Ndouba Dingamyo M; Thierry Levy M

doi:10.19080/OAJNN.2024.19.556006

Case Report

Neurosciences and Entrepreneurship: A Manifesto for Founding Neuro- “Entrepreneurship Research

Ndouba Dingamyo M and Thierry Levy M*

Department of Neuroscience, University Paris 8 -Vincennes - St Denis, 2 liberty street, 93526, Saint-Denis Cedex, France

Submission: May 02, 2024; Published: September 24, 2024

*Corresponding author: Thierry Levy M, Department of Neuroscience, University Paris 8 -Vincennes - St Denis, 2 liberty street, 93526, Saint-Denis Cedex, France, Email: thierry.levy02@univ-paris8.fr

How to cite this article: Ndouba Dingamyo M and Thierry Levy M*. Neurosciences and Entrepreneurship: A Manifesto for Founding Neuro- “Entrepreneurship Research. Open Access J Neurol Neurosurg 2024; 19(2): 556006. DOI: 10.19080/OAJNN.2024.19.556006.

Abstract

Neurosciences are increasingly used in Management Sciences and recently for describing entrepreneurs’ behavior. The object of this mini-review is to underline some of the results of this consilience between Neurosciences, Social Neurosciences and Management and Entrepreneurship researches. Considering that is emerging field didn’t explore three dimensions of the entrepreneur’s action: time, uncertainty and the complexity of the environment he is facing, the paper finally proposes a manifesto based on four principles that seem to us as constitutive off what should be Neuro-Entrepreneurship research.

Keywords: Neurosciences; Entrepreneurship; Risk-perception; Social neurosciences; Antifragility

Introduction

Neurosciences are increasingly used in Management, Marketing and Organization Sciences. And a new field especially emerged called « Neuro Entrepreneurship ». The idea is to develop tools and models for a better understanging of entrepreneur’s behavior. For example, using electroencé phalogram (EEG), Ortiz-Téran et al. [1] observed that Entrepreneurs make decisions faster than others thanks to a better synergy of the cerebral hemispheres. Entrepreneurs have a better ability than others to feel in control; They have better visual acuity and respond more quickly to stimuli; This leads to faster and more efficient exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Another EEG-based study shows that neuroplasticity helps shape an individual’s entrepreneurial attitudes, sense of control, entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial norms, and entrepreneurial orientation [2]. Other works use MRI. For example Lahti et al. [3] shows that neural stimuli experienced by entrepreneurs minimize the impact of negative emotions, such as feelings of fear and anxiety related to their functioning in the environment. This gives them a superior attitude to capture and exploit the opportunities of this environment. Here one can find the classic results in the psychology of the entrepreneur about his relative over-optimism and over-confidence [4,5]. These studies were most often based on questionnaires comparing entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.

The studies identified a lower apprehension of death or the risk of serious illness among the former than among managers. The neuroscience tool (MRI here) can therefore be used to support and triangulate preliminary results.

Despite the contribution of neuroscience to entrepreneurship, these methods of scientific investigation do not provide a satisfactory answer to at least three dimensions of the entrepreneur’s action: time, uncertainty and the complexity of the environment. The time of entrepreneurship is not linear and cannot be reduced to biological time (birth, maturity, decline).

In the course of his business relationships, the entrepreneur may experience times of happiness and times of affliction which, in turn, will affect his relationship with stakeholders. As we will suggest below, the entrepreneur will have to work on his possible fragilities over time [6]. With regard to the uncertainty and complexity that affect decision-making, they invite us to question the entrepreneur’s relationship to risk. Risk can arise from the macro-environment (inflation rate, interest rate, regulation, political and climate change), or from the micro-environment (customers, suppliers, competitive dynamics). Some of them can be controlled by the implementation of management control processes and tools. Others generate opportunities and still others are sources of bankruptcy and business failure. How to take into account the uncontrollable risks of the entrepreneur? How can we explain that some entrepreneurs see business opportunities while others are paralyzed? These are questions to which the methods of neuro-entrepreneurship do not yet provide a completely satisfactory answer. Nevertheless, despite these theoretical gaps, in order to appear as a paradigm, neuro-entrepreneurship needs criteria that federate the scattered initiatives and questions that we have been able to identify. Therefore as a sketch of a manifesto, we will propose four criteria that ensure a strong validity of the theoretical constructs in neuro-entrepreneurship. These principles seem necessary for the emerging new paradigm, neuroentrepreneurship, to have strong internal and external validity.

