Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing: A Reconciliation and Path Forward

Organizational Mindfulnessand Mindful Organizing:

A Reconciliation andPath Forward

TIMOTHY J. VOGUSVanderbilt University

KATHLEEN M. SUTCLIFFEUniversity of Michigan

Ray, Baker, and Plowman’s (2011) study of organizational mindfulness highlights latenttensions in the mindfulness literature and promising avenues for future research. Theirstudy provides a springboard for reconciling the literature by differentiatingorganizational mindfulness from mindful organizing, establishing where organizationalmindfulness and mindful organizing are most important, and clarifying how and wheneach construct can be most fruitfully deployed in research and practice. Clearertheorizing leads to a set of research questions that seek to integrate multiple conceptionsof individual and organizational mindfulness, establish their individual and organizationalantecedents, explore the consequences for individuals and organizations, and in so doing,further increase the relevance of organizational mindfulness for business schools.

........................................................................................................................................................................

In this Dialogue we use Ray et al.’s (2011) develop-ment and validation of an organizational mindful-ness scale as a starting point for resolving concep-tual puzzles, integrating an increasingly bifurcatedliterature, and offering an expansive researchagenda for future theoretical and empirical develop-ment. We start by recognizing Ray and colleagues’(2011) four key contributions to the organizationalmindfulness literature. First, they develop and val-idate a 5-factor measure of organizational mindful-ness and its constituent processes. This usefullybuilds on prior work that has validated 1-factor(Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007a) and 2-factor (Anderson,2010) measures. Second, Ray and colleagues studyorganizational mindfulness across hierarchicallevels (e.g., deans, associate deans, and depart-ment chairs), which is critical for mindfulness to bea truly organizational phenomenon. Prior researchfocuses on professionally homogenous groups atone hierarchical level, such as aircraft carrier

flight decks (Weick & Roberts, 1993); airline cockpitcrews (Waller, 1999); nuclear power control rooms(Schulman, 1993); or wildland firefighting crews(Barton & Sutcliffe, 2009; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).Third, in contrast to prior work focused primarilyon operational issues and front-line personnel(e.g., Schulman, 1993; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007a;Weick & Roberts, 1993), Ray and colleagues (2011)examine organizational mindfulness as it relatesto the strategic issues faced by an organization’stop administrators. Last, by examining organiza-tional mindfulness in business schools, Ray andcolleagues (2011) address a fundamental critiquethat research on organizational mindfulness onlyapplies to organizations that are special, exotic,and even “far out” compared to the prosaic worldof everyday organizations (Scott, 1994).

Ray and colleagues’ (2011) study provides an op-portunity for us to elaborate and refine the con-struct of organizational mindfulness while reas-sessing its conceptual foundations. In doing so, wefind that Ray and colleagues (2011) characterizeorganizational mindfulness as strategic, top-down,and enduring. We contrast this with a complemen-

We would like to thank Associate Editor Carolyn Egri, twoanonymous reviewers, Marlys Christianson, and Claus Rerupfor constructive and thoughtful comments that substantiallyimproved the clarity and contribution of this manuscript.

� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2012, Vol. 11, No. 4, 722–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0002C

........................................................................................................................................................................

722Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

tary body of research on mindful organizing thatfocuses on operations as bottom-up, and fragile.Articulating the theoretical nuances of these twoconceptualizations enables us to clarify where andhow different groups in the organizational hierar-chy contribute to mindfulness: top administrators(organizational mindfulness); middle managers(bridging organizational mindfulness and mindfulorganizing); and front-line employees (mindful or-ganizing). We then explore how differing mea-sures related to these two concepts influencestrategic (organizational mindfulness) and oper-ational (mindful organizing) outcomes. Followingthat, we integrate these insights into an expandedmodel of mindfulness where organizational mind-fulness enables and is reinforced by mindful orga-nizing. We close by offering a broad researchagenda that outlines questions which, when an-swered, will help to clarify organizational mindful-ness and mindful organizing, their individual andorganizational antecedents, and their conse-quences for individuals and organizations. Wealso describe ways in which these questions couldbe answered by studying business schools.

WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL MINDFULNESS?

In their systematic review of the numerous casestudies of high-reliability organizations (HROs),Weick and Sutcliffe (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001; Weick& Sutcliffe, 2007; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999)argue that HROs derive their ability to successfullymanage trying conditions of complexity, dyna-mism, and error-intolerance from organizationalmindfulness. Organizational mindfulness refers tothe extent to which an organization captures dis-criminatory detail about emerging threats and cre-ates a capability to swiftly act in response to thesedetails (Weick et al., 1999; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Organizational mindful-ness specifically consists of regularly and robustlydiscussing potential threats to reliability (preoccu-pation with failure); developing a nuanced andcurrent understanding of the context by frequentlyquestioning the adequacy of existing assumptionsand considering reliable alternatives (reluctanceto simplify interpretations); integrating these un-derstandings into an up-to-date big picture (sensi-tivity to operations); recognizing the inevitabilityof setbacks and thoroughly analyzing, coping with,and learning from them (commitment to resil-ience); and deferring to expertise rather than au-thority when making important decisions (Weick etal., 1999; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).

INDIVIDUAL MINDFULNESS

To sharpen the focus of the literature on organiza-tional mindfulness we revisit its foundation—re-search and theory on individual mindfulness. Re-search on individual mindfulness consists of twoperspectives—the Western and Eastern perspec-tives (see Brown & Ryan, 2003, and Hede, 2010). TheWestern perspective on mindfulness largely de-rives from Langer’s (1989) work. A Western perspec-tive means that this approach is a variant of aninformation-processing approach (Weick & Sut-cliffe, 2006). For Langer, mindfulness is expressedthrough active differentiation and refinement ofexisting categories and distinctions (1989:138), cre-ation of new discontinuous categories out ofstreams of events (157), and a more nuanced ap-preciation of context and alternative ways to dealwith it (159). The Eastern perspective on mindful-ness has its foundations in Buddhist thought(Hede, 2010; Weick & Putnam, 2006). From this per-spective mindfulness is a receptive attention toand awareness of present events and experienceoccurring both internally and externally (Brown &Ryan, 2003), or moment-to-moment, nonreactive,nonjudgmental awareness (Weick & Putnam, 2006).Regardless of perspective, studies of individualmindfulness show that mindfulness curtails nega-tive functioning and enhances positive outcomesin several important life domains, including men-tal health, physical health, behavioral regulation,and interpersonal relationships (see Brown, Ryan,& Creswell, 2007; Hede, 2010, and Langer, 2009, forinformative reviews).

Weick et al. (1999) founded their conception oforganizational mindfulness on Langer’s (1989)Western perspective. The idea is that active differ-entiation and refinement, in creating new catego-ries to make sense of experience and more nu-anced appreciation of context and ways to copewith it (Langer, 1989), result from preoccupationwith failure, reluctance to simplify interpretations,sensitivity to operations, commitment to resilience,and deference to expertise. More recent theoreticalwork on organizational mindfulness has begun tolink it to Eastern mindfulness (Weick & Putnam,2006; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). Organizational mind-fulness can be viewed specifically in terms of itseffects on concentration and strength of insight(Weick & Putnam, 2006). Weick and Putnam (2006:282) provide interesting connections for each com-ponent of organizational mindfulness. Preoccupa-tion with failure, with its focus on emerging fail-ures above all else, induces concentration andpotentially vivid insights. Reluctance to simplifyinterpretations and sensitivity to operations in-

2012 723Vogus and Sutcliffe

crease the vividness of insight by replacing con-ceptual categories with awareness of current de-tails, but possibly at the expense of concentration.Commitment to resilience is concentration com-plemented with vivid representation of errors asthe means to achieve insights for future actions.Last, deference to expertise increases concentra-tion by routing decisions to experts who are bestable to focus on the present phenomenon withoutdistraction.

