CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

published: 13 July 2021

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672217

Brain-Adjusted Relational
Leadership: A Social-Constructed
Consciousness Approach to
Leader-Follower Interaction
Alexandros Psychogios 1* and Nikolaos Dimitriadis 2
1
Birmingham City University, Birmingham City Business School, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 2 University of York Europe
Campus, City College, Thessaloniki, Greece

Relationship-based approaches to leadership represent one of the fastest-growing

leadership fields and help us to understand better organizational leadership.
Relation-based approaches emphasize the relationship and interaction between the
Edited by: leader and the follower. The emphasis is placed on the way that they interact and
Jesper Clement, influence each other at attaining mutual goals. It is known that leaders are linked
Copenhagen Business
School, Denmark
to followers and vice versa in a sense of responding to other’s needs toward the
Reviewed by:
achievement of mutual goals. Leaders and followers are an essential part of this social
Martín Alonso Pantoja Ospina, process implying that they are losing their traditional identity rooted in the formal
National University of
organizational structure (manager-subordinate) and become inseparable actors of a co-
Colombia, Colombia
Maria José Sousa, constructing process of leadership. What is less known though is the way that leadership
University Institute of Lisbon actors are linked to each other and in particular how they try to understand how to
(ISCTE), Portugal
do that in the workplace. What is even less understood is the importance and role of
*Correspondence:
Alexandros Psychogios
consciousness in this relationship. Especially since consciousness appears to be both
alexandros.psychogios@bcu.ac.uk a fundamental and a very elusive element in human relations. Therefore, this paper
conceptually explores the concept of consciousness within the context of the social brain
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
theory to argue that leadership actors need to rethink their approach to individuality and
Organizational Psychology, focus on mutually dependent relations with each other. This paper contributes to the field
a section of the journal
of Neuro-management by introducing the concept of Homo Relationalis. In this respect,
Frontiers in Psychology
we suggest that leadership is not just a socially constructed element but also a social
Received: 25 February 2021
Accepted: 02 June 2021 brain constructed phenomenon that requires an understanding of the human brain as a
Published: 13 July 2021 social organ. We further recommend a new approach of applying cognitive style analysis
Citation: to capture the duality of leader/follower in the same person, following the self-illusion
Psychogios A and Dimitriadis N (2021)
Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership:
theory. Finally, we conclude that we need to further emphasize a social brain-adjusted
A Social-Constructed Consciousness relational leadership approach and we introduce two new cognitive styles that can help
Approach to Leader-Follower capture the essence of it.
Interaction.
Front. Psychol. 12:672217. Keywords: relational leadership, neuroscience, leader-follower, consciousness, self-awareness, cognitive styles,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672217 social-brain theory

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

INTRODUCTION and decide what possible explanation provides the best account
of all the facts we have” (Carroll, 2016, p. 41). By combining
Relationship-based approaches to leadership represent one of diverse but relevant theories and research from neuroscience,
the fastest-growing leadership fields and help us understanding evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, and leadership,
better organizational leadership (Dihn et al., 2014). Relation- we were able to construct a new approach in understanding
based approaches emphasize the relationship, and thus leader-follower relations and to develop the neuroscience-based
interaction, between the leader and the follower, rather than model we suggest.
focusing on leader or follower’s characteristics and attitudes. Following the CME method, the paper is organized in six
In other words, the emphasis is placed on the way that the sections. In the first one, we try to review the main arguments
two human aspects of the leadership phenomenon interact and coming from relational leadership schools and how they are
influence each other toward attaining mutual goals (Erdogan associated with brain science. In the second and third sections,
and Liden, 2002). It is known that leaders are linked to followers we explore consciousness arguing that it is linked more to a
and vice versa in a sense of responding to each other’s needs collective brain and not to an individual one. In the fourth
(Simons et al., 2011). The process of their interaction along section, we bring on the discussion social brain theory that also
with the result of their interaction comprise the wholeness of links relational approaches to leadership with neuroscience. In
leadership. Viewing leadership as a relational process means the fifth section, we show that although social consciousness
that there is a mutual social influence “through which emergent and social brain theory can show us the way toward relational
coordination (i.e., evolving social order) and change (e.g., new leadership, the evolution of leadership and leadership relations
values, attitudes, approaches, behaviors, and ideologies) are were based on a bounded view of human relations driven by
constructed and produced” (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 655). Leaders the Homo Economicous archetype that emphasize our egoistic
and followers are essential parts of this social process implying selves. In the last section, we summarize our main arguments and
that in a relational mode of understanding leadership, they we introduce two new cognitive styles that can help capture the
are losing their traditional identity that is rooted in the formal essence of social brain-adjusted relational leadership.
organizational structure (manager-subordinate) and become
inseparable parts of a co-constructing process of leadership.
They become, according to our view, leadership actors1 . RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON BOARD
What is less known is the way that leadership actors are linked
to each other and in particular how they try to understand how The traditional leadership theories attempted to approach and
to do that in the workplace. What is even less understood is the understand leadership as an individual feature that consists of
importance and the role of consciousness in this relationship. many cognitive aspects. The focus was on the individual that
Especially since consciousness appears to be both a fundamental acts as a leader and his/her traits, behaviors, and styles. In
and a very elusive element in human relations. Therefore, this other words, leadership traditionally is viewed and explored as
paper explores the concept of consciousness within the context an isolated phenomenon that is based on the main actor, the
of the social brain theory to argue that leadership actors need leader, and his/her behavior formulated by his/her experience
to revise their approach to individuality and focus on mutually and knowledge. As Cunliffe and Eriksen (2011) argue, traditional
dependent relations. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of leadership theories were based on the “periphery and content
Homo Relationalis that should replace the dominant figure of aspects of leadership” (p. 1428) not the actual sense of leadership.
Homo Economicus. In this respect, we suggest that leadership These approaches ignored that leadership is a social phenomenon
is not just a socially constructed element, but also a social that takes place in a social context and it is highly formulated on
brain constructed phenomenon that requires an understanding a continuous basis from people’s actions and interactions. In this
of the human brain as a social organ. We further recommend paper, we follow a different approach to leadership that is not
a new approach of applying cognitive style analysis to capture related only to the individual level of analysis, but mainly to a
the duality of leader/follower in the same person, following the dyadic and group analysis, where leadership is a part of social
self-illusion theory. context full of interactions (Dionne et al., 2014). The context
In order to reach the aforementioned arguments, we have includes the dyadic level of analysis, but expands on the group
employed a research approach called the Convergence Method and organizational level as well (Yammarino et al., 2005). This
of Evidence (CME). This method, not unlike the investigative multilevel context of interaction includes two main leadership
work of detectives, strives to explain phenomena by drawing actors: the leader and the follower(s) (Schriesheim et al., 2001).
insights from diverse fields simultaneously and from multiple The actors cannot be seen independently of the context that they
inquiry lines, instead of utilizing more straightforward and participate as well as they cannot be seen independently of the
single-path science methods (Shermer, 2011). CME has also been people that relate with (Dimitriadis and Psychogios, 2020). For
called abduction, since it is neither induction nor deduction. In example a recent study found that the perceptions of leadership
abduction, or inference to the best explanation, “we take the as well as aspiration for leadership are influenced by both cultural
all of our background knowledge about how the word works and socioeconomic elements (Hoyland et al., 2021). In other
words, leadership occurs within the process of relating with each
1 In this paper we suggest the term leadership actors referring to both leaders and other, aiming in doing things in a non-static, but dynamic and
followers that co-create and define leadership as a relational process. continuously evolving context. In this respect, a school of thought

