Assessment of a New Measure”. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 55:818 - 31. doi:10.1177/
0013164495055005017.
Willoughby, Michael T. and Blair, Clancy B. 2016. “Measuring Executive
Function in Early Childhood: A Case for Formative Measurement”.
Psychological Assessment, 28:319 - 30. doi:10.1037/pas0000152.
Chapter 7
NEUROCOGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT
IN ORGANIZATIONS:
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Michela Balconi, PhD and Laura Angioletti

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
Neurocognitive enhancement is one of the possible options proposed

by neuroscience discipline to optimize and maximize workers’
neurocognitive efficiency and behavioral performance at the workplace.
It involves the adoption of neuroscience techniques able to influence the
activity of neural structures and networks sub-serving cognitive skills and
supporting cognitive performance. In this contribution the combined
integration of non-invasive neurofeedback wearable device with

mindfulness-based practice proves to be the current fittest and more

appropriate mental training for all professionals in the company context.
Three applied protocols will be described to highlight how
neuroenhancement could promote well-being at work by increasing
neurocognitive efficiency of workers (at every level, from junior to senior
positions), and consequently it could augment workers’ quality of life by
improving their performance. Last but not least, neuroenhancement could
also act as a preventive intervention for age management at the
workplace, given its efficacy in preventing cognitive decline and
strengthening attention regulation.
1. WHAT IS NEUROENHANCEMENT AND WHAT KIND

OF ADDED VALUE IN ORGANIZATIONS?
Today, companies are increasingly investing in training on the

concepts of lifelong learning, continuous training, and workers’ well-being
and are looking for solutions and methods to promote growth in the
company. At the same time, professionals of all levels (from junior to
senior positions) are required to deliver maximum results with minimum
effort, not waste time and energy, and optimize their processes and
performance. One of the most current and frequent questions that
companies ask to the world of research and innovation is: how is it
possible to promote this continuous improvement of oneself and one’s
performance in organizations?
The assumption behind neurocognitive enhancement is that the
empowerment of neural efficiency and cognitive ability can be applied
through the entire life span by activating (or probably reactivating) the
cortico-subcortical networks that mediate cognitive functions. This process
can promote brain plasticity, which is described as the capacity of neural
structures to reinforce existing connections and form new ones as a result
of learning and experience (Balconi, Fronda, et al. 2017).
Among the others, the neuroscience discipline proposes neurocognitive
enhancement as one of the possible options for “boosting the
organizations’ mind.” Neurocognitive self-enhancement can be defined as
Neurocognitive Enhancement in Organizations 113
“a voluntary attempt to improve one’s cognitive abilities and

behavioral performance, employing neuroscience techniques capable of
influencing the activity of the neural structures and neural networks that
serve these skills and support performance cognitive” (Balconi, Fronda,
et al. 2017).
The main aim of neurocognitive enhancement approaches is to

modulate brain cognitive functioning in order to increase performance and
achieve an optimal level of functioning in a given task, as well as to
facilitate flexible behaviors in response to the external context (Agar
2013). Interventions for neurocognitive enhancement may target one (or
more) cognitive processes and functions of the neural information
processing system (for example, attention, memory, perception, and
learning), as well as some cognitive strategies (Chapman and Mudar 2013).
As mentioned above in the definition of neuroenhancement, what
characterizes and distinguishes neuroenhancement from cognitive
enhancement is the adoption of neuroscience-specific methods and
techniques, which will be described in the next section.
Conceiving the concept of neurocognitive enhancement along a
continuum, three different possible interpretations can be attributed to it: in
fact, it can be conceived in terms of increase, decrease, and optimization of
performance.
According to the first definition of “increase” of performance,
neurocognitive enhancement refers to interventions aimed at increasing the
functioning of cognitive abilities compared to normal function (Bostrom
and Sandberg 2009).
Secondly, the improvement of individual well-being can also be
obtained by decreasing the functionality of the capacity or its effects (Earp
et al. 2014), for example by reducing a specific cognitive-emotional
function that is hyperactivated. Thirdly, neuroenhancement interventions
can be aimed at optimizing specific cognitive functions to support and
improve performance in daily activities (Anand et al. 2011).
As for the transferability of neuroenhancement effects to daily life
activities, previous research has shown that even the simple application of
cognitive training aimed at improving cognitive functions is effective for

the development of distinct and new performances during daily activities
(Anguera et al. 2013; Au et al. 2015; Chapman and Mudar 2013; Dahlin et
al. 2008; Nyberg et al. 2003), so that the tools of neuroscience, acting at
the level of brain plasticity, can support and maintain this improvement
even for a longer time.
Given these premises necessary to understand what is meant by
neuroenhancement, a question spontaneously arises: what is the added
value of applying neurocognitive enhancement in an organization?
There are at least two reasons why the application of neurocognitive
enhancement in a company can be found to be an advantageous approach
with considerable potential. First, by increasing the neurocognitive
efficiency of workers (at all levels, from junior to senior positions), can
consequently increase and improve their work performance, and this could
have effects in terms of satisfaction and work well-being, up to the
increase the quality of life of workers. Second, applying neurocognitive
enhancement interventions in the company could act as a preventive
intervention for age management in senior workers, given its effectiveness
in preventing cognitive decline.
Besides, it should be emphasized that the adoption of neuroscience
tools brings with it a series of advantages that are sometimes less evident
because they act on some “implicit” variables, which can be measured with
the tools of neuroscience themselves. Some of these advantages are for
example:
 the possibility of obtaining an objective evaluation and the

measurability of the markers (neurophysiological and
psychophysiological) of the improvement;
 in people with normal or high-level cognitive performance (i.e.,
without clinical impairments), there is a ceiling effect in terms of
behavioral performance for which it seems that after a certain level
of cognitive stimulation there is no more room for improvement.
Instead, with the tools of neuroscience, it is possible to measure
the effects of neurocognitive enhancement that occur at the
neurophysiological and psychophysiological level, and which

indicate that a profound change has occurred (for example at the
level of brain structures and functions). This structural and
functional change (which is nothing more than an effect of brain
plasticity) lays the foundation for the development of new abilities
and modalities in the person;
 the recording of objective neurophysiological and
psychophysiological parameters allows objective comparability
between different groups of performers and between the
performance of the same person detected at two different times;
 the neuroscience tools allow the monitoring of the specific training
effects which are long-lasting.
Therefore, adopting the tools of neuroscience to apply

neuroenhancement interventions in the company means working with a
view of promoting the well-being of the person in the long term and with a
view of growth for the company. It also means that the organization takes
seriously the safety of applying neuroenhancement and how it could have a
virtuous impact on group productivity, economy, and job satisfaction.
2. NEUROSCIENTIFIC METHODS AND TOOLS

FOR NEUROENHANCEMENT FOR PROFESSIONALS
Despite many neurocognitive enhancement techniques were originally

developed for clinical applications, they are now increasingly applied for
the empowerment of healthy individuals in different fields of interest.
Several studies have shown the beneficial effects of neurocognitive
enhancement on health promotion, autonomy, and success (Bostrom and
Sandberg 2009; Clark and Parasuraman 2014; Greely 2008) increase in
learning and acquiring skills in complex tasks related to demanding
professions (Coffman, Clark, and Parasuraman 2014; Parasuraman and
McKinley 2014), but also in work engagement (Liu et al. 2020), and
leadership and job performance (Bartz 2018; King and Haar 2017).
But what are the methods and tools that neuroscience provides to
promote neurocognitive enhancement in the company?
Neuroscience studies have focused on various forms of interventions
that can boost brain function and human capacities within the context of
neurocognitive enhancement (Cohen Kadosh 2014; Cinel, Valeriani, and
Poli 2019). The ability of non-invasive cognitive enhancement treatments
to cause neuromodulation or neurostimulation effects on the brain was
investigated with particular attention and interest. To get more specific, on
the one hand, multiple studies have shown the effectiveness of Non-
Invasive Brain Stimulation techniques (NIBS), such as transcranial
Electrical Stimulation (tES) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS),
in enhancing cognitive performance (Balconi and Crivelli 2020; Brunoni et
al. 2012). Various research, on the other hand, has shown the results of
awareness-based approaches, such as mindfulness, that facilitate cognitive
enhancement by regulating cognitive and emotional processes (Balconi,
Fronda, et al. 2017; Bhayee et al. 2016).
Between the NIBS technique, also the neurofeedback (NF) technique
is effective in enhancing cognitive efficiency in healthy people (Gruzelier
2014), and potentially reveals itself as a more adequate and suitable
technique for the professional context.
Let us briefly explain how the NF technique works. The fundamental
concept of NF can be thought of as a loop. Indeed, NF monitors individual
brain function, then processes the brain patterns of interest (e.g., alpha
waves for relaxation), and delivers audio or video feedback stimuli
relevant to the activity of processed cortical rhythms to the individual. The
feedback can be positive or negative, based on whether the person has
managed to reach the desired mental state, corresponding to the cortical
rhythms set on the NF. And thanks to the principle of operant conditioning,
the person learns from time to time how to achieve the desired mental state
(e.g., relaxation, marked by the presence of alpha wave). In a nutshell, NF
devices capture electroencephalographic (EEG) brain waves and provide
real-time feedback on a person’s mind-body state behavior (Gruzelier
2014). Through this informative feedback, individuals become aware of

their mind-body state and can learn to self-regulate their cortical function
using NF.
Wearable NF technologies now make it possible for even
inexperienced practitioners to gain access to implicit markers of their
internal neural and bodily states (e.g., EEG rhythms) and process this
knowledge on a conscious level. If compared to conventional NF, the
added benefit of new NF wearable devices is found in their high versatility,
low cost, and portability. The reliability of NF wearable devices in terms of
signal quality was previously compared to EEG signal and found to have a
high-quality level and accurate feedback (Balconi, Fronda, et al. 2017;
Bhayee et al. 2016).
The results and effectiveness of a mental training protocol aided by NF
wearable brain-sensing devices revealed that the devices assisted
practitioners in training and optimizing the efficiency of attention
management, control, and concentrating skills. Reaction times during
complex cognitive tasks are reduced without a loss of accuracy as a result
of these effects. Furthermore, an increase in Event-Related Potentials
(ERPs) marking early attention orientation and cognitive function was
observed at the central nervous system level (Balconi and Crivelli 2019).
Wearable NF neurotechnology adoption may be a viable way to implement
neurocognitive enhancement in the workplace, provided that the systems
are functional and simple to use, the feedback interface is user-friendly,
and the system is suitable for practitioners at all levels.
In summary, the main advantage of the NF technique is that it is based
on engaging the participant by recognizing to him/her an active role;
indeed, by applying the principles of operant conditioning, the participant
must learn new cognitive strategies through positive or negative feedback.
In this way, this technique promotes brain plasticity and cognitive
empowerment by actively training both the participants’ self-awareness
and active control over the physiological correlates of their cognitive
abilities.
On the contrary, tES and TMS do not necessarily require the active
involvement of the individual receiving the stimulation, because they are
based on the externally induced modulation of the ongoing neural activity
(Enriquez-Geppert, Huster, and Herrmann 2013). Previous theoretical
accounts suggested that because participants are directly involved in
researching and consolidating personalized strategies to intentionally
modulate their own neurophysiological activity, NF empowerment
interventions might have more effective results on long-term maintenance
of training effects.
Recently, the desire to develop one’s capacity and improve cognitive
performance has resulted in the emergence and expansion of mental fitness
programs. Indeed, in addition to NIBS, recent research showed that
neurocognitive enhancement can be promoted by mental awareness-based
practices, such as mindfulness.
Mindfulness is a unique type of mental training based on self-
observation and awareness practices that are centered on the present and
require deliberate intentional focusing on and acknowledgment of one’s
bodily sensations, mental states, and emotions, as well as mental
nonjudgement and moment-by-moment living (Kabat-Zinn 2003). More
and more confirmations are obtained from studies that focus on the effects
of mental training and meditation practice, which highlight the potential of
these practices in modulating both manifest behavior and implicit neuro-
and psycho-physiological activity (Quaglia et al. 2016) and in inducing
short and long-term effects of empowerment on the cognitive and emotion
regulation abilities of those who practice (Balconi, Fronda, et al. 2017;
Keng, Smoski, and Robins 2011).
Recently, mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) have also proved an
opportunity to increase individual psychological well-being (Balconi,
Fronda, et al. 2017; Crivelli et al. 2019b; Keng, Smoski, and Robins 2011).
This discipline favors the perception and conscious acceptance of the
individual’s mental states and related physiological feelings (Keng,
Smoski, and Robins 2011). Furthermore, previous research has
demonstrated the effectiveness of awareness training also on various
cognitive functions, such as self-regulation of attention and sustained
attention (Balconi, Crivelli, and Angioletti 2019; Crivelli et al. 2019b),

preventing work memory decline (Jha et al. 2017), reducing cognitive
reactivity and mental rumination (Raes et al. 2009) and decreasing
physiological stress reactivity markers (Balconi, Fronda, and Crivelli 2019;
Crivelli, Fronda, and Balconi 2019). For a discussion of the effects of
integrated MBI on work-related stress, see chapter 4.
Mindfulness’s adoption for self-empowerment in non-clinical
environments, such as the workplace, has risen exponentially, since it helps
the practitioner to train concentration, monitoring, and attention skills by
engaging and sustaining a particular conscious and attentive mindset
(Bartlett et al. 2019).
A brief summary of the key strategies of non-invasive
neuroenhancement, ranging from neuroscientific approaches to
mindfulness-based mental exercise, was presented in the preceding
paragraphs. In general, it is proposed that a combination of these
approaches should be used to achieve greater neuroempowering results.
These methods may also be beneficial in developing employees’ ability to
deal with day-to-day challenges at work. Mindfulness may be useful for
staying mentally present in the here and now and completing tasks, and its
combination with neurotechnology may aid in improving knowledge of
one’s abilities and supporting problem-solving abilities.
In line with this suggestion to combine multiple types of intervention,
we previously proved the effectiveness of an MBI combined with
neurofeedback techniques (Balconi, Fronda, et al. 2017). Indeed, the
adaptive improvements in neurocognitive function and brain connectivity
that are caused by mental training could be boosted even further by
offering individuals who practice more useful knowledge about how their
psychophysical states are modulated as a result of practice. In the next
sections, it will be explained how this strengthening effect becomes
possible in professional contexts, thanks to the application of integrated
technology-mediated mindfulness-based protocols.
3. NEUROENHANCEMENT AT THE WORKPLACE:

A TRAINING PROTOCOL APPLIED TO MANAGERS
The first comprehensive report of the technology-mediated

mindfulness-based protocol implementation in an organization and with
top management professionals is listed below.
Going into the specifics of the methodology, we developed and
implemented a technology-mediated mental training protocol to empower
neurocognitive performance in high-stress professional settings, with
managers occupying top-level positions.
An experimental sample of top managers was recruited based on their
structured organizational roles, with a particular role as managers heading
a team of at least ten employees and at least five years of people
management experience. They belonged to some of the major corporations
that represented primary national or foreign corporations in a variety of
industries (services, transportation, food, consulting, and advertising, to
name a few). The innovative neurocognitive protocol, that managers have
experimented, specifically combines the practice of mindfulness and a
wearable NF system managed via smartphone (Balconi and Crivelli 2019).
The training protocol has been validated by previous research in both
experimental and applied contexts (Balconi and Crivelli 2019; Balconi,
Fronda, et al. 2017; Crivelli, Fronda, and Balconi 2019; Crivelli et al.
2019a, 2019b).
Following the training course, scheduled for a duration of two weeks,
the findings revealed a substantial improvement in the participants’
information processing performance during cognitive activities, as well as
an increase in electrophysiological markers of the mind-brain system’s
ability to focus and reactivity, and a reduction in mental exhaustion. This
evidence is consistent with what is known about the impact of MBI on
cognitive ability in the literature (Hommel and Colzato 2017; Lutz et al.
2008), implying that this type of mental exercise, even as a form of
neurocognitive empowerment, can be beneficial.
Neurometric results support this interpretation even further. Managers

showed improved target indices at the end of the protocol, showing a
change from a distressed to a relaxed-focused attitude. A shift that
indicates a more effective containment of hyperactivation’s carry-over
effect outside of the workplace. This interpretation is also supported by the
localization of the observed effects on electrophysiological activity. In fact,
the frontal and parietal lobes are considered to be the central hubs of a
large neural network that mediates cognitive function, attention regulation,
and the selection of relevant environmental information (Ptak 2012). This
is a skill that is especially important for efficiently self-regulating and
adapting our actions to dynamic environments, such as fluid and high-
demanding business environments (Balconi, Natale, et al. 2017; Crivelli
and Balconi 2017).
As a result of the training of concentration and attention orientation
skills, we believe that the MBI supported by the NF training protocol had a
positive impact on the efficiency of participants’ neurocognitive
functioning. Taking everything into consideration, combining mindfulness-
based mental training with the benefits of a novel brain-sensing wearable
technology allows for overcoming conventional methods’ flaws (e.g.,
significant time investment) and maximizing training opportunities and
outcomes.
At the end of the description of this example of neurocognitive
intervention protocol applied to managers, we intend to highlight the
strengths of this approach and of this applied research project, which
proves to be highly ecological and applicable to various organizational
contexts.
The available and previously described results underline significant
practical implications for professionals who intend to plan interventions to
improve cognitive efficiency in the workplace, but also to enable the skills
to manage work-related stress. Indeed, it seems that combining traditional
approaches with highly usable and non-invasive technological devices can
shorten the efforts and time required to obtain measurable improvements in
cognitive and affective regulation skills even in professionals exposed to
high work demands and with little time available. This reduction of the
“dose” of practice and the users’ commitment, therefore, translates into a

reduction in monetary costs and time to implement a training protocol of
this type and the engagement of the participants, their active role, favors
the levels of motivation and reduces the dropout rate.
This makes it possible to design and offer easily accessible and
replicable training opportunities in various organizational contexts by
exploiting economies of scale and transferability.
4. PREVENTIVE NEUROCOGNITIVE INTERVENTIONS

FOR AGE MANAGEMENT
In Italy, a systemic increase in job quotas in favor of professionals over

50 has been reported over the last decade. These developments also created
new challenges for older employees in terms of preserving their success
and subjective well-being.
Another clear benefit of using neuroenhancement protocols in the
workplace, as previously discussed, is age management interventions. The
neuroscientific study we described in the previous section demonstrated
the effectiveness of NF protocols on stress reduction and cognitive
efficiency in a sample of senior managers, opening up the possibility of
applying interventions of this type in the context of age management.
Starting from this evidence, we have recently developed an integrated
neurocognitive training protocol for the empowerment of cognitive,
metacognitive, and social functions in managers over 50. A first pilot case
underwent an intensive three-week protocol that included the following
three set of training:
 neurofeedback training via a wearable device;

 cognitive training focused on cognitive flexibility, working
memory, multitasking, reasoning, creativity and problem-solving;
 metacognitive-social training focused on perspective-taking, self-

awareness, and self-regulation (Balconi, Angioletti, and Crivelli
2020).
A pre- and post-training multilevel evaluation was used to assess the

training’s results. The identification of neurometric (EEG) and autonomic
indicators (Heart Rate, HR; Heart Rate Variability, HRV) at rest and
during the execution of cognitively complex tasks has been coupled with
the detection of psychometric, neuropsychological, and behavioral
outcome steps. The EEG and autonomic task-related markers (Event-
related Potentials - ERPs - N200 and P300, alpha and beta band power,
HR) demonstrated a pattern of higher neurocognitive efficiency. Both at a
behavioral and neurocognitive level, the preliminary results suggested an
increase in working memory performance, cognitive flexibility, problem-
solving, inhibitory control, self-awareness, and self-regulation, as well as a
decrease in perceived stress levels.
The potential of the integrated intensive protocol as a viable choice for
preventive age management approaches in high-level professional contexts
is highlighted by this first pilot study and the first promising evidence that
resulted from it.
5. OPPORTUNITIES AND ACTUAL CHALLENGES
The debate over the potential and opportunities of various methods and
techniques for neuroenhancement in the workplace was fueled primarily by
the increasing complexity and competitiveness in both social and
professional contexts, as well as the drive for ever-greater performance.
In this chapter, the opportunities, potentials, and usefulness of
neurocognitive enhancement applied in different contexts such as
managerial and age management in senior workers have been emphasized
in quite a few points. Several studies have highlighted the effectiveness of
neurocognitive enhancement techniques in improving cognitive processes.
Of great interest for the professional work context, some studies have
observed the possibility, provided by neurocognitive improvement
techniques, to produce positive social effects in individuals, accompanied
by the improvement of some cognitive functions such as working memory,
attention, and cognition and the improvement of performance and
successful activities (Balconi and Pozzoli 2005; Sahakian 2007).
Concerning current challenges, the discipline of neuroethics has
recently focused on the ethical implications of neuroenhancement
treatments at various levels, including safety, justice, autonomy, fairness,
morality, and possible negative consequences for society and professional
contexts (Farah et al. 2004; Fronda, Balconi, and Crivelli 2018; Fronda,
Crivelli, and Balconi 2019). When proposing neuroenhancement
interventions in an organization, two key issues should be addressed from
an ethical standpoint. On the one hand, these interventions have been
judged as a threat to interindividual equity and tend to suppress
interindividual differences (Butcher 2003). On the other hand, previous
studies have criticized the neurocognitive enhancement of healthy
individuals as an intervention that can change the personality of the
individual by removing the characteristics that represent the unique
personality traits of individuals (Farah 2005; Wolpe 2002).
Given these legitimate concerns, we believe that it is necessary to
increase research in this area to make an objective balance of the
advantages and risks associated with the application of neuroenhancement
techniques in the company. To do this, organizations must “open their
doors” to groups of research trained on these issues and invest in projects,
even of short duration, which applies neurocognitive enhancement in the
company. Adopting the tools of neuroscience to apply neuroenhancement
interventions in the company means working with a view of promoting the
well-being of the employees in the long-term and with a view of growth
for the company. It also means that the organization takes seriously the
safety of applying neuroenhancement, but also its virtuous impact on group
productivity, economy, and job satisfaction.
Concluding with a take-home message, we indicate that, considering
the strengths and weaknesses of neuroenhancement applications, but also
its related ethical issues, the use of integrated neuroenhancement protocols

that combine mental training (awareness-based practices or cognitive
training) and non-invasive techniques (such as NF) could perhaps be the
most suitable, effective, appropriate and sustainable practice for
organizational contexts.
REFERENCES
Agar, Nicholas. 2013. Truly Human Enhancement: A Philosophical

Defense of Limits. Truly Human Enhancement: A Philosophical
Defense of Limits. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Anand, Raksha, Sandra B. Chapman, Audette Rackley, Molly Keebler,
Jennifer Zientz, and John Hart. 2011. “Gist Reasoning Training in
Cognitively Normal Seniors.” International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry 26:961–68. doi:10.1002/gps.2633.
Anguera, Joaquin A., Jacqueline Boccanfuso, Jody L. Rintoul, Omar Al-
Hashimi, Farshid Faraji, Jacki Janowich, Edmund Kong, et al. 2013.
“Video Game Training Enhances Cognitive Control in Older Adults.”
Nature 501:97–104. doi:10.1038/nature12486.
Au, Jacky, Ellen Sheehan, Nancy Tsai, Greg J. Duncan, Martin
Buschkuehl, and Susanne M. Jaeggi. 2015. “Improving Fluid
Intelligence with Training on Working Memory: A Meta-Analysis.”
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22:366–77. doi:10.3758/s13423-
014-0699-x.
Empowerment of Executive Functions at the Workplace: The Reason
Why.” Frontiers in Psychology 11:1519. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2020.01519.
Balconi, Michela, and Davide Crivelli. 2019. “Wearable Devices for Self-
Enhancement and Improvement of Plasticity: Effects on
Neurocognitive Efficiency.” In Quantifying and Processing
Biomedical and Behavioral Signals, edited by Anna Esposito, Marcos
Faundez-Zanuy, Francesco Carlo Morabito, and Eros Pasero, 11–22.