Ray and colleagues’ (2011) work helps to clarifythe differences between individual and organiza-tional mindfulness and in doing so also helpfullyseparates the literature on organizational mindful-ness. Organizational mindfulness is not an intra-psychic process or an aggregation thereof; it is anorganizational attribute that is relatively stableand enduring that results from structures and prac-tices implemented by top administrators. In con-trast, other work (e.g., Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007a;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007) characterizes organiza-tional mindfulness as mindful organizing. Mindfulorganizing similarly is not an intrapsychic processof individuals or collectives, but a social processthat becomes collective through the actions andinteractions among individuals (Morgeson & Hof-mann, 1999). Next, we further develop these com-plementary perspectives to provide the foundationfor a more comprehensive approach to understand-ing organizational mindfulness and establishingan agenda for future research.

Organizational Mindfulness

Ray and colleagues (2011) argue that organiza-tional mindfulness is evident when leaders createcultures that encourage rich thinking and a capac-ity for action (199). In doing so, they make threeimportant claims about organizational mindful-ness: (1) it results from top-down processes; (2) itcreates the context for thinking and action on thefront line; and (3) it is a relatively enduring prop-erty of an organization (like culture). As such, theirconceptualization is consistent with other conceptsfrom strategy research that inhere in structures,practices, and other supraindividual features ofthe organization (March, 1991).

Organizational mindfulness, according to Rayand colleagues (2011), works to create context bysignaling what the organization expects, rewards,and supports (Zohar, 1980). Signaling occursthrough top administrators’ prioritization of mind-fulness (i.e., the extent to which it is not subordi-nated to other goals, see Katz-Navon, Naveh, &Stern, 2005) through their pattern of practice (Zohar& Luria, 2004), and their establishment of organi-

zational structures and practices (Rerup, 2009). Forexample, administrators instil organizational mind-fulness when they look for multiple and deeper ex-planations for emerging problems, pay attention toevolving operational data (e.g., enrollment, courseevaluations, etc.), act swiftly and otherwise boostmorale when faculty depart, and solicit input fromjunior faculty about current salaries in the market-place. In contrast, lower levels of organizationalmindfulness result when college administratorsexplain low student morale as admitting a badclass (Ray et al., 2011: 192), a donor reneging as aresult of a bad economy (192), move slowly whenstar faculty depart (192), and only put stock in opin-ions of those at that top of the organization (193).

Ray and colleagues’ (2011) measure of organiza-tional mindfulness assesses the extent to whichadministrators enact practices and structures thatwork to ensure more mindful ways of acting, think-ing, and organizing. Specifically, their surveyitems ask about the “COLLEGE’s [their emphasis]atmosphere and how the college approaches prob-lems and challenges. Thus, these questions focuson the management of your college, not your spe-cific department” (194). Items representing preoc-cupation with failure (“The leaders in our collegeseek out and encourage information that may beconsidered ‘bad news’”); reluctance to simplify in-terpretations (“People in this college are encour-aged to express different views of the world tocollege administrators”); sensitivity to operations(“We have access to resources if unexpected sur-prises crop up”); commitment to resilience (“Thiscollege encourages challenging ‘stretch’ assign-ments”); and deference to expertise (“It is generallyeasy for us to obtain expert assistance when some-thing comes up that we don’t know how to handle”)reflect this focus. Ray and colleagues (2011) pro-vide a useful measure of the strategic and organi-zational aspects of mindfulness. At the same time,by taking this focus, they highlight the need for amore detailed understanding of how mindful-ness is enacted at the department and work-group levels. The resulting gap is filled by workthat captures the acts of organizing constitutingmindfulness.