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

has been developed arguing that we need to understand the approach can be seen and understood better if we engage
nature of leadership as a relational process (Graen and Uhl-Bien, neuroscientific approaches.
1995; Liden et al., 1997; Murrell, 1997; Erdogan and Liden, 2002; In the next sections, we utilize on consciousness approaches
Uhl-Bien, 2003; Dihn et al., 2014) giving birth to the Relational and social brain theory to demonstrate our arguments. We argue
Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien, 2006). that consciousness helps us to be aware of our own subjective
Relational leadership does not primarily refer to behaviors experience of events and processes, hence relational leadership
of leaders that are relationship-oriented emphasizing on experiences as described above. This in turn, can facilitate the
compassion, support, trust, and high quality work relations leadership process itself. In addition, by putting on board social
(Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Lipman-Blumen, 1996; Brower brain theory, we support the view that our brains are better fit to
et al., 2000; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Although, we recognize relational experiences and therefore relational leadership as such
the importance of these aspects in relation to consciousness rather than traditional (hierarchical) leadership formalities. We
and social brain, relational leadership can be understood as a conclude by suggesting the need for a brain-adjusted relational
social construction process within complex collective entities approach to leadership.
(organizations) and through connections and interdependences
of their members (Hosking et al., 1995; Bradbury and
Lichtenstein, 2000; Psychogios and Garev, 2012). The relational UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF
school argues that leadership is understood as a continuous and CONSCIOUSNESS
evolving reality within the process of organizing and occurs
in interdependent relationships (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Therefore, Within the few scientific debates attracting major attention
leadership as a relational process has to be explored in the context from media and the public imagination, consciousness holds a
of ongoing dynamic relations (Holmberg, 2000). prominent position. Article titles such as “Why can’t the world’s
However, there are different approaches of how relational greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?” in 2015 on
processes formulate organizational leadership realities The Guardian (Burkeman, 2015) and “World’s Smartest Physicist
emphasizing on dialogue and conversation, relational dynamics Thinks Science Can’t Crack Consciousness” in 2016 on Scientific
and creation of interactive processes (Cunliffe, 2001; Vine et al., American (Horgan, 2016) portray the levels of fascination, but
2008; Ness, 2009). For example, leadership is seen as a relational also sensationalism, that the concept of consciousness attracts.
dialogue among organizational members, whose interaction Media coverage aside, understanding consciousness, and its role
and engagement constructs everyday organizational realities in human relations, might hold the key to upgrading the analysis
(Drath, 2001). This view of leadership is not related to a person’s and comprehension of relational leadership within organizations.
dominance and power of influence as traditional leadership The main challenge of studying consciousness can be
approaches claim. Leadership is related to the way that people summarized in the question: can we ever fully reveal its
experience daily events and making judgments in the moment of purpose? This question has been dubbed as the Hard Problem
their interactions with others in organizations about these events of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) and has been the leading
(Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Antonacopoulou and Psychogios, conundrum for many in search of decoding consciousness.
2015). With this in mind, leadership is a shared responsibility Chalmers (1995), separated the easy problems (can be solved
and social act rather than an individual action based on personal through computational or neural mechanisms) and the hard
behaviors and characteristics (Murrell, 1997). In short, leadership problems (cannot be solved by computational or neural
is always a process of relating, and relating is a constructive, mechanisms) of studying consciousness. However, the actual
ongoing, and dynamic process of meaning making (Uhl-Bien hard problem of consciousness is human experience since “. . . we
and Ospina, 2012). In this respect, the present paper adopts a have no good explanation of why and how it so arises.”
relational definition of leadership where leadership is viewed (Chalmers, 1995, p. 5), In addition, the soft part of this problem
as a never-ending meaning-making story that is located in the is about studying neural and other biological processes that
ways that organizational members act and interact with each are responsible for capturing stimuli, focusing our attention,
other, attempting to influence organizational understandings controlling our behavior and integrating information cognitively
and produce outcomes (Barge and Fairhurst, 2008). or in general, various functions and abilities (Chalmers, 1995)
However, what it is less known and comprehensive from formulating experiences. The hard part of it goes beyond function
the relational approach to leadership is associated with the and is about subjectivity of experience: the fact that those
“how” of leadership process. It seems that there is a missing functions could be done without being necessarily aware of them
link regarding the ways that leadership is constructed as as we do, but we are.
a meaning making process. We suggest that this gap can The above approach of consciousness is a continuation of a
be covered if we also take into account other approaches number of philosophers’ argumentation since classical antiquity
of understanding social connection that can be found and especially ancient Greece, who separated between the
in brain science. In particular, we argue that leadership physical and inner worlds (Phillips et al., 2014). Talking either
as a relational process of meaning making that is taking about psyche (soul) or about nous (mind) ancient philosophers
place through endless influential interactions in a specific were intrigued by subjective awareness and the fact that
context, requires the brain awareness of leadership actors consciousness existed seemingly in separation from nature. These
(leaders and followers). In other words, relational leadership two worlds, nature and thought, body and mind, or more

