“Revealing your leadership”. “Encourage open and empathetic communication.” “Helping individuals overcome the mental blocks that prevent them from succeeding.” On paper, the promises of neuromanagement are great. The principle? “Use the functioning and key aspects of the brain to strengthen employee development”, as defined on the website of a coaching firm whose clients include groups such as SNCF and Nespresso.
LinkedIn, recruitment firms, conferences… in the enchanted little world of coaching, neuromanagement is indeed well established. An approach that leaves scientists skeptical. “From the moment we claim to be able to perfectly explain and influence behavior on the basis of cerebral mechanisms, we are already making a false promise,” points out Audric Mazzietti, doctor in cognitive psychology.
From there to talking about charlatanism, there is only one step, which we do not necessarily have to take. “In reality, there are two categories of people who convey these untruths,” explains this teacher-researcher. On the one hand, “ill-intentioned people who ride the wave of neuro to sell their training or coaching. They start from real results given by science but knowingly embellish them with the aim of prescribing behavior.” And on the other, he explains, “people of good faith, but who do not have the necessary training to interpret and understand the results suggested by science.
“We make dopamine say a lot of things”
In both cases, neuromanagement has found the solution to convince as many people as possible of its seriousness: brain imaging. Studies have in fact highlighted a cognitive bias: as soon as an image of the brain is placed next to a research article, it is judged to be more scientifically reliable than an article containing more banal illustrations. This is one of the keys to this Neuromania described by psychologist Albert Moukheiber in his latest work (Allary Editions). “This is one of the reasons why neuroscientific knowledge and hypotheses, more or less approximate, even false, are spreading in public opinion and are being exploited by personal development methods,” writes this doctor in cognitive sciences. “Untruths and lies thus conveyed,” he continues, “open the door to all kinds of deception: new cognitive tools that will reconnect you to yourself, help you erase your traumas, collaborate better, establish yourself as a better leader .”
There is brain imaging, which is very effective, and then sometimes all it takes is a few words adorned with a pseudoscientific veneer. Like this post from a coach recently published on LinkedIn and entitled “Neuromanagement: how neuroscience is revolutionizing leadership”. To support her point, the one who offers personalized training says: “Understanding the reward circuits of the brain allows managers to create more effective incentive systems. For example, dopamine, the neurotransmitter linked to pleasure and reward, and serotonin, the neurotransmitter linked to self-confidence, are stimulated by regular recognition and appropriate rewards, thus increasing the motivation and commitment of employees.” Dopamine, neurotransmitter of reward or pleasure? The point is salesy, the reality less simple. “We make dopamine say a lot of things,” laments Franck Ramus, research director at the CNRS in cognitive sciences (and columnist for L’Express). The problem, he points out, “is that in neurobiology, dopamine is a hypercomplicated concept. It is involved in a huge number of processes, which can be contradictory depending on the context.” Conclusion: “We cannot simply say that dopamine is the molecule of an emotion or of a cognitive function.”
Dopamine and caring management? Two sides of the same coin that make “neuro-coaching” so happy. “Their message is to say: ‘if I know how to manipulate the right mechanisms, I will be able to stimulate the secretion of the right hormone and therefore stimulate the happiness of my employees'”, summarizes Audric Mazzietti. Which, however, qualifies its scope: “Is the reception of these practices real? I am not sure. When we look at what is done in companies or in the courses of business schools, we see that neuromanagement doesn’t really have its place yet.”
A concept that sells more than psychology
On the other hand, it finds its place in certain formations. This is the case with this organization which works with health establishments and which has received approval from the National Agency for Health and Medico-Social Performance, itself attached to the Ministry of Health. For example, the module “Neuroscience in the service of management” (1,140 euros for two days) aims to teach “the neuro-social brain and its impact on the positive regulation of the social climate”. “The neuro-social brain? I had never seeing this name, Franck Ramus is surprised. In cognitive science, we talk about the social brain. What’s the point of adding “neuro”? As if the brain were not enough…” Another course title which leaves the cognitive science researcher speechless: “The virtues of the brain and its modes of operation (neurogenesis and neuronal plasticity)”. “It’s a speech that we are told already used in education. Neural plasticity shows that the brain is plastic and some deduce from this that we can therefore continue to learn at any age. But we’ve known that for a long time, without the need for neuroscience! Simply, ‘cerebral plasticity’ sounds more chic than ‘capacity to learn'”, chokes the scientist.
Researchers interviewed by L’Express all arrive at the same conclusion: in the best case, these currents which claim to neuro use the results of psychology which can be scientifically validated, while wrapping them in neuroscience to make them more credible. Neuromanagement sells better than psychology? Affirmative, replies Franck Ramus, “especially in France where people only know psychology from psychoanalysis and are unaware that there is a scientific psychology”.
One question remains: can the practice of neuromanagement have harmful effects on those managed? Audric Mazzietti doubts it: “The brain strings on which the manager will pull are almost non-existent and undocumented. So in reality, he will not produce anything.”
.