Cham: Springer International Publishing.
———. 2020. “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Cognitive
Neurosciences: Applications and Open Questions.” In Non Invasive
Brain Stimulation in Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, edited by
Bernardo Dell’Osso, and Giorgio Di Lorenzo, 191–208. Cham:
Springer.
Balconi, Michela, Davide Crivelli, and Laura Angioletti. 2019. “Efficacy
of a Neurofeedback Training on Attention and Driving Performance:
Physiological and Behavioral Measures.” Frontiers in Neuroscience
13:996. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00996.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, and Davide Crivelli. 2019. “Effects of
Psychophysiological and Self-Report Measures.” Stress 22:200–9.
doi:10.1080/10253890.2018.1531845.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, Irene Venturella, and Davide Crivelli.
Approach with Wearable Devices.” Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
7:1280. doi:10.3390/app7121280.
Balconi, Michela, Maria Rosaria Natale, Nadia Benabdallah, and Davide
Crivelli. 2017. “New Business Models: The Agents and Inter-Agents
in a Neuroscientific Domain.” Neuropsychological Trends 21:53–63.
doi:10.7358/neur-2017-021-nata.
Balconi, Michela, and Uberto Pozzoli. 2005. “Morphed Facial Expressions
Elicited a N400 ERP Effect: A Domain-Specific Semantic Module?.”
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 46:467–74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2005.00478.x.
Bartlett, Larissa, Angela Martin, Amanda L. Neil, Kate Memish, Petr
Otahal, Michelle Kilpatrick, and Kristy Sanderson. 2019. “A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Workplace Mindfulness
Training Randomized Controlled Trials.” Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 24:108–26. doi:10.1037/ocp0000146.
Bartz, David E. 2018. “Managers Utilizing Mindfulness and Flow to

Maximize Job Performance and Satisfaction.” International Journal of
Education and Social Science 5:1–5.
Bhayee, Sheffy, Patricia Tomaszewski, Daniel H. Lee, Graeme Moffat,
Lou Pino, Sylvain Moreno, and Norman A. S. Farb. 2016. “Attentional
and Affective Consequences of Technology Supported Mindfulness
Training: A Randomised, Active Control, Efficacy Trial.” BMC
Psychology 4:1–14. doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0168-6.
Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. 2009. “Cognitive Enhancement:
Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges.” Science and Engineering
Ethics 15:311–41. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5.
Brunoni, Andre Russowsky, Michael A. Nitsche, Nadia Bolognini, Marom
Bikson, Tim Wagner, Lotfi Merabet, Dylan J. Edwards, et al. 2012.
“Clinical Research with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
(TDCS): Challenges and Future Directions.” Brain Stimulation 5:175–
95. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002.
Butcher, James. 2003. “Cognitive Enhancement Raises Ethical Concerns.”
The Lancet 362:132–133. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13897-4.
Chapman, Sandra Bond, and Raksha Anand Mudar. 2013. “Discourse Gist:
A Window into the Brain’s Complex Cognitive Capacity.” Discourse
Studies 15:519–33. doi:10.1177/1461445613501444.
Cinel, Caterina, Davide Valeriani, and Riccardo Poli. 2019.
“Neurotechnologies for Human Cognitive Augmentation: Current
State of the Art and Future Prospects.” Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience 13:1–24. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00013.
Clark, Vincent P., and Raja Parasuraman. 2014. “Neuroenhancement:
Enhancing Brain and Mind in Health and in Disease.” NeuroImage
85:889–94. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.071.
Coffman, Brian A., Vincent P. Clark, and Raja Parasuraman. 2014.
“Battery Powered Thought: Enhancement of Attention, Learning, and
Memory in Healthy Adults Using Transcranial Direct Current
Stimulation.” NeuroImage 85:895–908. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.
2013.07.083.
Cohen Kadosh, Roi. 2014. The Stimulated Brain: Cognitive Enhancement

Using Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation. The Stimulated Brain:
Cognitive Enhancement Using Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation.
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Crivelli, Davide, and Michela Balconi. 2017. “Agentività e competenze
sociali: riflessioni teoriche e implicazioni per il management.”
Ricerche Di Psicologia [“Agency and Social Skills: Theoretical
Remarks and Implications for Management.” Research of Psychology]
40:349–363. doi:10.3280/RIP2017-003006.
Crivelli, Davide, Giulia Fronda, and Michela Balconi. 2019.
“Neurocognitive Enhancement Effects of Combined Mindfulness-
Neurofeedback Training in Sport.” Neuroscience 412:83–93.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.05.066.
Crivelli, Davide, Giulia Fronda, Irene Venturella, and Michela Balconi.
2019a. “Stress and Neurocognitive Efficiency in Managerial Contexts:
A Study on Technology-Mediated Mindfulness Practice.”
International Journal of Workplace Health Management 12:42–56.
doi:10.1108/IJWHM-07-2018-0095.
———. 2019b. “Supporting Mindfulness Practices with Brain-Sensing
Devices. Cognitive and Electrophysiological Evidences.” Mindfulness
10:301–11. doi:10.1007/s12671-018-0975-3.
Dahlin, Erika, Lars Nyberg, Lars Bäckman, and Anna Stigsdotter Neely.
2008. “Plasticity of Executive Functioning in Young and Older Adults:
Immediate Training Gains, Transfer, and Long-Term Maintenance.”
Psychology and Aging 23:720–30. doi:10.1037/a0014296.
Earp, Brian D., Anders Sandberg, Guy Kahane, and Julian Savulescu.
2014. “When Is Diminishment a Form of Enhancement? Rethinking
the Enhancement Debate in Biomedical Ethics.” Frontiers in Systems
Neuroscience 8:12. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00012.
Enriquez-Geppert, Stefanie, René J. Huster, and Christoph S. Herrmann.
2013. “Boosting Brain Functions: Improving Executive Functions with
Behavioral Training, Neurostimulation, and Neurofeedback.”
International Journal of Psychophysiology 88:1–16. doi:10.1016/
j.ijpsycho.2013.02.001.
Farah, Martha J. 2005. “Neuroethics: The Practical and the Philosophical.”

Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:34–40. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.001.
Farah, Martha J., Judy Illes, Robert Cook-Deegan, Howard Gardner, Eric
Kandel, Patricia King, Eric Parens, Barbara Sahakian, and Paul Root
Wolpe. 2004. “Neurocognitive Enhancement: What Can We Do and
What Should We Do?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5:421–25.
doi:10.1038/nrn1390.
Fronda, Giulia, Michela Balconi, and Davide Crivelli. 2018. “Neuroethical
Implications of Neurocognitive Enhancement in Managerial
Professional Contexts.” Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 2:356–63.
doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0100-5.
Fronda, Giulia, Davide Crivelli, and Michela Balconi. 2019.
“Neurocognitive Enhancement: Applications and Ethical Issues.”
NeuroRegulation 6:161–161. doi:10.15540/nr.6.3.161.
Greely, Henry. 2008. “Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing
Drugs by the Healthy.” Nature 456:702–5. doi:10.1038/456872a.
Gruzelier, John H. 2014. “EEG-Neurofeedback for Optimising
Performance. III: A Review of Methodological and Theoretical
Considerations.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 44:159–82.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.03.015.
Hommel, Bernhard, and Lorenza S. Colzato. 2017. “Meditation and
Metacontrol.” Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 1:115–21.
doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0017-4.
Jha, Amishi P., Joanna E. Witkin, Alexandra B. Morrison, Nina Rostrup,
and Elizabeth Stanley. 2017. “Short-Form Mindfulness Training
Protects Against Working Memory Degradation over High-Demand
Intervals.” Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 1:154–71. doi:10.1007/
s41465-017-0035-2.
Kabat-Zinn, Jon. 2003. “Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past,
Present, and Future.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
10:144–56. doi:10.1093/clipsy/bpg016.
Keng, Shian Ling, Moria J. Smoski, and Clive J. Robins. 2011. “Effects of
Mindfulness on Psychological Health: A Review of Empirical
Studies.” Clinical Psychology Review 31:1041–56. doi:10.1016/

j.cpr.2011.04.006.
King, Elizabeth, and Jarrod M. Haar. 2017. “Mindfulness and Job
Performance: A Study of Australian Leaders.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources 55:298–319. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12143.
Liu, Shengmin, Huanhuan Xin, Li Shen, Jianjia He, and Jingfang Liu.
2020. “The Influence of Individual and Team Mindfulness on Work
Engagement.” Frontiers in Psychology 10:2928. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.02928.
Lutz, Antoine, Heleen A. Slagter, John D. Dunne, and Richard J.
Davidson. 2008. “Attention Regulation and Monitoring in Meditation.”
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:163–69. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.
01.005.
Nyberg, Lars, Johan Sandblom, Sari Jones, Anna Stigsdotter Neely, Karl
Magnus Petersson, Martin Ingvar, and Lars Bäckman. 2003. “Neural
Correlates of Training-Related Memory Improvement in Adulthood
and Aging.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 100:13728–33. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1735487100.
Parasuraman, Raja, and Richard A. McKinley. 2014. “Using Noninvasive
Brain Stimulation to Accelerate Learning and Enhance Human
Performance.” Human Factors 56:816–24. doi:10.1177/00187208145
38815.
Ptak, Radek. 2012. “The Frontoparietal Attention Network of the Human
Brain: Action, Saliency, and a Priority Map of the Environment.”
Neuroscientist 18:502–15. doi:10.1177/1073858411409051.
Quaglia, Jordan T., Sarah E. Braun, Sara P. Freeman, Michael A.
McDaniel, and Kirk Warren Brown. 2016. “Meta-Analytic Evidence
for Effects of Mindfulness Training on Dimensions of Self-Reported
Dispositional Mindfulness.” Psychological Assessment 28:803–18.
doi:10.1037/pas0000268.
Raes, Filip, J. Mark G. Williams, and Dirk Hermans. 2009. “Reducing

Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression: A Preliminary Investigation of
Memory Specificity Training (MEST) in Inpatients with Depressive
Symptomatology.” Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry 40:24–38. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.03.001.
Sahakian, Barbara. 2007. “Professor’s Little Helper.” Nature 450:1157–59.
Wolpe, Paul Root. 2002. “Treatment, Enhancement, and the Ethics of
Neurotherapeutics.” Brain and Cognition 50:387–95. doi:10.1016/
S0278-2626(02)00534-1.
Chapter 8
INDUSTRY 4.0 AND AUTOMATION:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF APPLIED
NEUROSCIENCE
Federico Cassioli, Davide Crivelli, PhD

and Michela Balconi, PhD
Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
The fourth industrial revolution focuses on automation and on

designing intelligent and responsive systems. Industry 4.0 represents a
long-term development strategy, where efficiency is increased via the
integrated analysis of large streams of data and the optimization of
human-technology interactions.

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: federico.cassioli@unicatt.it.
134 Federico Cassioli, Davide Crivelli and Michela Balconi
In the following work, we highlight the possible contribution of

applied neuroscience to Industry 4.0 and to the industrial revolution,
reviewing the role of neuroergonomics in the design of novel systems,
which will be required to be fully responsive and collaborative. Future
technology should therefore include and consider data on neurocognitive,
emotional, and attentional states of the worker. We believe that the rapid
growth of wearable and non-invasive neuro-devices and sensors will
grant neuroscience a paramount importance in the designing, research,
and development processes of human-centered technology.
1. WHAT NEW
Industry 4.0 was theoretically introduced in Germany in 2011, as an

economic and development target (Gilchrist 2016). Subsequently, the term
has rapidly spread to currently connote the industrial research agendas and
development plans in many countries worldwide. Scientific and
professional communities link the concept to the fourth revolution in the
modern industry, following the (i) introduction of mechanical production,
(ii) the mass production with the support of electricity towards the early
twentieth century, and finally (iii) the adoption of information technology
(IT) in organizational and production systems, during the 70s.
The fourth industrial revolution is characterized by a focus on the
automation, aiming at designing intelligent and responsive systems that can
effectively increase their efficiency thanks to the integrated analysis of
large and heterogeneous flows of data (Cassioli and Balconi 2020), to the
adoption of new technologies for management and analysis of information
(including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cloud systems) as
well as for human-machine communication (Human-Machine Interaction -
HMI) and communication between machines and artificial systems
(Internet of Things - IoT; Machine-to-Machine communication - M2M).
As reported by Roblek, Meško, and Krapež (2016) and Posada et al.,
(2015), Industry 4.0 has five main peculiarities: (i) optimization and
customization of production, mostly using digital resources; (ii)
automation and adaptation of management processes; (iii) effective human-
machine interaction (HMI); (iv) design and implementation of value-added
Industry 4.0 and Automation 135
services and businesses; and (v) automated data exchange and

communication.
More specifically, the 4.0 revolution facilitates interconnection and
computerization and provides high product customization supported by IT,
making the production chain automatic, flexible, and more efficient by, for
example, facilitating communication between departments, supporting the
creation of smart factories and optimizing their productivity thanks to
functional IoT applications, or developing innovative business models
(Shafiq et al., 2016). Industry 4.0 represents a long-term strategic
development objective on a national and international level and a new
vision on business management and production. Also, the extent of this
transformation is supposed to have significant consequences on a social
and individual level for the worker, promoting the spread of smart
technologies, Artificial Intelligence, and advanced and responsive
wearable devices in many contexts (Oztemel and Gursev 2020).
2. THE CONTRIBUTION OF APPLIED NEUROSCIENCE