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

recently, brain and mind, has been called Dualism and it is Dipped into neoclassical economic thinking and, most
central to the debate on consciousness (Crane and Patterson, paradoxically, bound by an extreme passion for rational decision-
2012). This Cartesian substance dualism, suggests “the mind and making that always aims to maximize results and minimize costs,
the body as two fundamental different “things,” equally real and the Homo Economicus model of humanity is fading away: new
independent of each other. . . ” (Grankvist et al., 2016, p. 1). In models such as the Homo Reciprocans, the Homo Sociologicus,
other words, according to Chalmers (1995) the dualistic approach and the Homo Socioeconomicus have emerged as an effort to
of consciousness is about two main questions: Why we are aware understand better the complex interrelations between people
of our own subjective experience (Hard Problem) and How are we (O’Boyle, 2007). In a similar vein, we propose the term Homo
aware of our own subjective experiences (Soft Problem). Although Relationalis to show that it is not the individuals as single agents,
this approach does coincide with the exact nature on dualism and isolated into an egoistic mind driven by rational self-interest
despite the fact that there are more dualisms (Phillips et al., 2014), that can help us improve our understanding of socioeconomic
Dualism itself is not universally accepted. interaction. But it is the relational aspects (interconnectivity,
We argue (as many others do) that rejecting dualism might interrelatedness, and interaction) between us (Homo Relationalis)
be the fastest way of solving the hard problem of consciousness that needs to be factored in, if we want to explain and further
focusing on the real one, which is the soft problem (Dehaene, understand the leadership process.
2014). The ‘Divide and Conquer’ method of modern Dualism Individuality, self-interest, ego-centricity, and ultra-
needs to be abandoned (Dennett, 1996) if we are to produce rationality have been the guiding forces that seem to have
meaningful and useful insights of consciousness, particularly for shaped, and still shape, our approach to consciousness. If we
understanding the process of leadership. This is because it is the continue to look at consciousness as a mechanism that creates
interplay of the why and how that makes consciousness so central subjective, thus individual, experiences then we might never
for the relational approach of leadership process in organizations. understand its value and purpose. However, if we look at
As Seth elegantly puts it 2016: “But there is an alternative [to the consciousness from a more socio-centric and relational view of
hard and soft problems], which I like to call the real problem: how humanity, taking into account the vital role of interdependency,
to account for the various properties of consciousness in terms of we will probably start unraveling its true nature faster and deeper
biological mechanisms; without pretending it doesn’t exist (easy than ever before, thus solving the real problem of consciousness.
problem) and without worrying too much about explaining its The main problem of consciousness within the Homo
existence in the first place (hard problem).” Economicus view is that since consciousness, is responsible
for our subjective/individualistic experience and for our self-
centered, ego-driven decision-making and behavior, then what
would happen if those two exact processes were found not
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTED to be depending on conscious thinking? What, then, would
CONSCIOUSNESS AND SELF AWARENESS consciousness be for? Our own personal survival or something
else? According to Halligan and Oakley (2015) the role of
The difficulty in explaining the “Why” of consciousness might consciousness seems to be linked to the function of the brain.
lie in the extreme importance that the western world is putting For example, “muscles and brain areas prepare for an action,
on individuality. The western notion of self has been found to be such as a reaching out for an object, before we are even aware
significantly more individualistic and ego-centric than in other of our intention to make that movement. . . consciousness simply
cultures and this has a considerable impact on the subjective occurs too late to affect the outcomes of the mental processes”
experience of westerners, including on their cognition and (Halligan and Oakley, 2015, p. 26). Latest research identified the
emotions (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). This acute focus on the gap between the brain’s unconscious preparedness for action and
individual and on the value of a single person as opposed to wider the conscious awareness of the action to 11 s (Koenig-Robert and
social units. This individualist approach, laser-focusing on the Pearson, 2019). The fact that our brains prepare to take a decision
person’s interests rather on communities or the multidimensional much earlier than when our consciousness kicks in, brings down
bonds within societies, is emerged from the concept of what the self-interest foundation of the Homo Economicus. In addition,
has been called the Homo Economicus view of the human kind. it gives rise to a more collective approach claiming that the sense
Homo Economicus is an individualistic conception of humanity, of self comes from “our unconscious mind, and provides an
void of any social dimension, which considers as natural law evolutionary advantage that developed for the benefit of the social
that the self-interest of one person is the interest of all people, group, not the individual” (ibid, p. 26).
leading to an ultra-egocentric model of decision making and We argue that our unconscious mind broadcasts all info and
behavior (Pesch, 2002). Actually, the Homo Economicus concept decisions to our consciousness that then creates an individual
can be also found in traditional leadership studies, and it is construct necessary for developing strategies of adaptation
consistent with a positivistic epistemology and a Cartesian dogma in the real world. Strategies such as predicting behaviors of
of a clear distinction between mind and nature (Bradbury and others, disseminating selected information and being able to
Lichtenstein, 2000). It assumes that individuals have a “knowing adjust attitudes in relation to various on external stimuli.
mind,” as well as that they have access to the contents of their This means that consciousness is an emergent product of our
mind (Uhl-Bien, 2006) that they can control (Hosking et al., unconscious part of the brain in order to assist us in adapting
1995). to, and interacting with, our peers in order to evolve together

