A new buzzword which is fast emerging from the trenches is ‘Neuro Leadership’. In this era of Web 2.0, where everyone is aspiring to be an entrepreneur, leadership is an inevitable quality. The research on this field has really taken on, and neuro leadership is one of the most might-be-promising areas in this context.
In May, there was even a summit held. It was Neuro Leadership Summit in Asolo, Italy, where scientists mingled with executives from companies such as fashion house Hugo Boss and agribusiness giant Cargill. Participants ponied up $3,500 to attend the summit, which was held at CIMBA, an MBA program that has made the neuroscience of leadership core to its curriculum.
It was organized by David Rock, a leadership consultant who has been importing notions from neuroscience to help explain managerial behavior. Rock has been very instrumental in evangelising these notions and striving hard to blend the two fields of neuro science and managerial behaviour.
But (There is always a but), I have always remain apprehensive of mapping of abstract with the concrete. Leadership is a human quality, and quality is always abstract. It has always remain impossible to bring the abstract qualities within the disciplines of science. This has always created lots of books, speeches, articles, experts, evangelists and then failures.
Leadership is a very complex behaviour and it varies greatly from leader to leader, which is largely influenced by the background and the current situation. It’s complex, and I don’t believe there is one style or one answer. Leadership varies as much as leaders, teams, and situations vary. Neuroscience is a tool for understanding how and why people think about certain things in certain ways. when it gets matured, its finding could be utilized in suggesting the ways to polish or ignite the leadership, but it seem very unlikely that it could be used as a mainstream driving tool for leadership.
Leadership is a natural thing. You cannot just blow it inside anyone. Leaders are born, not made.