TO INDUSTRY 4.0 AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
In the recent years, the driving force of the 4.0 revolution has
promoted systematic research and development (R&D) activities on
wearable technology, smart sensors, machine learning, cloud computing
and the IoT. Even if the path for a complete transformation is still long and
the achievement of set objectives far, this trend has led to important
advances in the fields of robotics and automation in industrial and
organizational contexts, providing new inputs for innovation, also for the
management (Oztemel and Gursev 2020; Villalba-Diez et al., 2019).
This process was positively influenced by the contribution of
interpretative models, methods, and tools derived and taken from
neuroscientific disciplines. The potential of neuroscience as an
interpretative and exploratory perspective aiming at reaching a deeper
understanding of mental processes, and the opportunities it offers for
monitoring and assessing cognitive functions and implicit responses even

in real life contexts, have provided new lifeblood to methodological and
theoretical issues. For example, possible application of it might be useful
in the design of intelligent artificial agents with decision-making and
problem-solving skills, or for the optimization and automation of strategic
resource management processes, and the improvement of the human-
machine interaction.
2.1. Biometric Data for Interfaces

and Artificial Supportive Agents
In the Industry 4.0, new technologies, such as integrated biometric

devices capable of non-invasively detecting different physiological
responses while a professional is carrying out his/her activity, are attracting
particular attention since they offer the possibility of analyzing behaviors
and physiological activations, in order to extract models and identify the
latent patterns that could facilitate optimal performances (Lohmeyer and
Meboldt 2016). This possibility acquires even more value in the context of
Industry 4.0, where the areas of action are made more complex by the need
to integrate human work and the collaborative contribution of robots and
automated systems. Among the neuroscientific investigation tools, bio-
signal detection systems - both referred to central nervous system
(electroencephalography - EEG, funtional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy -
fNIRS) and peripheral nervous system (heart rate - HR, electrodermal
activity - EDA, electromyography activity - EMG, pupillary response and
visual behavior) - and behavioral data such as gaze patterns and eye-
tracking data (e.g., number-of-fixation, time-to-first-fixation and pupil
diameter) support the analysis and classification of experiences, automatic
responses, emotions, and mental states associated with the performance of
a task, and are able to provide valuable information for the development of
artificial solutions for production. Specifically, Borgianni and colleagues
(2018) proposed an interesting reflection on the use of eye-tracking
systems in the analysis of design processes in the engineering field. This
technique has already found application for the evaluation of human-

computer interfaces for industrial software production (Zülch and
Stowasser 2003).
In the daily programme of activities, working memory plays an
important role because it is a cognitive system with a limited capacity that
can temporarily hold information, devoted to support the reasoning,
decision-making, and behavioral planning processes. Working in a
complex production environment requires the professional to grasp and
evaluate different sources of information and to carefully select relevant
information keeping it in the working memory, and then coordinate the
appropriate response actions. In this context, wearable eye-tracking
systems offer the advantage of a lower sensitivity to movement artifacts
and therefore are suitable for on-field applications and in situations where
a big amount of movements is required to the worker. In fact, monitoring
professionals during the designing and creation phases using eye-tracking
technology allows to achieve a better understanding of the processes in
place and of the management of the mental workload during the activity,
giving the opportunity to evaluate their impact and hypothesize
interventions to optimize the workstation and the digital interface.
The same information can then be used for the development of
artificial worker assistance systems, resulting in improved performance
and optimized visual behavior (Stork and Schubö 2010); or for
programming responsive supportive systems capable of projecting
instructions, perceptual reminders, and visual information on the worktable
according to the degree of attention of the users (Wallhoff et al., 2010). In
addition, the use of eye-tracking techniques has interesting practical
implications in the safety field, for the anticipation and prevention of
operator errors.
Finally, as shown by a recent trend in applied research, eye-tracking
techniques can be integrated with the use of augmented reality systems
both to investigate the usability and to use the gaze patterns as a modality
input in the interaction with the device during assembly or maintenance
processes (Renner and Pfeiffer 2017).
2.2. Operational Excellence: How to Monitor Automation

of Strategical Resource Management Processes with EEG
In the framework of Industry 4.0, operational excellence represents a

process-oriented approach to management, aimed at the optimization and
maximization of value flows, towards a standardization of activities and
the reduction of internal process variability. In order to pursue these
objectives, the involved managerial workers must constantly face evolving
challenges and exercise their decision-making abilities in complex and
changing contexts. Although these strategic reasoning models are critical
and have a significant impact on company performance, the discriminating
characteristics that systematically make a stable winning model are still an
object of debate. Consequently, the creation of artificial agents capable of
managing such functions or facilitate the decision maker by optimizing the
decision process is still an object of study and speculation. Villalba-Diez
and colleagues (2019) suggest that this debate could benefit from the
contribution of neuroscience and from the use of EEG to qualify and
monitor in real time the decision-making and strategic problem-solving
processes in authentic work situations. In particular, the EEG technique
proved to be useful for the automated classification of cognitive tasks (Di
Flumeri et al., 2019), of alertness levels (X. Zhang et al., 2017), of states of
focused attention, emotions and stress responses (Ahn, Ku, and Kim 2019;
Masood and Farooq 2019), and of cognitive workload (Y. Zhang and Shen
2019).
Related to the Industry 4.0, the challenge is represented by the
definition of intelligent algorithms, which should be able to classify and
qualify the complex EEG responses of a human decision maker in a short
time and make them understandable to other artificial agent, enhancing the
human-machine interaction. In addition, information on these processes
and on the electrophysiological activity could be given back by the
artificial agent to the decision maker in the form of feedback, thus
promoting her/his metacognitive awareness and initiating a virtuous circle
of self-empowerment (Balconi, Angioletti, and Crivelli 2020; Balconi et
al., 2017). Using correlational analysis and deep learning techniques
applied to EEG responses detected during process management tasks,

Villalba-Diez et al., (2019) observed how these tasks can be considered
executive tasks, mediated mainly by the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and
associated with decision-making, self-regulation mechanisms, and working
memory, but also how it is possible to distinguish the electrophysiological
signatures of tasks and modalities of different process management. These
studies suggest that, even in a business environment in which the
complexity of processes is high and constantly increasing, it is possible, by
integrating a non-invasive EEG activity detector with a machine learning
system, to implement a classifier capable of estimating the appearance of
functional decision-making models based on the situation and providing
information to the users.
2.3. Human-Robot-Interaction and Neuroergonomics:

The “Co-Bot” Example
In some cases, conventional robotic automation systems fail to

consider production demand, especially when the target product is
variable, the production itself requires flexibility, and the intervention of
human workers is needed to overcome these limitations. This integration
requires interaction and collaboration between man and machine that is
only possible by introducing intelligent interfaces that allow adaptive
support during production. In this area of Industry 4.0, one of the most
critical aspects concerns the optimization of the man-machine relationship,
looking for a good fit among the dynamic work allocation between the
human and robot worker, the role of intelligent support needed, and the
inherent limitations of cognition as the workload increases. Also, the
automation of a process adds value when the efficiency of the machine is
enhanced by the human cognitive skills and flexibility.
The equilibrium between machine automation and human workers
unlocks efficiency and it is even more important for safety reasons in
collaborative robotic (co-bot) technology. The main difference of this new
type of technology compared to the previous one is the augmented level of
interaction with the human being which would bring benefits to the
workers. In fact, as suggested by Hashemi-Petroodi and colleagues (2020),
the inclusion of collaborative systems, which are reliable and tirelessness,
might reduce human cognitive load, preventing their involvement in
unergonomic and risky task and allowing human to better use of creativity
and intelligence. Yet, to date, in the industries fully collaborative co-bot
are still not systematically present or tend not to be directly interacting
with workers, being separated by barriers or working in sequential
collaboration conditions.
2.4. New Challenges and Perspectives:

The Applications to Neuroergonomics
In this light, some added value could be brought by neuroergonomics –

defined as the study of physiological responses and behavior in work
contexts, aiming at aligning technological and human skills in order to
increasing efficiency (Parasuraman and Rizzo 2007). In fact, by improving
the understanding of neural correlates underlying human performance in
complex and real tasks, it might be possible to design safer and more
efficient technologies and work environments. In particular, according to
the authors, the results of field surveys obtained by combining different
investigation tools (for example, behavioral indices, EEG and motion-
tracking) could help to design and adapt human-machine interfaces to the
constraints of human perception, processing skills, and cognitive control,
as well as specific individual characteristics (such as, for example, work
expertise), providing important guidelines and constraints for the
presentation of information. The introduction of this type of adaptive and
responsive systems could plausibly reduce the human error rates and help
optimizing and regulating the production performance according to criteria
based on neuroscientific evidence.
The adopted methods in neuroergonomics research combine the classic
measurement of behavioural performance with neuroimaging techniques
(although they are less used, as they are not portable), EEG and event-
related potentials (ERPs), motion-tracking and eye-tracking. For example,

ERPs are useful for studying mental workload (Wickens 1990), motion
tracking techniques can be used to study the interaction between a human
and a robotic artificial agent, in order to analyze and model the presence of
coordination patterns in the movements and subsequently program the
artificial agent so that both the human worker and the robotic agent
mutually predict and anticipate the following phases, ensuring higher
safety standards (Hägele, Schaaf, and Helms 2002). For example, related to
the mental load, the use of slow and fast wave increases and ratios in
frontal and central brain areas were already adopted to study cognitive and
emotional planning (Wang et al., 2020). Also, emotional states are
generally inferred via frontal asymmetry (Balconi and Mazza 2010), theta
beta ratio and Hjorth parameters (Mowla et al., 2020). Furthermore, a
quality cycle for the optimization of co-bot system was proposed (Cassioli,
Fronda, and Balconi 2021), where a co-bot system is firstly tested via
simulations of real industrial tasks while data is collected and subsequently
used to enhance the human-robot interaction (HMI) by developing novel
models.
Lastly, robotic agents could be programmed by implementing imitation
learning modules – a learning modality based on the analysis of an
operator’s motor patterns, aimed at detecting human movement and
automatically identifying its purpose – so as to optimize their patterns of
action, adaptation, and interaction with the environment.
CONCLUSION
As indicated by Briken (2020), it is evident that organizations in the

future will be facing conditions where the production process will be more
intelligent, flexible, adaptable, autonomous and sensor based. Furthermore,
it is plausible that future management and production systems will not only
be based on current Industry 4.0 standards but adopt fully automated
systems and adaptive robotic technology, characterized by human-like
behavior patterns. As we showed via the example of co-bot, neuroscience
could add value in the industrial environment and more in particular in the
Industry 4.0 era, where the understating of human condition is a necessity
for the guarantee of productivity, safety and efficiency. By adopting a
neuroergonomics perspective, it could be possible to enhance the relation
between human and robotic systems aiming at the development of
optimized HMI.
More in general, the analysis of the literature on the 4.0 revolution
suggests a rapid and systematic growth in the field of wearable
neurotechnology, augmented reality and artificial intelligence, with a
growing role for neuroscience in the designing process and research and
development activities. Nevertheless, it should be strongly emphasized
that, despite some cases or specific conditions related to commercial
applications based on the principles of Industry 4.0, the common
implementation of wearable devices and cyber-physical systems is not
fully developed and advanced in the organizational and industrial sector.
For this reason, to make industrial systems more intuitive and suitable for
humans, further technological advancements have to be made. In addition,
some ethical issues relating, for example, to the concept of “cybernetic
control” (Raffetseder, Schaupp, and Staab 2017) and possible decreases in
autonomy, authenticity and self-efficacy at work were highlighted
(Butollo, Jürgens, and Krzywdzinski 2019), which are issues that will have
to be carefully addressed.
REFERENCES
Ahn, Joong Woo, Yunseo Ku, and Hee Chan Kim. 2019. “A Novel
Wearable EEG and ECG Recording System for Stress Assessment.”
Sensors 19:1991. doi:10.3390/s19091991.
Why.” Frontiers in Psychology 11:1519. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.
01519.
Balconi, Michela, Giulia Fronda, Irene Venturella, and Davide Crivelli.

Approach with Wearable Devices.” Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
7:1280. doi:10.3390/app7121280.
Balconi, Michela, and Guido Mazza. 2010. “Lateralisation Effect in
Comprehension of Emotional Facial Expression: A Comparison
Between EEG Alpha Band Power and Behavioural Inihibition (BIS)
and Activation (BAS) Systems.” Laterality: Asymmetries of Body,
Brain and Cognition 15:361–84. doi:10.1080/13576500902886056.
Borgianni, Yuri, Erwin Rauch, Lorenzo Maccioni, and Benedikt Gregor
Mark. 2018. “User Experience Analysis in Industry 4.0 – The Use of
Biometric Devices in Engineering Design and Manufacturing”. Paper
presented at the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM, Bangkok,
Thailand, December 16–19. doi:10.1109/IEEM.2018.8607367.
Briken, Kendra. 2020. “Welcome in the Machine: Human-Machine
Relations and Knowledge Capture” Capital & Class 44:159–71.
doi:10. 1177/0309816819899418.
Butollo, Florian, Ulrich Jürgens, and Martin Krywdzinsky. 2019. “From
Lean Production to Industry 4.0: More Autonomy for Employees?” In
Digitalization in Industry, edited by David Seibt, Simon Schaupp, and
Uli Meyer, 61–80. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Cassioli, Federico, and Michela Balconi. 2020. “Big Data: Neuroscience at
the Service of Management.” In Neuromanagement. People and
Organizations, edited by Michela Balconi, 113–22. Milano: LED
Edizioni Universitarie [Milan: LED University Editions].
Cassioli, Federico, Giulia Fronda, and Michela Balconi. 2021. “Human-
Co-Bot Interaction and Neuroergonomics: Co-Botic Vs Robotic
Systems.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8:77. doi:10.3389/
frobt.2021.659319.
Di Flumeri, Gianluca, Pietro Aricò, Gianluca Borghini, Nicolina Sciaraffa,
Antonello Di Florio, and Fabio Babiloni. 2019. “The Dry Revolution:
Evaluation of Three Different EEG Dry Electrode Types in Terms of
Signal Spectral Features, Mental States Classification and Usability.”