Mindful Organizing

Mindful organizing, as contrasted with organiza-tional mindfulness, represents a dynamic processcomprising specific ongoing actions rather than anenduring organizational characteristic. That is,mindful organizing is a social process (McPhee,Myers, & Trethewey, 2006) that relies on extensiveand continuous real-time communication and in-

724 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

teractions that occur in briefings, meetings, up-dates, and in teams’ ongoing work (Schulman,1993; Weick et al., 1999). Research on mindful orga-nizing makes three different claims (Vogus & Sut-cliffe, 2007a; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007): (1) it resultsfrom bottom-up processes; (2) it enacts the contextfor thinking and action on the front line; and (3) it isrelatively fragile and needs to be continuously re-accomplished. As such, mindful organizing is afunction of the behaviors carried out by organiza-tional members, especially those on the front line.For example, preoccupation with failure manifestsas articulating the mistakes you don’t want tomake (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Reluctance to sim-plify interpretations is an ongoing discussion ofwhat’s being ignored and taken-for-granted (Weicket al., 1999: 95). Developing an integrated big pic-ture of operations in the moment (i.e., sensitivity tooperations) is a shared accomplishment groundedin social and interactive processes (Roth, 1997).Mindful organizing is also more fragile than orga-nizational mindfulness, in part because organizingroutines unfold in slightly different ways each timethey are enacted (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Weicket al., 1999). This means processes of mindful orga-nizing must be continuously reconstituted (Weick& Sutcliffe, 2007).

Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007a, 2007b) assessed andvalidated a single-factor scale of mindful organiz-ing in a study of hospital nursing units. Their mea-sure consisted of nine items that assessed the de-gree to which members of a workgroup collectivelyengaged in behaviors representing the five pro-cesses of mindfulness (e.g., preoccupation withfailure: “When giving report to an oncoming nurse,we usually discuss what to look out for,” see Vogus& Sutcliffe, 2007a for all nine items). In addition toestablishing the measure’s reliability and validity,they also demonstrated the collective nature of theconstruct by assessing the extent to which individ-ual responses could be aggregated to the unitlevel. They further demonstrated criterion validityby finding that higher levels of mindful organizingwere associated with fewer medication errors andpatient falls over time in 95 nursing units.

The literature on mindful organizing suggests itonly exists to the extent that it is collectively en-

acted (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Vogus & Sutcliffe,2007a, 2007b; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). One way toassess the extent to which a set of behaviors arecustomarily enacted is whether there are sharedperceptions regarding the prevalence of the be-haviors (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Behaviorsand perceptions of them can converge and co-alesce for at least two reasons. First, bottom-upattraction–selection–attrition processes (Schneider,1987) can increase the similarity in members’ mind-ful organizing by favoring the selection and retentionof new members who engage in similar levels of thebehaviors. Second, task interdependence or eventime working together can facilitate the homogeniz-ing effects of social influence and social learning byoffering ongoing opportunities for work-related inter-actions (Ryan, Schmit, & Johnson, 1996; Salancik &Pfeffer, 1978). Thus, mindful organizing and the per-ception of it are more likely to emerge as sharedthroughout a workgroup or department. Conversely,fragmented perceptions of ongoing behavior on thefront lines provide strong evidence for low levels ofmindful organizing (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007a). Inother words, fragmentation suggests that richerthinking is not “activated more quickly among agreater number of people all of whom try to updatewhat they know regardless of its source” (quoted inRay et al., 2011: 188; Weick, 2009).

WHERE IS ORGANIZATIONAL MINDFULNESSMOST IMPORTANT?

Ray and colleagues (2011) provocatively encourageus to revisit the issue of where mindfulness is mostimportant. Weick and colleagues (1999) initiallyargued that organizational mindfulness is neces-sary “where ugly surprises are most likely to showup” (90). In business schools, ugly surprises seemto be most visible and relevant to top administra-tors (Ray et al., 2011). As such, they are the groupfor which mindfulness is most important. They ar-gue, for example, that top administrators ensurereliability by engaging in thoughtful action to de-velop programs consistent with the college’sunique circumstances and identity rather thansimply mimicking other “top” programs (Ray et al.,2011: 199). Their argument implies that top admin-istrators should engage in more “mindful scan-ning” that entails an expanded search that is rel-evant to current organizational conditions butseeks out contradictory information and scans onthe fringes of current operations (Fiol & O’Connor,2003). Such scanning could result in fewer “band-wagon” changes (e.g., adopting management fads;Fiol & O’Connor, 2003). In addition, practices suchas constructing teams comprised of individuals

[M]indful organizing is a function of thebehaviors carried out by organizationalmembers, especially those on thefront line.


with the ability and willingness to contradict thedean or otherwise provide candid feedback canhelp to overcome “Dean’s disease” or the tendencyto develop a sense of superiority that silences di-alogue and dissent (Bedeian, 2002).