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

as a group not as individuals. We call this as a relational followers) based on a relational process with others. Lührmann
approach to consciousness. This approach captures vividly the and Eberl (2007) argue that leadership identity is co-constructed
emerging strong argument for consciousness as an evolutionary in the process of interaction between the leader and the follower.
advantage (Mercier and Sperber, 2011). The importance of Similarly, Sluss and Ashforth (2007) claim that the role-based
human communication for the species survival and growth, the identities of a leader and a follower interactively “influence
ability to develop individual, conscious thoughts is for persuasion the [leadership] relational identity such that the [leadership]
purposes and not for ego-centric decision making. Its role is relational identity is more than the sum of its parts” (p. 13).
inherently social. Moreover, a follower’s self-awareness is affected by leadership
The evolutionary advantage of a collaborative, relational, and process itself, contemplating the effects on follower’s attitudes
socially adaptive consciousness has been found to hold true from toward leadership (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In other
other scientific disciplines as well. Evolutionary anthropology, words, followers’ self-conception in the leadership process is
primatology, and archeology have discovered that homo sapiens formulating in a dynamic way within the process and influenced
sapiens’, our species’, unique ability to form multilayered by it. Therefore, leadership actors through the leadership process
social relations and to collaborate within highly complex co-create a relational leadership identity.
and coordinated group activities with genetically unrelated In conclusion, adopting a more social and interpersonal view
individuals makes the single most important difference in species of consciousness, self-awareness, and evolution has a cascading
survival. Marean (2015), argues that homo sapiens’ extraordinary effect on how we view our personal place in life and of course
ability to cooperate, what he has called hyperprosociality, which to ourselves as leadership actors. First, if the human mind is not
him is not a learned tendency but a genetically encoded trait, was all about ourselves then consciousness is an inherent brain
what helped our species dominate against other related species, phenomenon that allows us to understand, relate, and interact
such as the Neanderthals. Although cooperation can also be with those around us appropriately in order to achieve various
observed in primate species, our unique ability to collaborate in types of goals together. Second, if we are not as individuals,
large, well-organized groups by employing a complex morality self-interest obsessed and ultra-rational as the Homo Economicus
competence based on reputation and punishment was what view claims that we are, then the way we set our minds to work
gave the edge to humankind (De Waal, 2014). Last but not with others should be more open, assertive and collaborative
least, psychology is also revising some of its long-held beliefs than before. Above all, our consciousness emerges unexpectedly,
on individuality and consciousness toward a more socially not as the pinnacle of human cognition and of our place in the
oriented approach. One of the most cited tests for studying universe, but as a product of our brains, an illusion even, that
self-consciousness, especially in the developmental process, is helps us create and respond to dynamic social environments
the sticker and mirror test, or otherwise called the mirror self- and move forward more collectively as humans, professionals,
recognition test. In an early study Gallup (1970) measured self- leaders, and followers than individually. But in order for this
awareness in non-human species and compare those to humans. to happen, we needed the right type of a brain. A “social”
Apart from humans very few other species pass the test proving brain to be exact. We argue that our brain is mainly a social
that self-awareness is a function of advanced cerebral processes. organ that emphasizes connecting, interacting, trusting, and
Rochat (2009) conducted a similar study in non-western societies cooperating, and that this is also confirmed by the evolution
with surprising results. Instead of kids reaching for their faces, of human kind (Dimitriadis and Psychogios, 2020). The idea
in many instances, kids were just perplexed of what they should of relational leadership is based on the same foundations. We
be doing with such an unexpected situation. In particular, out of argue that as leadership actors we connect to each other in
104 kids in a Kenyan study only two removed the sticker while endless, dynamic, interrelated ways in various contexts that affect
the rest stayed confused. Recognizing ourselves in the mirror various outcomes. Therefore, a social brain is an essential part of
is not about individuality, about ‘us against the world’ or about relational leadership. Leadership is not just a socially constructed,
finding our unique personal place in this world (Rochat, 2009). It but a social brain constructed process.
is instead about active social engagement and formulating images
of ourselves based on what others think of us. It is an outside-in
test and not the other way around. SOCIAL BRAIN THEORY AND
These scientific developments, pointing to a socially driven LEADERSHIP
sense of self, have led many in psychology to claim that
the sense of a concrete self is an illusion (Hood, 2012). In If you ask someone for their opinion on the species that show the
other words, our self-awareness is a fluid concept dependent highest level of collaboration between their members, the typical
on our surroundings, constantly shaped and reshaped by it. answer that you will receive is: bees and ants. Bees’ and ants’
As Hohwy and Michael (2017) argue, “social interaction and ability to collaborate within their communities harmoniously and
cultural learning [are] key elements in the dynamic process of relentlessly attracts the attention of the public. Nevertheless, the
shaping one’s self through action and interaction,” signifying the admiration of bees and ants as the ultimate cooperative machines
importance of the embodied self as a key approach in revising is based on a fundamental misconception. Actually, those species
what it means to be us. This notion seem to be at the core of do not have the decision power to choose collaboration or
relational leadership. Many relational leadership studies argue competition, but are directed by chemicals to collaboration
that we are aware of ourselves as leadership actors (leaders and/or (Gamble et al., 2014). In this chemically-induced “tyranny” of

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

co-working, those species are born to cooperate with specific in touch with this new person, our brain’s processing capacity
members of their community and for specific reasons. In an will ultimately determine the ability to maintain that relation.
analogy to human societies, organizations would look more like Spunt and Lieberman (2013) have found that when cognitive
totalitarian systems or like Huxley (1998) put it, like highly load increases, our automatic mentalizing capacity, our ability
structured society. Actually, not counting for humans as highly to understand and connect to others, drops drastically. Thus,
collaborative species and impulsively choosing bees and ants relationship building becomes harder. Our brain’s expanded
reveals the damage done by the Homo Economicus mindset that cognitive load is an actual advantage, when compared to
focuses exclusively on competitive struggle, self-interest, and other species, but also a limitation because of the boundaries
isolative individuality. Looking at the evolution of Homo Sapiens it sets for further social bonding. Concerning the second,
Sapiens in comparison with other species, and studying brain size unlocking each others’ intentionality is a building block of social
in relation to group size, has led to the breakthrough theory of the interaction and since humans can manage up to six orders of
Social Brain. This theory suggests that socializing, collaborating intentionality, we are uniquely champions in the animal kingdom
and co-existing in communities depends on brain size, especially (Gamble et al., 2014).
frontal lobe cortical areas (Dunbar, 1998). Humans have a Our intentionality-decoding skills are so advanced when
disproportionally big cortex/body ratio and this allows them to compared with other species that they alone have been deemed
form larger groups with complex relations. It can be argued that, enough to explain the Why of consciousness. Graziano (2013)
according to the Social Brain theory, higher neuro-complexity suggests that we have consciousness in order to detect the
leads to higher social-complexity. Dunbar (1998) is actually consciousness of other people and thus to be able to make
famous for his optimum numbers of various social groups to have assumptions about their behavior. The Social Brain theory
close ties between their members—which is 5, 15, 50, and 150 further supports the relational answer to the “Why” question
people depending on the closeness of the relationships-. This was (hard problem) of consciousness. The evolved human brain is
found to hold true even in our highly networked era dominated set for dynamic and complex relations that are made possible
by the internet and social media (Gamble et al., 2014). through advanced intention-reading skills unique to our species.
The human social brain is able to behave in extraordinary Therefore, answering the “Why” of consciousness in this manner
ways. Based on a more complex cortex humans have the leads to important insights into the “How” (soft problem) of
ability to reciprocate, collaborate, empathize, trust, form consciousness too. Attention Schema Theory (AST) explains the
intelligent analysis of social situations, but also deceive inner-workings of awareness as an attention system that utilizes
and fight more cleverly than other species (Dunbar, 1998). external and internal stimuli to create subjectivity, preparing the
Unfortunately, it is the latter group of those social behaviors individual to act effectively to various situations (Graziano and
that initially attracted many scientists who, by observing Webb, 2015). Under this approach, consciousness is a neuro
children’s ability to get what they wanted from their parents, mechanism through which the brain creates mental models
labeled these abilities as Machiavellian2 . Again, applying of reality in order to focus where needed the most. These
a typical Homo Economicus mindset, people choose to mental models are both created by attention and result in
see manipulation, social deception, and trickery in human attention. The ultimate aim is to understand other people,
children’s behavior instead of social cohesion, social intelligence, understand our own stance, and to respond appropriately.
and social co-existence. This narrowest of views though Although AST does not necessarily require a socially-oriented
has been later revised to include all the socially positive consciousness approach (Rahimian, 2021), it seems to offer an
behaviors creating a more realistic picture of the social brain’s effective integration of two sister phenomena that many believe
behavioral aspects. Interactivity, interdependence, and mutual to be separate within the brain: attention and consciousness
understanding are core functions of the social brain since a (Nani et al., 2019). In a nutshell, Graziano’s AST suggests that
very early age, leading to healthy development of the human our brains construct a simplified model of attention, leading
mind as we grow and operate in complex human societies to control of attention and creating to a conscious experience
(Hood, 2012). that is both internal (awareness of what is happening with
Two key components of the social brain theory is that us) and external (awareness of what is happening with others)
first, brain processing capacity determines breadth of social (Wilterson et al., 2020).
relations and second, that the human kind has a unique The “Why” and the “How” are coming together, bridging
ability to understand intentionality, in a much higher level the gap between purpose and function, when consciousness is
than any other species. Concerning the first, Gamble et al. viewed as an evolutionary mechanism of the embodied self that
(2014) observed that cognitive load, the brain’s ability to enables humans to navigate effectively and efficiently through
process information, is responsible for the number of people dense and multifaceted relations within families, friendships,
we can associate with in different social setting. Since with institutions, communities, and societies. If this is the case,
every new acquaintance our brain will have to process new then it would be logical to expect that leadership in modern
information, and even more information for keeping regularly organizations is guided primarily by principles of empathy,
collaborating, caring, and trust. We suggest social brain-
2 Thischaracterization relates to the 16th century book The Prince by Niccolo
constructed relational process of leadership, it is important to
Machiavelli (2011) which has become synonymous to calculative manipulation, understand how cognitive styles can help us rethink the leader-
according to Thesaurus.com (2021). follower dual relationship.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