Sensors 19:1365 doi:10.339/s19061365.
Gilchrist, Alasdair. 2016. Industry 4.0: The Industrial Internet of Things.
New York: Apress Media, LCC. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2047-4.
Hägele, Martin, Walter Schaaf, and Evert Helms. 2002. “Robot Assistants
at Manual Workplaces – Effective Co-Operation and Safety Aspects.”
Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Robotics, ISR
7:97. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31509-4_29.
Hashemi-Petroodi, Ehsan, Simon Thevenin, Sergey Kovalev, and
Alexandre Dolguia. 2020. “Operationas Management Issues in Design
and Control of Hybrid Human-Robot Collaborative Manufacturing
Systems: A Survey.” Annual Reviews in Control 49:264–76.
doi:10.1016/j.arcon trol.2020.04.009.
Lohmeyer, Quentin, and Mirko Meboldt. 2016. “The Integration of
Quatitative Biometric Measures and Experimental Design Research –
Approaches, Perspectives, Applications.” In Experimental Design
Research, edited by Philip Cash, Tino Stankovic, and Mario Štorga,
97–112. Cham: Spinger International Publishing.
Masood, Naveen, and Humera Farooq. 2019. “Investigating EEG Patterns
for Dual-Stimuli Induced Human Fear Emotional State.” Sensors
19:522. doi:10.3390/s19030522.
Mowla, Rakibul, Racheal Cano, Katie Dhuyvetter, and David Thompson.
2020. “Affective Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Tutorial to Choose
Perfomance Measuring Metric.” ArXiv 4:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.comp
biomed.2020104001.
Öztemel, Ercan, and Samet Gursev. 2020. “Literature Review of Industry
4.0 and Related Technologies.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
31:127–82. doi:10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8.
Parasuraman, Raja, and Matthew Rizzo. 2007. Neuroergonomics: The
Brain at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Posada, Jorge, Carlos Toro, Iñigo Barandiaran, David Oyarzun, Didier
Stricker, Raffaele de Amicis, Eduardo B. Pinto Peter Eisert, Jürgen
Döllner, and Ivan Vallarino. 2015. “Visual Computing as A Key
Enabling Technology for Industry 4.0 and Industrial Internet.” IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications 35:26–40. doi:10.1109/ MCG.

2015.45.
Raffetseder, Eva-Maria, Simon Schaupp, and Philipp Staab. 2017
“Kybernetik Und Kontrolle: Algorithmische Arbeitssteurung Und
Betriebliche Herrshaft.” [“Cybernetics And Control: Algorithmic
Work Control And Operational Mastery.”] PROKLA 47:229–48.
doi:10. 32387/prokla.v47i187.143.
Renner, Patrick, and Thies Pfeiffer. 2017. “Attention Guiding Techniques
Using Peripheral Vision and Eye Tracking for Feedback in
Augmented-Reality-Based Assistance Systems” Proceedings of the
2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User interfaces (3DUI) 1:186–94.
doi:10.1109/ 3dui.2017.7893338.
Roblek, Vasja, Maja Meško, and Alojz Krapež. 2016. “A Complex View
of Industry 4.0.” Sage Open 6:1–12. doi:10.1177/2158244016653987.
Shafiq, Syed Imran, Cesar Sanin, Edward Szczerbicki, and Carlos Toro.
2016. “Virtual Engineering Factory: Creating Experience Base for
Industry 4.0.” Cybernectis and Systems 47:32–47. doi:10.1080/
01969722.2016.1128762.
Stork, Sonja, and Anna Schubo. 2010. “Human Cognition in Manual
Assembly: Theories and Applications.” Advanced Engineering
Informatics 24:320–28. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2010.05.010.
Villalba-Diez, Javier, Xaiochen Zheng, Daniel Schimidt, and Martin
Molina. 2019. “Characterization of Industry 4.0. Learn Management
Problem-Solving Behavioral Patterns Using EEG Sensors and Deep
Learning.” Sensors 19:2841. doi:10.3390/s19132841.
Wallhoff, Frank, Blume Jurgen, Alexander Bannat, Wolfgang Rosel, Claus
Lenzc, and Alois Knollc. 2010. “A Skill-Based Approach Towards
Hybrid Assembly.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 24:329–39.
doi:10.1016/j.aei.2010.05.013.
Wang, Zhongting, Ling Luo, Chanyu Zou, Linghua Ran, and Haimei Wu.
2020. “Research on The Influence of Dimension of Visual Grouping
Cue for Guiding Sign Recognition.” Advances in Intelligent Systems
and Computing 2:390–96. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20473-0_38.
Wickens, Christopher. 1990. “Applications of Event-Related Potential

Research to Problems in Human Factors.” In Event-Related Potentials:
Basic and Applied Issues, edited by John Rohrbaugh, John
Parasuraman, and Ray Johnson, 301–9. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Zhang, Yihong, and Yuou Shen. 2019. “Parallel Mechanism of Spectral
Feature-Enchanced Maps in EEG-Based Cognitive Workload
Classification.” Sensors 19:808. doi:10.3390/s19040808.
Zhang, Xiaoliang, Jiali Li, Yugang Liu, Zutao Zhang, Zhuojun Wang,
Dianyuan Luo, Xiang Zhou, et al., 2017. “Design of A Fatifue
Detection System for High-Speed Trains Based on Driver Vigilance
Using A Wireless Wearable EEG.” Sensors 17:486.
doi:10.3390/s17030486.
Zülch, Gert, and Sascha Stowasser. 2003. “Eye Tracking for Evaluating
Industrial Human-Computer Interfaces.” In The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive
and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, edited by Jukka
Hyönä, Ralph Radach, and Heiner Deubel, 531–53. North Holland:
Elsevier Science.
Chapter 9
DIGITAL-LEARNING FOR ORGANIZATION:

INSIGHTS FROM
COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Davide Crivelli, PhD and Michela Balconi, PhD

Milan, Italy
ABSTRACT
Recently, advances in technology and learning methods have allowed

the development of new training practices within the workplace. This was
made possible, in particular, by digital-learning, which allowed trainers
and users to share knowledge in any place and time. Furthermore, digital-
learning has made it possible to give rise to more economical, practical,
and realistic training addressing many people at the same time. The
possibilities offered by digital-learning have also been explored by

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: davide.crivelli@unicatt.it.
148 Davide Crivelli and Michela Balconi
neuroscience, interested in applying neuroscientific models of learning

and cognition to implement increasingly effective and useful e-learning
programs. In addition, the contribution of neuroscience in improving
digital-learning also includes the possible use of neuroscientific
techniques for the assessment and monitoring of learning outcome and
quality. This, therefore, leads to an increasingly deepening of the
investigation of neuroscientific methods and techniques that could be
useful for improving the digital-learning field.
1. THE CONTRIBUTION OF COGNITIVE AND EDUCATIONAL

NEUROSCIENCE TO WORKPLACE DIGITAL-LEARNING
The quest towards a renewed approach to organizational and human

resources management based on complex competences and centered on the
person requires, as suggested by Nilsson and Ellström (2012), a dynamic
adaptation of management practice, in which efficient professional
education and talent development programs represent a crucial factor for
success.
Technological advances and progresses in lifelong learning models and
methods allowed, in the past years, to tackle such issues and develop novel
practices for training even at the workplace. In particular, digital-learning -
understood as the ensemble of learning models, practices, and
technological means used to distribute multimedia educational and training
contents and to foster distance learning processes - gave trainers and users
the opportunity to engage with learning anywhere and almost at any time
and to readily share knowledge. Furthermore, thanks to digital-learning,
training becomes more efficient and cost-effective - i.e., more individuals
are able to access training “simultaneously” - as well as more consistent
and realistic - thanks to the use, for example, of videos and similar realistic
or immersive materials taken from field experiences and actual case-
histories.
Notably, the innovation trend that came along with the development
and spread of digital-learning practices was likely promoted also by the hot
debate that, since almost two decades ago, began to promote critical
Digital-Learning for Organization 149
thinking on traditional learning theories and methods by looking for a

fruitful integration of cognitive-affective neuroscience discoveries, as well
as explicative models, with pedagogical and education traditions (Bowers
2016; Bruer 1997; Gabrieli 2016; Howard-Jones et al. 2016). As claimed
in 2011 by Frith and colleagues “Education is about enhancing learning,
and neuroscience is about understanding the mental processes involved in
learning. This common ground suggests a future in which educational
practice can be transformed by science, just as medical practice was
transformed by science about a century ago” (Frith et al. 2011, 5).
While it has to be acknowledged that scientific literature and properly
studied cases of neuroscience-informed digital-learning practices at the
workplace are still scarce, we do think that we are now at the right time to
definitely promote both research on neural and physiological markers of
online, as well as traditional, learning processes in organizational contexts,
and development of innovative digital-learning programs, which might - as
an example - rely on a proper brain-centered, besides person-centered,
approach.
Besides holding many promises, devising and developing online
learning programs and materials require commitment and resources and
should therefore be “done right” (Rossett 2002), by keeping in focus the
target learners and the cognitive as well as neurofunctional correlates of
the learning process. Cognitive and educational neuroscience provide
valuable explanatory models concerning the learning brain, which might
help shaping professional training opportunities included into the company
HR development plan and designing efficient digital-learning modules
focused on target learners. Namely, neuroscience might provide further
insight with respect to the following critical issues:
 the way multimedia information is captured;

 the way the learning system deal with new information in online
learning contexts;
 the way information is transcribed into knowledge and stored.
Figure 1. The contribution of neuroscience to the creation and evaluation of efficient

digital-learning and development programs at the workplace: a synoptic model of core
processes and application fields.
In addition, besides the contribution of neuroscience to the creation of

efficient training and development programs even at the workplace (see
Figure 1), such discipline also offers a unique opportunity to enrich the
monitoring and assessment of learning process and outcomes via objective
measures, which might complement behavioural and subjective evaluation
of the effects of such programs. We will focus on this interesting
opportunity in the last paragraph.
2. THE WAY MULTIMEDIA INFORMATION IS CAPTURED,

PROCESSED, ASSIMILATED, AND TRANSCRIBED
INTO KNOWLEDGE
Firstly, learners, in order to take in new information and build

transferrable knowledge, have to attend to salient information, manipulate
and repeatedly experience the coding of such information, and process it
taking into account different contexts, their cognitive schemata, and their
previous experience. Attention is the complex mechanism that manages if

and how information is captured and made accessible to the cognitive
system of a learner. Therefore, what trainees experience and learn is very
much a function of what they attend to.
Such field evidence find its explication in the neurocognitive model of
attention filter (Kastner and Pinsk 2004; Treisman 1964), according to
which the multiple data entering the central nervous system in parallel via
the sensory systems during a task are initially held in a temporary buffer,
where they are quickly analyzed for basic physical properties, and then
“filtered” so that only those signals that are salient and/or relevant to the
ongoing task are further processed.
Cognitive neuroscience provides the basic knowledge to properly
qualify and quantify such filtering and focusing processes especially when
they develop in complex and multimodal digital-learning contexts. As an
example, neuroscience studies had long since demonstrated that attention
can modulate sensory and perceptual processing since its very early steps
(Kastner and Pinsk 2004) and that the effect of such filtering on
information-processing and behaviour can be objectively measured,
monitored, and predicted. Notably the outcome of such filtering and
salience attribution process, mediated by the prefrontal-insular-cingulate
salience network (Menon and Uddin 2010), is also guided by motivational
and affective factors, which explains the strong causal connection between
engagement in learning experience, captivating multimedia, learning
outcomes, and memorability (Hew 2016).
Those findings have remarkable practical implications for the
presentation of information in digital-learning and might therefore help
content creators and trainers in designing efficient online and multimedia
materials. Focusing, as an example, on the use of multimedia, research on
multisensory stimulation suggests that the combination of verbal, pictorial
and acoustic stimuli might stimulate the growth of new neural connections
via the creation of multi-sensory experiences (Mayer and Moreno 2002).
Yet, in order to avoid being stuck into oversimplified rules of thumb, it has
also to be acknowledged that even if the redundancy of information
elicited via different perceptual and cognitive representations seems to
represent an added value for knowledge creation and consolidation of