However, an unintended consequence of restrict-ing organizational mindfulness to the upper eche-lons may be that the organization overall becomesless mindful. Perceptions of organizational mind-fulness (especially mindfulness of the top admin-istrators) can specifically undermine front-line em-ployees’ mindful organizing. This was evident, forexample, in the Cerro Grande wildfire outside ofSanta Fe New Mexico, where many wildland fire-fighters on the front line ignored signals of disas-ter and failed to defer to their own expertise. In-stead “the sheer power of [legendary firefighterPaul] Gleason’s expertise led others on the sceneto let up in their monitoring of the situation in thebelief that if something were amiss, a person ofGleason’s stature would surely catch it” (Weick &Sutcliffe, 2007: 16). Barton and Sutcliffe (2009) simi-larly found that deference to reputation or experi-ence actually made wildland firefighting crewsless mindful by suppressing discussion and ren-dering them less able to detect and correct unex-pected events (see Blatt, Christianson, Sutcliffe, &Rosenthal, 2006, for similar dynamics in healthcare). Excessive deference to authority can also bea consequence of the Dean’s disease, as the innercircle of top administrators unintentionally createsa protective cocoon around the dean that shieldsout reality (Bedeian, 2002).

Ray and colleagues (2011) recognize this limita-tion of centralized organizational mindfulness andask “might there be a unique role for middle man-agers in the development of organizational mind-fulness?” (198). This question is critical and onethat Paul Schulman and Emery Roe have beengrappling with in recent years. Roe and Schulman(2008) find that “reliability professionals” (i.e.,midlevel managers such as technical departmentheads) play a crucial role in creating organiza-tional mindfulness by reconciling the need for an-ticipation and careful causal analysis with theneed for flexibility and improvisation in the face ofunexpected change (64). These middle managersoperate in a unique space, driven by the combina-tion of pattern recognition (i.e., sizing up a situa-tion and connecting it to broader models andschema), and scenario formulation (i.e., developingflexible protocols that encompass a range of po-tential situations). That is, they act as the bridgebetween organizational mindfulness and mindfulorganizing by translating real-time data from the

front lines for top administrators and creatingstructures that can guide front-line action.

Traditionally, research on organizational mind-fulness and high reliability has focused on front-line operators as especially critical in creating or-ganizational mindfulness. Weick and Sutcliffe(2007) captured this sentiment when they notedthat “HROs make an effort to see what people withgreasy hands know” (77). The people with greasyhands and maintenance crews (Weick et al., 1999)have been seen as so important because they arethe ones most likely to observe the early, weaksignals of problems to come. Vogus and Sutcliffe(2007a) have also demonstrated that mindful orga-nizing by front-line employees (registered nurses)has a significant positive impact on organizationalreliability. In the business school context, admis-sions staff at recruiting events might be best posi-tioned to be preoccupied with failure and look outfor early warning signs that a college’s offeringsno longer resonate with new applicants.

Where and how mindfulness is most importantdepends upon the potential sources of the “uglysurprises.” That is, those areas in the organiza-tion’s environment posing the greatest threats toreliability. For example, when the surprises aremost likely to be strategic issues (e.g., new com-petitors, raising money) organizational mindful-ness is especially crucial. When issues at the in-tersection of strategy and operations (e.g., losingfaculty) loom large, the middle managers (i.e., de-partment heads) who work with the dean’s officeneed to be especially mindful. When operationalissues (e.g., student satisfaction) pose the largestthreat, mindful organizing on the front lines of theclassroom and the day-to-day administration ofthe college would be most necessary.