COGNITIVE STYLES AND vs. intuition, viewed as being distinct cognitive styles. Few years
LEADERSHIP/FOLLOWERSHIP DUALITY earlier, the Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Spiro, 1988) emerged
in pedagogy, to describe efficient learning under challenging
In order to understand further the brain aspects of leadership conditions. Cognitive flexibility is contrasted to cognitive rigidity
actors, we argue that we need to take a step back, exploring when attention and perception models hinder rather than allow
through brain science the leadership-followership duality. for learning and behavioral change (Tchanturia et al., 2004). The
Therefore, by focusing on consciousness, self-illusions and concept of cognitive flexibility and rigidity were popularized in
cognitive styles it is important to open the research agenda for the business world by the work of Dweck (2008) on growth
further understanding of the self-dyadic relationship (leader- vs. fixed mindset (Dimitriadis et al., 2018). Creative styles
follower) that consist the basis of the social brain-constructed have also been linked to create thinking, problem-solving and
relational leadership. innovation with the distinction of divergent creative cognitive
The scientific debate on the evolution and function of style vs. divergent creative cognitive style (Chen et al., 2015). In
consciousness has had intriguing side-effects on other topics, leadership-related literature, the majority of work on cognitive
most notably on the concept of the self. The Homo Economicus styles has been focusing on creative organizational output and
mindset applied to consciousness as the epitome of our leadership (Zhang et al., 2011) rather than on leadership in
individuality, suggests that humans have a strong grip over their general, as shown by the wider use of Kirton’s adaption-
self, which they understand and control (Pesch, 2002). Most innovation theory (Stum, 2009), which made the distinction
importantly, people have one, solid self, or personality, which can between the adaptor cognitive style vs. the innovator cognitive
be captured using quantitative tools like surveys. The problem style (Jain and Jeppe Jeppesen, 2013).
with this approach is that it does not take into account significant Based on the analysis of consciousness as a social tool, and
findings from neuroscience and other brain-related sciences the social brain and self-illusion theories, we recommend a new
pointing to a discrepancy of what we think about ourselves and cognitive style distinction between the person as a leader vs. the
what is actually happening. This discrepancy, in relation to the same person as a follower (self-dyadic), with both styles being
concept of the self, has been called the Self-Illusion. Hood (2012) active at the same time. This means that there is a need in
explains the sense of authenticity of an essential self within us, leadership studies to adopt a neuroscientific perspective, where
that feels true and unified: “[t]his core self. . . is, however, the the self of a person within an organization changes to fit into
illusion” (p. 82). a leadership role, the leadership cognitive style vs. the follower
The phenomenal experience of a subjective reality and the role, the follower cognitive style, based on the situation. Since
absence of a core self is also discussed in depth by Metzinger the presence of an authentic, one-dimensional, continuous and
(2003) who suggested the Phenomenal Self-Model concept of rigid core self has been deemed as a subjective feeling rather
the Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Metzinger (2009) claims than a scientific reality, the change between leadership and
that “[t]he phenomenal Ego is not some mysterious thing or followership cognitive styles, each with its own attentional and
little man inside the head but the content of an inner image- perceptual distinct processes applied even within the same day,
namely, the conscious self-model, or PSM. By placing the self- but with different people and overall setting. Although still
model within the world-model, a center is created. That center is a hypothesis, such a distinction would help leadership theory
what we experience as ourselves, the Ego” (p. 7). In other words, progress beyond the standard view of a person as either a
humans are not in direct contact with either the external nor the leader or a follower (both of them leadership actors), unlocking
internal words, but they do have a representational model that complex processes that might explain better the dynamic
feels unique and real which is much more socially-oriented and reality of multilayered relations within current organizational
socially-derived than expected. realities. Such a cognitively driven hypothesis fits also well with
The point to make about the ego, or self, is that it is more AST, which recommends three key cognitive processes present
of a feeling than a fixed reality. The human brain adapts its for human consciousness: endogenous control of awareness,
reaction in different settings and switches off and on behaviors exogenous control of awareness, and the resulting experience of a
based on genes, past experiences and social triggers. Although non-physical awareness of personal being (Wilterson et al., 2020).
it feels as a continuous and consistent process, the self is an From an academic perspective, delving into consciousness
illusion and people’s behaviors depend more on adjusting social theories, social brain, and self-related theories, will help us
brain processes than our sense of a solid self. In order to apply look into the specific mechanisms of awareness, reality, and
this approach to the relational leadership process, cognitive styles meaning creation within the context of leadership actors
need to be discussed. (leader-follower) relations and the leader/follower duality, and
Different brains show attention and process incoming thus, develop further the Relational Leadership Theory (Uhl-
information in working memory in different ways. The speed and Bien, 2006). Furthermore, our approach has the potential
overall efficiency of these constitute what is called cognitive style of contributing to the advancement of Van Vugt (2006)
(Happé and Frith, 2006). In organizational sciences, the concept Evolutionary Leadership (EvoL) Theory, which more recently
of cognitive styles was popularized by the Cognitive Styles Index also includes discussions of a follower viewpoint in explaining
by Allinson and Hayes (1996) which proposed a questionnaire evolutionary beneficial leadership-related behaviors (Bastardoz
for measuring managers and employees in two variables, analysis and Van Vugt, 2019). EvoL theory explains the way that