learning, neuroscience evidence highlighted that multiple representations
also have their cognitive and neural costs in terms of both encoding effort
and integration of multimodal information - a demand that might turn
against the learner (Fisher, Hopp, and Weber 2019).
Linked to this last point, how to create optimal training programs and
materials actually is one of the first and yet still debated topic in lifelong
education and professional education research, with peculiar reference to
multimedia and technology-based digital-learning. At the heart of such
debate lies the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT; Sweller 1994), which,
despite a few critics (see de Jong 2010), played a relevant role in
innovating instructional design for traditional and digital-learning
applications, as well as evaluation of online and multimedia learning
environments (Lane and D’Mello 2019; Martin 2014).
The model grounds on cognitive theories supported by neuroscientific
evidence regarding two specific types of mnestic functions - namely,
working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM) - and their
interaction and interdependence (Kirschner, Ayres, and Chandler 2011;
Sweller 1994). In the CLT, WM especially plays a pivotal role, in that it
allows for temporary storage and manipulation of the information
necessary to complete the ongoing cognitive tasks that enable proper
learning. The learning process is therefore hindered or blocked when the
WM becomes overwhelmed by too much information and processing, a
particularly relevant risk in professional digital-learning contexts where
much of the learning process is transferred to multimedia materials and the
deprived relational contexts taxes the trainee’s cognitive system.
According to the CLT, three core components influence the cognitive
load imposed by a learning task: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load
(Sweller 2010). Intrinsic load is determined by the complexity of the
learning tasks and topics. Extraneous load is determined by suboptimal
instructional procedures. Germane load, instead, depends on learners’ WM
resources that are currently available to deal with the learning experience.
While the first, it being intrinsically linked to the object of learning, cannot
be directly altered by the trainer or instructional designer, both extraneous
and germane load can be facilitated by the learning content creator and the
trainer. Indeed, optimal performance and outcomes in organizational
training, especially when delivered online, can be fostered by finding the
right balance between keeping multimedia materials and activities
sufficiently challenging but still within the cognitive capacities of the
learners. As an example, if the learning object is notably complex and
present high intrinsic load, trainers might foster the learning process and
learning motivation by providing clear information and embedded support
(thus limiting the extraneous and germane loads) and by creating a
facilitating and engaging learning environment, so to capitalize on the
involvement of prefrontal executive and motivational networks in
consolidating knowledge and competence and making the learning
experience more pleasant.
Finally, neuroscientific models also provide a framework to understand
the processes that lead to knowledge and competence consolidation during
learning and skills development. In that regard, neuroplasticity - mirroring
the ability of our brain to constantly change depending on environmental
stimulations - is the neural base of the notable adaptability of our
neurocognitive system. Namely, experience-dependent plasticity -
following the Hebbian principle stating that “neurons that fire together
wire together” (Hebb 1961) - is now deemed as a phenomenon that
connote the whole life-span (Lövdén et al. 2010), though characterized by
different sensitivity and efficiency depending on age and other individual
and environmental factors. Furthermore, it is considered the enabling
factor of the brain ability to store the results of learning in the form of
memories. Mnestic traces - i.e., the way information is stored in the central
nervous system in the form of cell assemblies - are therefore created by
experience and depend on learning processes.
Research in cognitive and clinical neuroscience helped to point out the
basic principles of neural plasticity that foster learning in both the damaged
and the healthy brain (Kleim and Jones 2008). Again, the critical analysis
of such pieces of evidence, might provide a few recommendations for
lifelong educational practice and design of digital-learning programs. In
particular, in line with the “Use it and improve it” principle, efficient
digital-learning programs have to allow the learner to be an active agent of

the learning process. Feeling agency - understood as the sense of being in
charge of your own behaviour and of feeling actively involved in an
experience (Crivelli and Balconi 2010, 2017) - during the learning process
is a strong promoter of learning performance. Indeed, fostering the
processing of new information and experience via active participation and
first-hand individual and group-works notwithstanding the physical
distance would help encoding them via deeper mechanisms, making them
personally meaningful, and easing their integration within the learner’s
knowledge framework.
Furthermore, by facilitating learners’ awareness of their learning
activities and their active role in them, it is possible to foster their self-
reflection and metacognitive skills, which will in turn contribute towards
effective and flexible learning ability. Again, in line with the “Salience
matters” principle of neuroplasticity, efficient digital-learning materials
and experiences should be created taking into account that learning is
cumulative and personal (Ellis and Goodyear 2010). Namely, since the
learner’s knowledge framework will influence how and how much new
information is included in learning and sense-making processes and since
the learner constructs its own knowledge in a unique way based on
previous experiences, interests, and beliefs, the salience, personal
relevance and professional implications of the digital-learning experience
as well as the links between digital-learning topics/activities and previous
neighbouring knowledge and expertise should be clearly highlighted, so to
strengthen an adaptive learning process.
Finally, creators of digital-learning contents should keep in mind that,
in line with the “Specificity” and “Transference” principles of neural
plasticity, learning needs to be situated and goal-directed in order to be
efficient (Ellis and Goodyear 2010). The learning processes and outcomes,
especially in professional training and HR development programs, are
significantly influenced by the context in which learning is taking place,
would it be physical or virtual. Therefore, pragmatism, authenticity, and
professional relevance of training tasks and learning contexts have
gradually become core and mandatory requisites in content design (Ring
and Mathieux 2002), in particular for organizational digital-learning

programs (e.g., concerning safety, industrial design, communication
efficiency) and especially when such programs are delivered at distance.
And again, in order to ensure effectiveness of learning experiences -
especially when they are mediated and when interpersonal dynamics are
likely looser, such as in digital-learning - training/development goals need
to be clearly set, shared, and understood by the learners.
3. ASSESSMENT OF DIGITAL-LEARNING EFFICACY USING

NEUROMETRIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
PERFORMANCE MARKERS
In order to evaluate and optimize the quality of a learning experience it

is necessary to monitor and efficiently assess the progress and the final
outcome of the learning process. That need becomes even more relevant in
digital-learning applications, where the learner is often given much
autonomy, and in professional contexts, where training and development
opportunities acquire a peculiar strategic relevance. By observing,
measuring, testing, and reflecting on what happens during the training
period, learners and trainers may co-operate to adjust, if needed, strategies,
technologies, and learning activities to achieve the intended outcomes.
Notwithstanding well-known limitations of observational and self-
report outcome measures (Antonenko et al. 2010; Lane and D’Mello
2019), assessment of learning performance and outcomes is, to date, still
usually based on behavioural and psychometric tools. Nonetheless, recent
technological and methodological progresses in neuroscientific tools and
the diffusion of portable non-invasive and less-expensive devices for
physiological measures are creating novel opportunities for objective
measurement of physiological markers of learning even at the workplace
and in ecological contexts.
According to a recent review by Lane and D’Mello (2019), a wide
range of technologies have been put under test, including depth-sensing
cameras, electrodermal activity (EDA) recording, electroencephalography

(EEG), posture detectors, eye- and head-tracking cameras, and mouse-
pressure sensors. Here we will focus on one of the most promising - and
yet still not systematically explored - developments in the field: the use of
EEG to monitor and measure cognitive load for the purpose of adjusting
the digital-learning experience and assessing its cognitive cost and efficacy
online.
EEG is a non-invasive technique used to investigate the
electrophysiological signature of cognitive processes by monitoring both
tonic and event-related fluctuations of scalp electrical potential linked to
cortical activity. Interestingly, the long since known association between
alpha and theta EEG oscillations and task demand (Klimesch, Schack, and
Sauseng 2005), has been observed even in the still limited investigations of
electrophysiological markers of complex learning processes. For example,
Gerlič and Jaušovec (1999), in a seminal work on multimedia contents,
showed that desynchronization of alpha EEG band might mirror the
cognitive load induced by various multimedia formats relative to the areas
of the cortex involved in processing modality-specific input, as well as
inter-individual differences in managing such load. Again, the potential of
alpha neurometrics as marker for inter-individual differences in learning
efficiency was further supported by comparing experts and novices (Gerlič
and Jaušovec 2001). Then, Antonenko and Niederhauser (2010) by
focusing on hypertexts, showed that EEG can serve as an online
continuous measure of cognitive load detecting its subtle fluctuations even
when self-report measures of mental effort do not detect any difference in
experienced cognitive load. In particular, the authors proved that
desynchronization of alpha oscillations together with synchronization of
theta waves mark higher cognitive effort, and that node previews likely
improve the effectiveness of hypertexts. This is an example of how the
integration of fine-grained neuroscientific measures might support optimal
design of multimedia contents and complex learning environments. Such
potential is further suggested by a recently-published investigation focused
on educational videos (Castro-Meneses, Kruger, and Doherty 2020). By
varying the linguistic complexity of professional-quality video lectures, the
authors showed that theta power modulation might act as objective

measure of cognitive load in the context of online and blended learning,
which heavily rely on videos, particularly for measurement of fluctuations
in instantaneous load.
While it has to be acknowledged that the contribution of EEG and
other neuroscientific techniques to assessment and monitoring of digital-
learning process and outcomes needs to be further explored, available data
and investigations in neighbouring application areas (e.g., Balconi,
Angioletti, and Crivelli 2020) seem to outline valuable food for thought.
Also, as pointed out by Castro-Meneses and colleagues (2020), the real
potential of EEG applications to digital-learning resides in the online
measurement of moment-to-moment fluctuation of learner’s cognitive
load, which could be used to design tailored instructions and responsive
learning environments or simply to detect obstacles in learning experience
and associated cognitive processes.
CONCLUSION
We have opened this chapter by reminding the role of professional

education and talent development as necessary, strategic, and crucial
investment in terms of organizational success and performance. In highly
flexible and complex working context, like the ones that are daily
experienced in many organizations and companies, digital-learning
programs - and, especially, remote learning ones - were deemed as a sort of
panacea in the development of novel efficient and cost-effective practices
for workplace training.
Methodological remarks concerning the integration of cognitive-
affective neuroscience discoveries and techniques with traditional learning
theories and methods have, across the last years, more and more found the
interest of professional trainers and professional development consultants.
While systematic research on neuroscience-informed digital-learning
practices at the workplace is yet scant, the attention given to such topic and
the remarkable technological and theoretical advances in the field of
applied neuroscience provide the right context in which to foster

neuroscientific investigation on traditional, digital, and remote learning
practices in organizations, as well as the development of innovative digital-
learning programs based on a brain/person-centered approach.
Available evidence and theoretical remarks have begun to highlight the
implications of neuroscientific models of cognition and learning processes
for the design of effective and engaging digital-learning programs, as also
the potential of neuroscientific techniques for the accurate monitoring and
objective assessment of learning outcomes and quality. Forthcoming
challenges in this promising field would likely concern the integration of
multiple methods - e.g., non-invasive optical imaging of neural activity,
measurement of autonomic arousal, estimation of attentional fatigue via
eye-tracking - to monitor the dynamics of the learning experience or as
supports in the digital-learning process in real or virtual environments, or
even the use of wearable neuroscientific tools - such as the neurofeedback -
to promote the enhancement of learning skills in workplace training.
REFERENCES
Antonenko, Pavlo D., and Dale S. Niederhauser. 2010. “The Influence of

Leads on Cognitive Load and Learning in a Hypertext Environment.”
Computers in Human Behavior 26:140-50. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.
014.
Antonenko, Pavlo D., Fred Paas, Roland Grabner, and Tamara van Gog.
2010. “Using Electroencephalography to Measure Cognitive Load.”
Educational Psychology Review 22:425-38. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-
9130-y.
Why.” Frontiers in Psychology 11:1519. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.
01519.
Bowers, Jeffrey S. 2016. “The Practical and Principled Problems with

Educational Neuroscience.” Psychological Review 123:600-12. doi:10.
1037/rev0000025.
Bruer, John T. 1997. “Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far.”
Educational Researcher 24:4-16. doi:10.3102/0013189X026008004.
Castro-Meneses, Leidy J., Jan Louis Kruger, and Stephen Doherty. 2020.
“Validating Theta Power as an Objective Measure of Cognitive Load
in Educational Video.” Educational Technology Research and
Development 68:181-202. doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09681-4.
Crivelli, Davide, and Michela Balconi. 2010. “Agency and Inter-Agency,
Action and Joint Action: Theoretical and Neuropsychological
Evidences.” In: Neuropsychology of the Sense of Agency. From
Consciousness to Action, edited by Michela Balconi, 107-22. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
———. 2017. “Agentività e competenze sociali: riflessioni teoriche e
implicazioni per il management.” Ricerche Di Psicologia [“Agency
and Social Skills: Theoretical Remarks and Implications for
Management.” Research in Psychology] 40:349-363. doi:10.3280/
RIP2017-003006.
de Jong, Ton. 2010. “Cognitive Load Theory, Educational Research, and
Instructional Design: Some Food for Thought.” Instructional Science
38:105-34. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.
Ellis, Robert A., and Peter Goodyear. 2010. Students’experiences of e-
Learning in Higher Education: The Ecology of Sustainable Innovation.
New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fisher, Jacob Taylor, Frederic René Hopp, and René Weber. 2019.
“Modality-Specific Effects of Perceptual Load in Multimedia
Processing.” Media and Communication 7:149-65. doi:10.17645/mac.
v7i4.2388.
Frith, Uta, Dorothy Bishop, Colin Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore,
Brian Butterworth, Usha Goswami, Paul A. Howard-Jones, et al. 2011.
Neuroscience: Implications for Education and Lifelong Learning.
London: The Royal Society.
Gabrieli, John D. E. 2016. “The Promise of Educational Neuroscience:

Comment on Bowers (2016).” Psychological Review 123:613-19. doi:
10.1037/rev0000034.
Gerlič, Ivan, and Norbert Jaušovec. 1999. “Multimedia: Differences in
Cognitive Processes Observed with EEG.” Educational Technology
Research and Development 47:5-14. doi:10.1007/BF02299630.
———. 2001. “Differences in EEG Power and Coherence Measures
Related to the Type of Presentation: Text versus Multimedia.” Journal
of Educational Computing Research 25:177-95. doi:10.2190/YDWY-
U3FJ-4LY4-LYND.
Hebb, Donald Olding. 1961. “Distinctive Features of Learning in the
Higher Animal.” In: Brain Mechanisms and Learning, edited by Jean
F. Delafresnaye, 37-46. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hew, Khe Foon. 2016. “Promoting Engagement in Online Courses: What
Strategies Can We Learn from Three Highly Rated MOOCS.” British
Journal of Educational Technology 47:320-41. doi:10.1111/bjet.
12235.
Howard-Jones, Paul A., Daniel Ansari, Brian Butterworth, Bert De Smedt,
Diana Laurillard, and Michael S. C. Thomas. 2016. “The Principles
and Practices of Educational Neuroscience: Comment on Bowers
(2016).” Psychological Review 123:620-27. doi:10.1037/rev0000036.
Kastner, Sabine, and Mark A. Pinsk. 2004. “Visual Attention as a
Multilevel Selection Process.” Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience 4:483-500. doi:10.3758/CABN.4.4.483.
Kirschner, Paul A., Paul Ayres, and Paul Chandler. 2011. “Contemporary
Cognitive Load Theory Research: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.”
Computers in Human Behavior 27:99-105. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.
025.
Kleim, Jeffrey A., and Theresa A. Jones. 2008. “Principles of Experience-
Dependent Neural Plasticity: Implications for Rehabilitation after
Brain Damage.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
51:S225-39. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018).
Klimesch, Wolfgang, Bärbel Schack, and Paul Sauseng. 2005. “The
Functional Significance of Theta and Upper Alpha Oscillations for
Working Memory: A Review.” Experimental Psychology 52:99-108.

doi:10.1027/1618-3169.52.2.99.
Lane, H. Chad, and Sidney K. D’Mello. 2019. “Uses of Physiological
Monitoring in Intelligent Learning Environments: A Review of
Research, Evidence, and Technologies.” In: Mind, Brain and
Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and
Innovations, edited by Thomas D. Parsons, Lin Lin, and Debbie
Cockerham, 67-86. Cham: Springer.
Lövdén, Martin, Lars Backman, Ulman Lindenberger, Sabine Schaefer,
and Florian Schmiedek. 2010. “A Theoretical Framework for the Study
of Adult Cognitive Plasticity.” Psychological Bulletin 136:659-76.
doi:10.1037/a0020080.
Martin, Stewart. 2014. “Measuring Cognitive Load and Cognition: Metrics
for Technology-Enhanced Learning.” Educational Research and
Evaluation 20:592-621. doi:10.1080/13803611.2014.997140.
Mayer, Richard E., and Roxana Moreno. 2002. “Animation as an Aid to
Multimedia Learning.” Educational Psychology Review 14:87-99.
doi:10.1023/A:1013184611077.
Menon, Vinod, and Lucina Q. Uddin. 2010. “Saliency, Switching,
Attention and Control: A Network Model of Insula Function.” Brain
Structure and Function 214:655-67. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0.
Nilsson, Staffan, and Per-Erik Ellstrom. 2012. “Employability and Talent
Management: Challenges for HRD Practices.” European Journal of
Training and Development 36:26-45. doi:10.1108/030905912111926
10.
Ring, G., and G. Mathieux. 2002. “The Key Components of Quality
Learning.” Paper presented at the ASTD Techknowledge 2002
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 4-7.
Rossett, Allison. 2002. The ASTD E‐learning Handbook: Best Practices,
Strategies, and Case Studies for an Emerging Field. New York:
McGraw‐Hill.
Sweller, John. 1994. “Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and
Instructional Design.” Learning and Instruction 4: 295-312. doi:10.
1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
———. 2010. “Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and

Germane Cognitive Load.” Educational Psychology Review 22:123-
38. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.
Treisman, Anne M. 1964. “Selective Attention in Man.” British Medical
Bulletin 20:12-16. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a070274.
ABOUT THE EDITOR
Michela Balconi, PhD, is Professor of “Psychophysiology and

Cognitive Neuroscience”, “Neuropsychology”, “Neuropsychology of
Well-being in the Lifespan” and “Neuromarketing and Psychology of
Advertising” at the Faculty of Psychology of the Catholic University of the
Sacred Heart, Milan and Brescia. Head of the Research Unit in Affective
and Social Neuroscience, Director of the International Research Center for
Cognitive Applied Neuroscience (IrcCAN). Founder and Editor-in-Chief
of the Neuropsychological Trends journal. She introduced new
neuroscientific methods to analyze human interactions in the social
neuroscience field and her research interests mainly concern cognitive
neuroscience and psychophysiology. In agreement with the relevance of
proper integration between the body and the mind, she has studied and
introduced new methods to analyze and explore the relationship between
affective, communication, cognitive processes and physiological markers
using multiple neuroscientific techniques applied in different context, such
as management one.
INDEX
autonomy, 33, 76, 104, 115, 124, 142, 155

A
awareness, 47, 49, 56, 72, 103, 104, 106,
116, 118, 125, 138, 154
adaptation, 68, 134, 141, 148
adaptive stress management, 99
affective neuroscience, 3, 4, 36, 63, 149, B
157
age, 12, 90, 107, 112, 114, 122, 123, 153 behavioral change, 15
age management interventions, 107, 122 behavioral tasks, 103, 105
agency, 78, 128, 154, 159 behaviors, viii, 8, 14, 15, 26, 28, 30, 33, 42,
anterior cingulate cortex, 34, 48, 50 49, 53, 86, 99, 101, 113, 136
anxiety, 29, 30, 73, 74, 106 benefits, vii, 42, 43, 45, 72, 76, 121, 140
artificial agents, 136, 138 biofeedback, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 45, 67, 70, 93
artificial intelligence, 134, 135, 142 blood pressure, 9, 70
assessment, 45, 69, 74, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, borderline personality disorder, 30
93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 107, 148, 150, 155, brain, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 28, 29, 30,
157, 158 31, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53,
assessment procedures, 87, 94, 100, 107 55, 67, 72, 73, 86, 94, 112, 113, 114,
attention filter, 151 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 141, 149,
attention orientation, 117, 121 153, 158
attribution, 43, 45, 151 brain activity, 15, 45, 55
augmented reality, 137, 142 brain cognitive functioning, 113
automation, vi, ix, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, brain functioning, 86
139 brain structure, 42, 115
autonomic activity, 45, 94 brain tuning, 28
autonomic indicators, 123 brain-sensing devices, 72, 95, 109, 117, 128
166 Index
business environment, 121, 139 communication, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 93, 100,
business management, 135 134, 135, 155
business model, 135 communication skills, 7
businesses, 135 communicative methods, 10
company climate, 75
complexity, 10, 100, 123, 139, 152, 156
C
connectivity, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 55, 94, 119
content design, 154
cardiovascular disease, 33, 74
continuous improvement, 112
central nervous system, 100, 117, 136, 151,
continuous training, 112
153
cooperation, 28, 29, 30, 33, 46, 102
challenges, 31, 86, 87, 98, 99, 101, 105,
creativity, 33, 75, 89, 107, 122, 140
119, 122, 124, 138, 158
climate, 30, 32, 53, 56, 75, 92
clinical application, 115 D
cloud, 134, 135
co-bot, 139, 141, 143 daily work commitments, 102
cognition, 37, 43, 48, 50, 51, 55, 87, 98, decision task, 42, 44, 45
124, 139, 148, 158 decisional awareness, 103, 104
cognitive abilities, 113, 117 decisional effectiveness, 103, 104
cognitive biases, 4 decisional metacognition, 103, 104
cognitive capacities, 153 decisional strategies, 103, 104
cognitive effort, 156 decision-making, ix, 7, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
cognitive flexibility, 88, 98, 99, 107, 122, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63,
123 64, 70, 89, 99, 104, 108, 110, 136, 137,
cognitive function, 50, 92, 99, 112, 113, 138, 139
114, 117, 118, 121, 124, 136 decision-making process, 42, 44, 48, 49
cognitive load, 69, 140, 152, 156, 157 deductive reasoning, 43
cognitive load theory, 152, 159, 160, 161 default mode network, 54, 63
cognitive performance, 68, 71, 73, 111, 114, dependent variable, 43
116, 118 depth, 3, 8, 43, 44, 46, 102, 104, 155
cognitive process, 29, 43, 51, 70, 89, 101, desynchronization, 156
113, 123, 156, 157 detection, 50, 91, 123, 136
cognitive processing, 44 digital-learning, vi, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,
cognitive psychology, 6 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158
cognitive representations, 151 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 34, 44
cognitive skills, 111, 139
cognitive system, 70, 137, 151, 152
E
cognitive tasks, 106, 117, 138, 152
coherence, 13, 18, 20, 57, 58, 64, 160
economic efficiency, 47
commitment, 7, 12, 26, 32, 122, 149
economic growth, 27
economics, 34
Index 167
economies of scale, 122 event-related potentials, 36, 38, 117, 141,

education, 27, 148, 149, 152, 157 146
educational neuroscience, 148, 149, 159, evidence, viii, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 26, 30, 32,
160 34, 35, 48, 53, 67, 69, 72, 75, 98, 104,
electroencephalogram, 6 120, 122, 123, 140, 151, 152, 153, 158
electroencephalographic, 94, 106, 116 executive functioning, 7, 99
electroencephalography, 45, 136, 156 executive functions, vi, ix, 89, 95, 96, 97,
electromyography, 72, 136 98, 108, 109, 125, 128, 142, 158
electrophysiological markers, 73, 106, 120, executive processes, 100
156 exercise, 53, 70, 119, 120, 138
emotion, 43, 51, 73, 99, 118 expectations, 4, 15, 31
emotion regulation, 73, 99, 118 expertise, 140, 154
emotional conflict, 34 explicit level of information, 87
emotional information, 51 explicit recognitions, 31
emotional intelligence, 8, 20, 22, 89 exposure, 68, 70, 71, 73
emotional processes, 11, 41, 47, 51, 116 external costs, 104
emotional responses, 51, 52 external environment, 55
emotional state, 27, 28, 30, 52, 141 external relations, 50
emotional stimuli, 48 eye-tracking, 136, 137, 141, 158
emotional synthonization, 11
empathic concern, 29
F
empathic distress, 29
empathy, 11, 14, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29,
fairness, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 63, 64,
35, 36, 37, 38, 46, 47, 51, 56, 58, 59, 62,
124
88, 100
flexibility, 89, 98, 139
employee productivity, 76
frontal cortex, 7, 8, 55
employees, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 28, 30, 32, 33,
frontal lobe, 7, 48
42, 72, 91, 92, 94, 119, 120, 122, 124
functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy, 8,
empowerment, 33, 73, 76, 90, 95, 100, 105,
45, 93
106, 107, 108, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119,
120, 122, 125, 138, 142, 158
empowerment of others, 33 G
engagement, 25, 60, 79, 116, 122, 130, 151,
160 game theory, 13, 34, 44, 63, 102
environment, 30, 31, 33, 45, 98, 137, 141, goal-directed behavior, 99, 101
142 group dynamics, 99
environmental factors, 153 group membership, 6
environments, 32, 87, 119, 121, 158 growth, 32, 90, 98, 99, 112, 115, 124, 134,
ethical behavior, 42 142, 151
ethical implications, 124
ethical issues, 53, 87, 125, 142
168 Index
inhibition, 90, 98, 99, 101

H
innovation, 99, 112, 135, 148, 159
instructional design, 152, 159, 161
health, 11, 15, 42, 68, 71, 75, 115
instructional procedures, 152
health effects, 75
integration, 8, 13, 72, 86, 87, 101, 105, 111,
health promotion, 115
139, 149, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158
hemispheric asymmetry, 55, 56, 60
intelligent and responsive systems, 133, 134
higher cognition, 43, 76, 87, 98
inter-brain connectivity, 12, 13, 14, 17, 36
high-stress professional settings, 120
inter-cerebral and peripheral connectivity,
human, vii, ix, 25, 26, 33, 52, 90, 92, 98,
10
101, 116, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140,
internet of things, 134, 144
141, 148
interpersonal conflict, 69
human behavior, vii
interpersonal interactions, 86, 93
human brain, 33
interpersonal relations, 8, 12, 15, 25, 28, 29,
human capital, 98
88, 98, 99
human condition, 142
intervention, 68, 73, 74, 75, 105, 112, 114,
human nature, 52
119, 121, 124, 139
human perception, 140
intuitionist decision-making, 43
human resources, 87, 92, 98, 101, 130, 148
investment, 27, 32, 75, 121, 157
human-computer interfaces, 137, 146
issues, viii, ix, 12, 124, 136, 142, 148, 149
human-machine interaction, 134, 136, 138
hyperscanning, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17,
18, 19, 22, 23, 36, 56, 93, 94 J
job performance, 98, 116, 127, 130