However, for mindfulness to produce strategicand operational reliability, it needs to operateacross organizational levels. That is, both organi-zational mindfulness and mindful organizing arenecessary. In other words, it is not enough to focuson senior managers, middle managers, or front-line employees in isolation. Organizational mind-fulness must be created by top administrators,synchronized across levels by middle managers(Ocasio, 2011; Rerup, 2009), and translated into ac-tion on the front line.

HOW SHOULD ORGANIZATIONAL MINDFULNESSBE MEASURED?

Ray and colleagues (2011) have carefully devel-oped and validated their measure of organiza-tional mindfulness. It stands out for its ability todifferentiate the five processes that constitute or-


ganizational mindfulness and their validationstands out for its testing of multiple models. Wenoted earlier that Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007a) pre-viously validated a 1-factor measure of mindfulorganizing as well as demonstrated that it is per-ceived similarly by members of a workgroup. Asingle-factor model has a theoretical basis fromthe earliest work of Weick and colleagues (1999),asserting that mindful organizing is a joint func-tion of all five processes.

Rather than asserting that there is an “ideal”index of organizational mindfulness, we arguethat each of these measures captures importantnuances that distinguish organizational mindful-ness and mindful organizing, respectively, andpresents unique strengths for explaining organiza-tional outcomes. Ray and colleagues’ (2011) mea-sure of organizational mindfulness should be es-pecially useful for investigating the strategic andorganizational outcomes of mindfulness such asreputation (e.g., business school rankings), endow-ment growth, and market innovation (developingnew degrees and programs). More specifically, therelationship between organizational mindfulnessand business school reputation might entail morecareful attention to stakeholder concerns that re-sults in earlier detection of emerging signs of dis-satisfaction (e.g., concerns with the ethical impli-cations of the business school curriculum). In arelated manner, organizational mindfulness mayalso result in a business school not only attendingand responding to rankings, but also focusing on“higher order goals,” such as simultaneously cre-ating wealth and well-being for students and so-ciety (Giacalone, 2009). As a measure of each of thefive constituent processes of organizational mind-fulness, Ray and colleagues’ (2011) measure is wellsuited to assess the relative impact of each sub-component, and, as they suggest, optimal configu-rations of these components (198). It may also be auseful measure for tracking the impact of organi-zational mindfulness on more fine-grained out-comes. Specifically, preoccupation with failure,

reluctance to simplify interpretations, and sensi-tivity to operations should result in businessschools that are able to avert crises because theyare closely connected to relevant stakeholders andare more likely to be early adopters of program-matic innovations that bolster reputation and rev-enue. Commitment to resilience or deference toexpertise would be well-suited to assess the speedand depth of the action taken in response to unex-pected changes in the composition of businessschool rankings or a school’s relative position inthe rankings. Further empirical investigation oforganizational mindfulness in business schoolswould also be useful because it could help clarifywhen all five aspects of organizational mindful-ness are needed (as in traditional HROs), whensubsets are needed, or when a single aspect issufficient.

Prior research has linked Vogus and Sutcliffe’s(2007a, 2007b) measure of mindful organizing withoperational outcomes in health care, specificallywith fewer medication errors and patient falls.With respect to business schools, we would expectmindful organizing to similarly affect operationaloutcomes. For example, mindful organizing couldbe associated with anticipating changes in re-cruiter or student preferences such that enrollmenttargets continue to be met, or regular curricularinnovation occurs to ensure student and recruitersatisfaction. Mindful organizing should also en-able swift responses to unexpected events (e.g., a1-year drop in enrollment or student placement). Atthe same time mindful organizing should facilitatecloser attention to student learning (and concernabout what students fail to learn) and engaging inpractices that ensure it, such as collaboratingacross courses, questioning the assumptions madein the curriculum, and building in mechanisms forfeedback within courses (e.g., midcourse evalua-tions) or a curriculum (e.g., town hall meetings)that enable organizational learning and growcapabilities.