We consider that an activity or process falls under neuroentrepreneurship if all four principles below are simultaneously met. We apply our principes to start-up and business venturing as well as to intrapreneurship.

Principle n°1 : A Principle or Process of Value Creation

Value Creation is one of the foundation of Entrepreneurship. It can be monetary and refer to elements of price and exchange in a market [7]. It can be societal and contribute to solving problems related to environmental, ecological and climate issues [8]. Value creation today is based on business model concepts describing the logic of generating revenue or turnover [9].

Principle n°2 : A Principle or Process of Interpersonal Sensibility Inter Personnelle

Following Decety [10], Decety & al. [11], the multiplicity of fields of research as well as that of methods (in genetics, functional neuroimaging, endocrinology, psychology, etc.) make it necessary to introduce a generic and unifying term. He proposes the term “interpersonal sensitivity” as a unit of analysis. It refers to the « ability to perceive and respond to a person’s internal states (cognitive, affective, emotional), to understand the antecedents of these states, and to predict the events they will cause» (p.40). These internal states can refer to several variables that can be measured in the social sciences, psychology and entrepreneurship: empathy, sympathy, altruism, intention, trust, happiness, depression, user experience, etc. Let’s take empathy as an example. For Decety et al. [12], it is the ability to share and understand the emotional and affective states of others. Empathy is a necessary condition for the harmonious coexistence of individuals, motivating many behaviors conducive to morality and business development. Regarding the links between empathy and morality, Decety emphasizes that this is a complex relationship in which emotion, cognition and reasoning interact within relatively specific socio-cultural and economic contexts. The investigation of these relationships by neural methods can be used to study ethical standards in some professions or ethics in business in others. Empathy also involves projective mechanisms: we project ourselves into others while keeping our specificity, and emotional regulation mechanisms that promote emotional contagion. Both mechanisms are conducive to business development and entrepreneurship. Neurologically or neurochemically, dopamine and oxytocin are two substances involved in positive emotional experiences and social ties (Decety, 2005). Business meals, for example, are good times for the production of dopamine and oxytocin, hence their use in many economic and entrepreneurial contexts around the world. Ainsi, un processus inscrit en neuroentrepreneuriat se doit d’identifier et de mesurer un ou plusieurs éléments de sensibilité interpersonnelle.

Principle N°4 : A Biological Principle or Process Directly or Indirectly Related to The Brain or Neurons

This neuro-based principle is ofcourse, essential for considering that a given research falls under the umbrella of neuro-entrepreneurship. For example, a study in the Journal of Marketing, “Caffeine’s Effects on consumer spending” [13], identifies the effects of caffeine to boost sales. When leaving a store, consumers who drank coffee bought 30% more items and spent 50% more than those who didn’t. For the authors, Caffeine consumption exacerbates energy stimulation. It’s a state of alertness and excitement that leads to impulse buying. To achieve this effect, the coffee consumed goes through a biological treatment that includes the consumer’s stomach, liver and mitochondria which are considered to be the mini powerhouses of the human body. The positive sensation is felt at the level of the brain involving a flow of neural activities. This study shows an increase in the value created through an increase in turnover per customer (principle n°1). The feeling of excitement and well-being provided by caffeine is a matter of interpersonal sensitivity (principle n°2). The involvement of the stomach, liver, mitochondria and sensations in the brain makes it possible to validate the contribution of a biological process (principle n°3). To conclude our manifesto proposal, neuro-entrepreneurial research must focus on describing and even understanding the functioning of the biological systems involved.