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

leadership is a biological product evolved through physiological, However, current evidence, mainly from Western societies,
neurological and psychological processes (Vugt, 2018). What we shows something different. The fact that business, as a societal
further suggest is that leadership as a biological product is not institution, has an unfavorable image within the wider global
relational and context free, since it is highly sensitive to social population is well-documented. The annual Trust Barometer
relations that are occur in a specific context. In particular, our study by Edelman (2020), conducted in 28 countries with more
approach by combining relational and evolutional approaches than 34,000 respondents, found that increasingly, people are
to leadership suggests that leadership as a social process itself showing less trust to the businesses-oriented capitalistic system,
is rooted in the brains of leaders and followers that are wired with almost half of the sample (48%) claiming that the system is
and interacting in continuous, endless ways. In other words, not working for them and the second largest group not being sure
the evolution of leadership follows an additional evolving way (34%). In a similar poll by Gallup (2020), only 19% of respondents
of interacting through our brain functions and influencing in the US showed confidence in big businesses compared to 72%
each other. for the military and 75% for smaller businesses.
From a practice perspective, leadership actors will understand Corporate leadership seems to have gone exactly the opposite
better how their own view of reality and the things they focus way of an anthropological and social brain-based leadership.
on influence their relations with other actors as well as how Homo Economicus has turned leadership to a Machiavellian
leadership actors’ attention models can do the same. At the instrument of deceit, manipulation, and self-preservation.
same time, leadership actors will have a better view of how Essentially, leadership is turned into something that psychopaths
their leader/follower automatic cognitive styles influence their could do uniquely well. A study has found that one out of five
relations and decisions. This in turn implies that the development CEOs (formal leaders) are psychopaths (Agerholm, 2016). This
of leadership capabilities in organizations should take into number, according to the study, is equal to prison populations.
account a social brain-constructed relational approach and target This is an alarming finding, having in mind that the percentage
the development of leadership not as a set of individual skills, but in the total population is around 1%. Similar insights can
in contrast as a set of skills that are dynamic, mutually influenced, be observed in other domains. Both the empathy deficit, the
and co-created in a social context. This approach requires a good drop in overall empathy levels (Colvin, 2015), and the increase
understanding of the cognitive styles of leader-follower in one of narcissism (Twenge and Campbell, 2009) in the wider
person as we suggest. population have been much publicized (Northwestern, 2006).
These intriguing facts seem to contradict the previous analysis in
this paper on the nature of consciousness and the human brain
DISCUSSION: TOWARD BRAIN-ADJUSTED as a pro-social organ. If we have been evolving to form dynamic
RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP and symbiotic relations, how is it that we are led by psychopaths
and at the same time we start losing our hardwired empathic
Leadership, evolutionarily speaking, is about creating capacities? The answer is in the brain.
appropriate conditions and trusting relationships for group Our brain is plastic. New neurons are generated every day,
members to contribute the most they can in the group’s mission. even at a very old age, and old neurons form new connections
These conditions include trust, care, protection, and cohesion between themselves, or severe old ones, depending on how
as necessary requirements for effective leadership (Brower much and how often these connections are used. These two
et al., 2000; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Traditionally, the job of a processes, namely neuro-generation and the creation of new
leader was to provide support and safety to group members synapses between neurons, are fundamental to neuroplacticity
in order for them to feel liberated enough to perform their (Breznitz and Hemingway, 2013). How we use our brains
tasks in the most creative, passionate, and successful way. This further enhances or weakens our mental abilities. In the case
community-oriented approach to leadership was found to be of the brain, this actually means that the software can alter
instrumental in how pre-historic tribes lived and survived in the hardware, something that does not apply to manmade
harsh environments. Sinek (2011) utilizing a number of sciences, devices such as smartphones and laptops (Dimitriadis and
such as neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and anthropology, Psychogios, 2020). If the requirement for managers to progress
has convincingly argued that leadership in modern companies within corporations is to adopt psychopathic attitudes and
should create circles of trust within an organization in order for behaviors, repetition will lead to permanence. Neurons that
its members, and the organization itself, to flourish. He claims fire together, wire together (Lowel and Singer, 1992). Over
that the negative image of big business in Western societies is time, by suppressing our empathic neural networks and
exactly because of the unnatural type of leadership they apply. boosting the narcissistic ones, we reshape our brains to mimic
When leaders look only after their own interests, ignoring the ones with anti-social, misanthropic and ultra-egoistic traits.
welfare of their employees and the society as a whole, they do not The more our corporate cultures require psychopathic and
act as our brain expects. We argue that based on the relational narcissistic managers (leaders) the more the brain of employees
aspect of leadership, true leadership actors (leaders/followers) (followers) will adapt to the situation. Thus, although wired
care for each other using their consciousness as a tool for the around social brain, leaders and followers choose to utilize
development of in-group collaboration, interdependence, and more often and with stronger efforts their non-collaborative,
trust. These should be the key relational bonds in a continuous non-trusting, non-coexisting style resulting to brains reacting
process of interaction among organizational members. more psychopathically.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

If we are to embrace the full scope of our co-operative electroencephalogram to measure empathy levels of managers
consciousness and inter-depending social brains, we need to and other professionals within a learning setting (Lambert
emphasize brain-adjusted relational leadership. A dynamic, co- et al., 2021). In other words, the connection of leadership with
created type of leadership based on relational ties of all leadership neuroscience provides endless opportunities to unlock the
actors (leaders and followers) rather than on obsession with hidden forces that affect the way that we relate to each other
rigid self-interest. A type of leadership that shows a better and of course the way that we are involved in the leadership
understanding of the inner-workings and, especially, the purpose process. Ultimately, both leaders and followers can improve
of key brain functions. A type of leadership that will bring about their relations and achieve more together, in a true collaborative
trust and collaboration within organizations, and that, ultimately, and mutually understanding fashion. They should do this by
will unleash the true power of the Homo Relationalis. being more confident for their socially-driven consciousness and
Without any doubt, more conceptual and, of course, empirical embodied self.
studies are needed within the leadership discipline to establish
the exact processes of consciousness in leader-follower relations. AUTHOR’S NOTE
Future research should be open to new ways of studding
leadership not abandoning the traditional socio-psychological Both authors AP & ND contributed equally to the development
approaches, but introducing new innovative combined of this manuscript. The process of article development was
methodologies. Leadership studies based on neuroscientific based on our search and work on the field of Neuroscience
approaches could show the way ahead. For example, a series of and Leadership. We first clarified the notions that we
leadership studies that will focus on the main biological aspects want to discuss and then start developing each sections
can be one category. Another category of future studies could exchanging drafts and corresponding to each other comments
be associated with a series of experimental research, not only and suggestions.
from the behavioral science point of view, but also from the
brain science one. Current neuro-technologies can provide AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
huge opportunities to develop experiments and observe the
actual human brain, which in turn can enhance dramatically All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual
our ability to understand human relations. For example, using contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