I
job satisfaction, 69, 72, 115, 124
identification, 87, 90, 98, 123
implicit information processing, 87 L
individual characteristics, 140
individual differences, 156 leadership, viii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13,
individual employee, 102 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29,
individuals, ix, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 30, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 116
14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, leadership characteristics, 7, 55
35, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, leadership models, 4
56, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86, 87, 93, leadership style, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14
94, 97, 103, 104, 106, 115, 117, 119, learners, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155
124, 148 learning, ix, 14, 31, 89, 98, 102, 112, 113,
industrial revolution, 133, 134 115, 141, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,
industry 4.0, vi, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161
139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 learning efficiency, 156
information processing, 87, 113, 120 learning environment, 152, 153, 156, 157
information technology, 134 learning outcomes, 151, 158
Index 169
learning process, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, motivation, 5, 7, 8, 26, 29, 32, 53, 58, 72,
155, 156, 157, 158 90, 122, 153
learning skills, 158 multimedia, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 156
learning task, 152 multimedia materials, 151, 152, 153
left hemisphere, 56
levels of cooperation, 28
N
lifelong educational practice, 153
lifelong learning, 112, 148, 159
natural leaders, 32
light, 10, 15, 30, 32, 43, 140
negative attitudes, 52
negative consequences, 48, 124
M negative effects, 42
negative emotions, 46, 73
management, vii, viii, ix, 7, 8, 15, 28, 31, neural connection, 151
43, 52, 56, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 87, neural connectivity, 55
90, 91, 93, 98, 102, 104, 106, 107, 112, neural efficiency, 112
114, 117, 120, 122, 123, 128, 134, 135, neuroassessment, v, ix, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93,
137, 138, 139, 141, 148, 159 94, 95
measurement, 14, 140, 155, 157, 158 neurobiological foundations of emotions, 42
medical, 149 neurocognitive protocol, 105, 107, 120
memory, 113, 119, 137 neuroempowering, 105, 119
mental fatigue, 73, 74, 106 neuroenhancement, 85, 88, 89, 112, 113,
mental load, 141 114, 115, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 127
mental processes, 8, 86, 87, 90, 97, 99, 104, neuroergonomics, 134, 139, 140, 142, 143,
135, 149 144
mental representation, 45 neurofeedback, 15, 67, 95, 105, 108, 111,
mental state, 29, 51, 74, 99, 116, 118, 136 116, 119, 122, 126, 128, 129, 158
mental states, 29, 51, 99, 118, 136 neuroimaging, 34, 44, 140
metacognition, 103, 104 neuroleadership, 4, 14
metacognitive skills, 88, 89, 107, 154 neuromanagement, vii, viii, ix, 18, 57, 85,
mindfulness, 59, 67, 71, 77, 78, 79, 82, 95, 86, 87, 88, 95, 98, 101, 105, 108, 143
105, 106, 108, 109, 112, 116, 118, 119, neurometrics, v, 85, 87, 93, 94, 156
120, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 143 neurophysiological correlates, 10, 44, 98
mindfulness-based interventions, 67, 71, neuroplasticity, 15, 153, 154
118, 129 neuroscience, vii, viii, ix, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 27,
moral behavior, ix, 42, 43, 47, 54 41, 43, 44, 46, 49, 53, 86, 87, 95, 98,
moral decision-making, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 102, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 124,
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 108 128, 134, 135, 138, 141, 142, 148, 149,
moral judgment, 42, 43, 54, 55, 56 150, 151, 152, 153, 157
moral reasoning, 43, 54
morality, 48, 50, 52, 53, 124
motion-tracking, 140, 141
170 Index
problem-solving skills, 136

O
professional development, 32, 157
professional education, 148, 152, 157
operant conditioning, 116, 117
professional growth, 32
opportunities, 32, 68, 90, 91, 92, 101, 105,
professionals, 67, 69, 74, 75, 86, 88, 99,
121, 122, 123, 135, 149, 155
101, 102, 105, 106, 112, 120, 121, 122,
optimization, 113, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139,
137
141
prosocial behavior, 14, 16, 27, 28, 29, 35,
optimization of performance, 113
36, 38
organizational behavior, 43, 53, 54
psychological well-being, 68, 75, 118
organizational change, 12, 14, 15
psychometric tests, 103
organizational context, viii, 4, 26, 30, 32,
41, 42, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53, 85, 87, 93, 94,
101, 102, 121, 122, 125, 135, 149 Q
organizational culture, viii, 42
organizational development, 91 qualitative feedback, 12
organizational neuroscientific perspective, quantitative evaluation, 11
86
ovations, 31
R
oxytocin, 29, 36, 38, 39
rational process, 43
P reality, 67, 75, 137, 142
reasoning, 38, 43, 44, 54, 61, 88, 99, 101,
parietal lobe, 6, 50, 121 107, 122, 125, 137, 138
participants, 29, 47, 74, 117, 120, 121, 122 relational skills, 4, 88, 107
personal interest, 45, 52, 54 relevance, 69, 101, 102, 154, 155
personalized vision, 5 reliability, 26, 33, 34, 117
perspective-taking, 29, 37, 88, 107, 123 resources, 33, 47, 68, 99, 106, 134, 149, 152
physiological correlates, 117 response, 8, 28, 45, 47, 48, 68, 70, 72, 73,
physiological mechanisms, 87 93, 99, 104, 113, 136, 137
planning, 7, 89, 99, 101, 137, 141 responsive learning environments, 157
plasticity, 112, 114, 115, 117, 153, 154 robotic agents, 141
positive correlation, 28 rules, 13, 53, 54, 151
potential, viii, 71, 75, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 101, 114, 118, 123,
S
135, 146, 156, 157, 158
potential assessment, 90, 91, 92 safety, 33, 42, 115, 124, 137, 139, 141, 142,
prefrontal cortex, 34, 35, 44, 47, 48, 50, 55,
155
60, 61, 79, 100, 139 salience attribution, 151
principles, 47, 54, 117, 142, 153, 154
satisfaction, 7, 69, 72, 76, 114, 115, 124,
problem-solving, 45, 68, 89, 99, 107, 119, 127
122, 123, 136, 138, 145
Index 171
self-awareness, 55, 89, 104, 106, 107, 117, stress management, v, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
123 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 99, 105
self-confidence, 102 stress management techniques, 70
self-control, 7 synthonization or desynthonization
self-efficacy, 142 mechanisms, 9
self-empowerment, 119, 138
self-enhancement, 112
T
self-monitoring, 53, 70
self-monitoring skills, 53
talent development, 148, 157
self-observation, 50, 118
team members, 11, 31, 32
self-reflection, 154
technical-analytical skills, 88
self-regulation, 7, 55, 85, 87, 88, 90, 96, 97,
techniques, viii, ix, 3, 9, 12, 13, 15, 44, 70,
99, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109, 118, 123,
71, 75, 85, 87, 94, 98, 103, 105, 111,
139
113, 115, 116, 119, 123, 124, 125, 137,
single-brain connectivity, 13
138, 140, 148, 157, 158
smart factories, 135
technological advancement, 142
smart sensors, 135
technology-mediated mindfulness-based
social anxiety, 30
protocol, 119, 120
social benefits, 48
theory of mind, 51
social capital, 4
top managers, 103, 120
social cognition, 54, 55
top-down, 98, 99
social competence, 56
top-down mental processes, 98, 99
social context, 52
training, 15, 67, 71, 73, 75, 76, 91, 106, 107,
social contract, 33
112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121,
social decision tasks, 42, 44
122, 123, 125, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152,
social environment, viii
153, 154, 155, 157, 158
social interaction, 9, 14, 26, 33, 88
triadic model, 85, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 106
social mechanisms, 86
trusting behavior, viii, 25, 26
social neuroscience, vii, 3, 17, 18, 25, 35,
36, 41, 57, 59, 67, 85, 86, 97, 109, 111,
133, 147, 163 U
social norms, 34
social relations, 25, 26, 34 unconscious processes, 15, 49, 53
social relationships, 25, 26, 34 unfairness, 45, 46, 47, 50, 52, 64, 65
social responsibility, 5
social skills, 78, 87, 98, 106, 128, 159 V
socialized vision, 5, 55
strategic problem-solving, 138 videos, 148, 156
stress, v, ix, 11, 32, 33, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, virtual reality, 67, 74, 75, 76, 80, 82
72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
90, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 119,
120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 138, 142
172 Index
working memory, 88, 90, 98, 99, 107, 122,

W
123, 124, 125, 129, 137, 139, 152, 161
workload, 69, 137, 138, 139, 141
wearable neurofeedback devices, 71
workplace, vii, viii, ix, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72,
wearable technologies, 68
74, 87, 90, 98, 99, 101, 111, 117, 119,
well-being, ix, 15, 31, 42, 48, 69, 72, 74, 75,
121, 122, 123, 147, 148, 149, 150, 155,
87, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 124
157, 158
work autonomy, 76
work-related stress, 98, 119, 121
work climate, viii
work-related stressors, 98
work environment, 15, 140
workers, 11, 28, 31, 69, 91, 111, 112, 114,
123, 138, 139 X
workforce, 68, 75
working contexts, 69 X-system, 43

Michela Balconi - Neuromanagement - Neuroscience For Organizations-Nova Science Publishers (2021) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Michela Balconi - Neuromanagement - Neuroscience For Organizations-Nova Science Publishers (2021) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michela Balconi - Neuromanagement - Neuroscience For Organizations-Nova Science Publishers (2021) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRESS

NEUROSCIENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONS

Additional books and e-books in this series can be found

NEUROSCIENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONS

NOTICE TO THE READER

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN:  H%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Chapter 6 From the Evaluation of Executive Functions (EFs)

Michela Balconi, PhD

Why a new discipline, such as that of neuromanagement? What added

promote a new spirit of analysis and research. Second, neuromanagement

role of moral behavior and decision-making in individual and

Michela Balconi, PhD

Recent advances in neuroscience have allowed a better

context, such as the emotional expression, the types of communication,

Leadership can be considered a form of social capital involving the

2. LEADERSHIP’S STYLE ONE:

Starting from the “inspirational” leadership model, several theories

phenomenon of self-representation has been explored by some studies that

3. LADERSHIP’S STYLE TWO:

Therefore, as it emerged above, recent research has focused mainly on

and external sensory information integration, regulating behavioral

Specifically, the EEG permits to record changes in individuals’ cortical

information on the level of connectivity and interconnection between two

4. HOW LEADERSHIP STYLE AFFECTS

Considering hyperscanning, the use of this paradigm applied to

5. WHEN EMOTIONAL SYNTHONIZATION OCCURS

In addition to evaluating the influence of an authoritarian or

As reported in the previous paragraphs, several studies have

connectivity analyses. Specifically, these analyses can be conducted to

synchronization mechanisms during cooperative activities and the use of

7. NEUROSCIENCE AND LEADERSHIP:

Evidence that emerged in previous paragraphs has allowed

indeed, focuses on attention and learning’s expectations permits observing

Ashkanasy, Neal M. 2013. “Neuroscience and Leadership: Take Care Not

Cocaine Drug Addiction.” Journal of Addiction Medicine 8:399–406.

———. 2017. “Interbrains Cooperation: Hyperscanning and Self-

Burgess, Adrian P. 2013. “On the Interpretation of Synchronization in

during Social Interaction.” PLoS ONE 5:e12166. doi:10.1371/

Validity.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89:755–68. doi:10.1037/

Rosenblum, Michael, Arkady Pikovsky, Jürgen Kurths, Carsten Schäfer,

Varela, Francisco, Jean Philippe Lachaux, Eugenio Rodriguez, and Jacques

TRUSTING AND REWARDED BRAINS

Michela Balconi, PhD

Trust represents a central part of all human relationships, including

demonstrating the possibility to support some processes that increase the

1. PERFORMANCE AND WELL-BEING:

Trusting behavior is a fundamental need for individuals who feel the

Thus, policy design to promote trust is generalizable across

observed that the implementation of prosocial behaviors strengthens

2. THE ROLE OF HORMONES IN TRUST

Prosocial behavior and attitude appear to be directly related to a

intranasally or a placebo before observing someone experiencing self-

3. TRUSTING AND LEADERSHIP

So how can trust within organizations be increased? Within

managerial processes useful for promoting organizational well-being,

which promotes the self-management of work by allowing collaborators to

ISBN: H%RRN