Principle n°4 : A Principe or Processus of Antifragility

The concept of antifragility is associated with the work of Nassim N. Taleb ([14] accessed with the 2021 french edition). In the face of time, uncertainty, and complexity, he argues, biological systems must first seek to be antifragile. His point of view is that of a financial analyst and a theoretician of random mathematics applied to value creation processes (principle n°1). Following Taleb, the prediction of value creation is almost impossible, which calls into question the perspective of Makadok, Burton and Barney [15] who consider it the main output of theorization processes in strategic management and management science. Taleb begins by showing that the neutrality of the observer is difficult when it comes to making forecasting studies. For example, some rating agencies have given maximum ratings to companies that collapsed in the following period: Enron or Lehman Brothers are illustrative and well known examples. It goes on to show that forecasts can be downright detrimental to the entrepreneur or decisionmakers in general. Indeed, these forecasts tend to push them to take reckless risks: this is the iatrogenic effect (emergence of new harmful or undesirable phenomena in a decision-making or medical care process). Instead of relying on forecasting, the company should become antifragile and he distinguishes several levels of antifragility that allow him to emphasize that forecasting is neither indispensable nor relevant for the entrepreneur.

The first level is antifragility as a process of non-bankruptcy. For an entrepreneur, being robust and antifragile would already mean not going bankrupt. To do this, there is no need for the entrepreneur to have a precise statistical measurement. Intuition and business acumen (e.g. ensuring limited debt) would be enough to guide him. The second level is antifragility as a bottomup variation process. Taleb invites considering the minor frictions and conflicts that affect the course of business and suggests that the size of the organization will have an impact on antifragility. .). For him, what is small is more antifragile than what is large. Here we find the intuitions of SME researchers on the flexibility of small entities and here we indirectly join principle n°2 highlighting the interpersonal sensibility.

In fact, the proximity of stakeholders, with its possible perverse effects (over-affectivity, etc.) would allow for better adjustments to the volatile and uncertain context. It is easy to see here how the cognitive and affective dimensions of the decision collide with the question of performance.

Third level, antifragility as a process of asymmetry. For Nassim Taleb, there is asymmetry when you have more to lose than to gain in an economic and/or social process. To be antifragile, the entrepreneur must give himself a rule of conduct: avoid situations or decision-making contexts where there is more to lose than to gain! It’s kind of a theory of ethics in the conduct of business. In practice, this does not mean monitoring a dashboard of performance indicators, but domesticating one’s emotions in order to avoid making decisions where one has more to lose than to gain. Finally, antifragility as a bimodal strategy. By questioning the objectives of the firm (profitability and/or survival), the author states that the survival of the firm logically takes precedence over success (p. 198), even though a good entrepreneur will strive to pursue both, which is characteristic of the bimodal strategy. A bimodal strategy is “a dual strategy composed of extremes, without the alteration of the environment”.

This can result in cognitive and emotional tensions, or even a state of paranoia for the entrepreneur. Nassim Taleb suggests that an effective bimodal strategy is composed of 90% stable decisions and 10% volatile and risky decisions. Risky decisions are therefore not excluded from the decision-making process but should remain limited. Finally, while highlighting the cognitive, affective and even neuroscientific dimensions of decision-making, antifragility can be considered as a theory of organizational performance and thus, an essential component of neuro-entrepreneurship.

Conclusion

The four principles of validity of neuro-entrepreneurship researches 00mentioned above can be considered as principles of consilience of neuroscience, social neuroscience and management sciences. They take into account the three main types of rationality of human systems: logical rationality, which tends to identify the causes and logical implications of a real or constructed phenomenon; rationality, which tends to identify empirical evidence from reproducible experimentation; evolutionary or Darwinian rationality, which tends to observe the behavior of biological systems over the long term [16,17]. In entrepreneurial action, these three rationalities coexist. It is not always possible to reconcile all three types of rationality simultaneously in the same study. However, neuro-entrepreneurship researchers are encouraged to consider them together whenever possible. A first expected benefit is the singularity of the theoretical constructs visà- vis other research that does not fall within the scope of neuroentrepreneurship. A second benefit lies in the complementarity and robustness of these neuro-entrepreneurial constructs. The principles or proposals for the validity of neuro-entrepreneurship research in this contribution do not constitute a closed manifesto, but remain open to discussion. This manifesto exposes, makes visible, and thus initiates the scientific conversation [18]. In line with Kuhn [19], these proposals for the validity of neuroentrepreneurship, even when positioned at a pre-paradigmatic stage, aim to federate research in a database of shared interpretations, by giving meaning and coherence, by avoiding new demonstrations, or even by allowing the commensurability of the theories used to develop research in entrepreneurship.