REFERENCES Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J. Consciousness

Stud. 2, 200–219.
Agerholm, H. (2016). One in Five CEOs Are psychopaths, New Study Finds, Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. Y., and Lo, Y. H. (2015). Creativity
The Independent Online. Available online at: http://www.independent.co. cognitive style, conflict, and career success for creative
uk/news/world/australasia/psychopaths-ceos-study-statistics-one-in-five- entrepreneurs. J. Busin. Res. 68, 906–910. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.
psychopathic-traits-a7251251.html (accessed September 25, 2016). 11.050
Allinson, C. W., and Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: a measure of Colvin, G. (2015). Humans are Underrated: What High Achievers Know That
intuition-analysis for organizational research. J. Manage. Stud. 33, 119–135. Brilliant Machines Never Will. New York, NY: Penguin.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00801.x Crane, T., and Patterson, S. (eds.). (2012). History of the Mind-Body Problem.
Antonacopoulou, E., and Psychogios, A. (2015). Practising Changing London: Routledge.
Change: How Middle Managers Take a Stance Towards Lived Cunliffe, A. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our
Experiences of Change (Vancouver, BC: Academy of Management). understanding of manage-ment practice. J. Manage. Stud. 38, 351–371.
doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2015.14448abstract doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00240
Barge, J. K., and Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Living leadership: a Cunliffe, A., and Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Hum. Relat. 64,
systemic, constructionist approach. Leadership 4, 227–251. 1425–1449. doi: 10.1177/0018726711418388
doi: 10.1177/1742715008092360 De Waal, F. (2014). One for all, scientific American, special evolution issue: how we
Bastardoz, N., and Van Vugt, M. (2019). The nature of followership: evolutionary became human. Sci. Am. 311, 52–55. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0914-68
analysis and review. Leader. Quart. 30, 81–95. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.004 Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes
Bradbury, H., and Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Relationality in organizational Our Thoughts. New York, NY: Viking.
research: exploring the “space between.” Organ. Sci. 11, 551–564. Dennett, D. C. (1996). Facing backwards on the problem of consciousness. J.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.5.551.15203 Consciousness Stud. 3, 4–6.
Breznitz, S., and Hemingway, C. (2013). Maximum Brainpower: Challenging the Dihn, J., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., and Hu,
Brain for Health and Wisdom. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: current
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., and Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leader. Quart. 25, 36–62.
leadership: the integration of trust and leader–member exchange. Leader. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Quart. 11, 227–250. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0 Dimitriadis, N., Jovanovic Dimitriadis, N., and Ney, J. (2018). Advanced Marketing
Burkeman, O. (2015). “Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery Management: Principles, Skills and Tools. London, NY: Kogan Page.
of Consciousness?”, The Guardian Online, in Section: Consciousness. The Long Dimitriadis, N., and Psychogios, A. (2020). Neuroscience for Leaders: Practical
Read. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/- Insights to Successfully Lead People & Organizations, 2nd Ed. London, NY:
sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness (accessed Kogan Page.
15 July, 2016). Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., et al.
Carroll, S. (2016). The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe (2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research.
Itself, Oneworld. Leader. Q. 25, 6–35. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.002

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

Drath, W. (2001). The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. Lambert, S., Dimitriadis, N., Taylor, M. and Venerucci, M. (2021), “Understanding
Jossey-Bass and Center for Creative Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Fairhurst emotional empathy at postgraduate business programmes: what does the use
and Putnam. of EEG reveal for future leaders?,” in Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolut. Anthropol. 6, 178–190. Learning. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-09-2020-0218
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1998)6:5<178::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-8 Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., and Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House theory: the past and potential for the future. Res. Personnel Hum. Resourc.
Digital, Inc. Manage. 15, 47–119.
Edelman (2020). Trust Barometer 2020: Global Report. Available online at: Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Connective Leadership: Managing in a Changing World.
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/440941/Trust%20Barometer%202020/2020 New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report-1.pdf (accessed Lowel, S., and Singer, W. (1992). Selection of intrinsic horizontal connections
February 24, 2021). in the visual cortex by correlated neuronal activity. Science 255, 209–212.
Erdogan, B., and Liden, R. C. (2002). “Social exchanges in the workplace: a review doi: 10.1126/science.1372754
of recent developments and future research directions in Leader-Member Lührmann, T., and Eberl, P. (2007). Leadership and identity construction:
Exchange theory,” in Leadership, eds L. L. Neider and C. A. Schriescheim reframing the leader-follower interaction from an identity theory perspective.
(Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing), 65–114. Leadership 3, 115–127. doi: 10.1177/1742715007073070
Gallup (2020). Confidence in Institutions 2020. Available online at: https://news. Machiavelli, N. (2011). The Prince. London: Penguin Classics.
gallup.com/poll/317135/amid-pandemic-confidence-key-institutions-surges. Marean, W. M. (2015). The most invasive species of all. Sci. Am. 313, 22–29.
aspx (accessed February 24, 2020). doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0815-32
Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science 167, 86–87. Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications
doi: 10.1126/science.167.3914.86 for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253.
Gamble, C., Gowlett, J., and Dunbar, R. (2014). Thinking Big: How the Evolution of doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Social Life Shaped the Human Mind. London: Thames and Hudson. Mercier, H., and Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason?
Graen,. G. B., and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 57–74.
leadership:Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity.
perspective. Leadership Quart. 6, 219–247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)9 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/1551.001.0001
0036-5 Metzinger, T. (2009). The Ego Tunnel. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Grankvist, G., Kajonius, P., and Persson, B. (2016). The relationship between Murrell, K. L. (1997). Emergent theories of leadership for the next century: towards
mind-body dualism and personal values. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 8, 126–132. relational concepts. Organiz. Dev. J. 15, 35–42.
doi: 10.5539/ijps.v8n2p126 Nani, A., Manuello, J., Mancuso, L., Liloia, D., Costa, T., and Cauda, F. (2019).
Graziano, M. S. (2013). Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford: Oxford The neural correlates of consciousness and attention: two sister processes of
University Press. the brain. Front. Neurosci. 13:1169. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.01169
Graziano, M. S., and Webb, T. W. (2015). The attention schema theory: Ness, H. (2009). Governance, negotiations, and alliance dynamics: explaining
a mechanistic account of subjective awareness. Front. Psychol. 6:500. the evolution of rela-tional practice. J. Manage. Stud. 46, 451–480.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00818.x
Halligan, P., and Oakley, D. (2015). Consciousness isn’t all about you, you know. Northwestern (2006). Obama to Graduates: Cultivate Empathy, Northwestern
New Sci. 227, 26–27. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(15)30985-4 University. Available online at: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/
Happé, F., and Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: detail-focused stories/2006/06/barack.html (accessed July 20, 2016).
cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 36, 5–25. O’Boyle, E. J. (2007). Requiem for homo economicus. J. Markets
doi: 10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0 Morality 10, 321–337.
Hohwy, J., and Michael, J. (2017). “16 Why should any body have a self? The Pesch, H. (2002). Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie/Teaching Guide to Economics.
subject’s matter: Self-consciousness and the body,” in The Subject Matter:Self- Vol. 3. Bk. 1. Translated by Rupert J. Ederer. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Consciousness and the Body, eds F. De Vignemont, and A. J. Smith (Cambridge, Phillips, K. G., Beretta, A., and Whitaker, H. A. (2014). “Mind and brain:
MA: MIT Press). toward an understanding of dualism,” in Brain, Mind and Consciousness
Holmberg, R. (2000). Organizational learning and participation: some critical in the History of Neuroscience. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life
reflections from a relational perspective. Europ. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 9, Sciences, Vol. 6, eds C. Smith, and H. Whitaker (Dordrecht: Springer), 355–369.
177–188. doi: 10.1080/135943200397932 doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-8774-1_18
Hood, B. (2012). The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity. Oxford Psychogios, A., and Garev, S. (2012). Understanding complexity leadership
University Press. behaviour in smes: lessons from a turbulent business environment. Emerg.
Horgan, J. (2016). “World’s Smartest Physicist Thinks Science Can’t Crack Complexity Organiz. 14, 1–22.
Consciousness”. Scientific American Online. Available online at: http://blogs. Rahimian, S. (2021). Consciousness in solitude: is social interaction really a
scientificamerican.com/cross-check/world-s-smartest-physicist-thinks- necessary condition? Front. Psychol. 12:376. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630922
science-can-t-crack-consciousness/ (accessed July 20, 2016). Rochat, P. (2009). Others in Mind: Social Origins of Self-consciousness. New York,
Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P., and Gergen, K. J. (eds.) (1995). Management NY: Cambridge University Press.
and Organization: Relational Alternatives to Individualism. Aldershot: Avebury, Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., and Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly
1–28. of theorizing “A” but testing “B” A selective level-of-analysis review of the field
Hoyland, T., Psychogios, A., Epitropaki, O., Damiani, J., Mukhuty, S., and and a detailed Leader – Member Exchange illustration. Leadership Quart. 12,
Priestnall, C. (2021). A two-nation investigation of leadership self-perceptions 515–551. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00095-9
and motivation to lead in early adulthood: the moderating role of Seth, A. (2016). The Real Problem, Aeon Essays. Available onlinr at: https://aeon.
gender and socio-economic status. Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 42, 289–315 co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-
doi: 10.1108/LODJ-03-2020-0112 real-one (accessed February 23, 2021).
Huxley, A. (1998). Brave New World (1932). London: Vintage. Shermer, M. (2011). The Believing Brain: From Spiritual Faiths to Political
Jain, A. K., and Jeppe Jeppesen, H. (2013). Knowledge management practices in Convictions-How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. London:
a public sector organisation: the role of leaders’ cognitive styles. J. Knowledge Robinson.
Manage. 17, 347–362. doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0358 Simons, T., Kark, R., Leroy, H., and Tomlinson, E. C. (2011). Workplace Intimacy
Koenig-Robert, R., and Pearson, J. (2019). Decoding the contents and in Leader-Follower Relationships, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
strength of imagery before volitional engagement. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–14. Sinek, S. (2011). Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Action. New York, NY:
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39813-y Penguin Group.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217

Psychogios and Dimitriadis Brain-Adjusted Relational Leadership

Sluss, D. M., and Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., and Hogg, M. A.
defining ourselves through work relationships. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 9–32. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. Leader.
doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.23463672 Quart. 15, 825–856. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002
Spiro, R. J. (1988). Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personal.
Ill-Structured Domains. Illinois: Technical Report No. 441. Soc. Psychol. Rev.10, 354–371. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_5
Spunt, R. P., and Lieberman, M. D. (2013). The busy social brain evidence for Vine, B., Holmes, J., Marra, M., Pfiefer, D., and Jackson, B. (2008). Exploring co-
automaticity and control in the neural systems supporting social cognition leadership talk through interactional sociolinguistics. Leadership 4, 339–350.
and action understanding. Psychol. Sci. 24, 80–86. doi: 10.1177/0956797612 doi: 10.1177/1742715008092389
450884 Vugt, M. V. (2018). “Evolutionary, biological, and neuroscience perspectives,” in
Stum, J. (2009). Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory: managing cognitive styles in The Nature of Leadership, eds J. Antonakis, and D. D. Day (Los Angeles, CA:
times of diversity and change. Emerg. Lead. Journeys 2, 66–78. Sage), 189–217.
Tchanturia, K., Anderluh, M. B., Morris, R. G., Rabe-Hesketh, S., Collier, Wilterson, A. I., Kemper, C. M., Kim, N., Webb, T. W., Reblando,
D. A., Sanchez, P., et al. (2004). Cognitive flexibility in anorexia A. M., and Graziano, M. S. (2020). Attention control and the
nervosa and bulimia nervosa. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 10, 513–520. attention schema theory of consciousness. Prog. Neurobiol. 195:101844.
doi: 10.1017/S1355617704104086 doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2020.101844
Thesaurus.com (2021). Synonyms for “Machiavellian”. Available online at: http:// Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., and Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership
www.thesaurus.com/browse/machiavellian (accessed June 21, 2021). and levels of analysis: a state-of-the-science review. Leader. Quart. 16, 879–919.
Twenge, J. M., and Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.09.002
Age of Entitlement. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., and Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and
Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). “Relationship development as a key ingredient for leadership group creativity in Chinese organizations: the role of group processes. Leader.
development,” in The Future of Leadership Development, eds S. Murphy, and Quart. 22, 851–862. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007
R. Riggio (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 129–147.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: exploring Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
the social processes of leadership and organizing. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Leader. Quart. 17, 654–676. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.1 potential conflict of interest.
0.007
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G., and Scandura, T. (2000). “Implications of leader– Copyright © 2021 Psychogios and Dimitriadis. This is an open-access article
member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
relationships as social capital for competitive advantage,” in Research in The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 18. eds G. R Ferris original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 137–185. publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
Uhl-Bien, M., and Ospina, S., (Eds.). (2012). Advancing Relational Leadership No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
Research: A Dialogue Among Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 672217