In sum, we have used Ray and colleagues’ (2011)development and validation of a measure of orga-nizational mindfulness as an occasion for rethink-ing the domain of research on mindfulness as wellas variations on the construct and its implications.We have argued specifically that organizationalmindfulness creates the context for mindful actionthrough leader-driven top-down processes that in-here in relatively stable organizational structuresand practices. Middle managers serve to translatethis strategic-level organizational mindfulnessinto more operational terms. In turn, organiza-tional mindfulness shapes the behaviors of em-ployees in the form of more mindful organizing.

[I]t is not enough to focus on seniormanagers, middle managers, or front-line employees in isolation.Organizational mindfulness must becreated by top administrators,synchronized across levels by middlemanagers (Ocasio, 2011; Rerup, 2009), andtranslated into action on the front line.


Organizational mindfulness and mindful orga-nizing have strategic and operational benefits,respectively. Organizational mindfulness meansleaders signal the importance of mindfulness toemployees, which, in turn, motivates them to actmore mindfully. Madsen and colleagues (Mad-sen, Desai, Roberts, & Wong, 2006) offer sugges-tive evidence from a pediatric intensive care unitthat supports these arguments. They found lead-ers’ practices of organizational mindfulness (e.g.,interdisciplinary rounding) resulted in mindfulorganizing and more reliable patient care. Wefurther argue that mindful organizing on thefront line creates a feedback loop to organiza-tional mindfulness such that higher levels ofmindful organizing reinforce the structures andprocesses of organizational mindfulness. Mind-ful organizing can also increase organizationalmindfulness by refining processes, routines, andstructures that are then provided to and imple-mented by an organization’s top administrators.These proposed relationships are illustrated inFigure 1.

FUTURE RESEARCH

We have offered a model that attempts to integratethe emerging literatures on organizational mind-fulness and mindful organizing, but many impor-tant conceptual and empirical questions remain.We now turn to outlining a research agenda toguide future development. A number of researchquestions follow from our analysis. For example,what are the individual and organizational ante-cedents of organizational mindfulness and mind-ful organizing? In other words, why might non-HROssuch as business schools pursue organizationalmindfulness and mindful organizing? How do orga-nizational routines influence organizational mind-fulness and mindful organizing? How do Eastern orWestern forms of individual mindfulness affect or-ganizational mindfulness and mindful organizing?How does organizational mindfulness affect arange of organizational outcomes? What are theeffects of mindful organizing on individual em-ployee outcomes? In the following paragraphs, weconsider these questions and offer suggestions for

Top Administrator

Front Line

Middle Manager

OperationalOutcomes

MindfulOrganizing

StrategicOutcomes

OrganizationMindfulness

Improves

Improves

Rei

nfor

ce o

r re

fine

Tra

nsla

tes Enables

Translates

FIGURE 1Reconciling Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing


how one might investigate them within the contextof business schools.

What Are the Individual and OrganizationalAntecedents of Organizational Mindfulness andMindful Organizing?

Organizational mindfulness and mindful organiz-ing are potentially costly strategies because theyrequire broader and deeper attention to weak sig-nals (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Ray et al., 2011; Re-rup, 2005; Vogus & Welbourne, 2003). For HROs andother organizations in high-risk industries, mind-fulness is worth any cost because the costs of fail-ure are often catastrophic. However, businessschools are unlikely to cause harm on the scale ofan oil spill or nuclear meltdown. In other words,the costs of lapses in mindfulness are much morediffuse. Given these conditions, why would a busi-ness school or other reliability-seeking organiza-tion choose to be mindful?

Weick and colleagues (1999) postulate “thechoice by mainstream organizations to pursue[mindful] organizing in the absence of obviousthreats may ultimately be an issue of identity andappropriateness (who do we want to be and howdo we want to go about our business), rather thanan issue of reality and consequentiality” (March &Olsen, 1989: 114). That is, organizational mindful-ness may be an important expression of organiza-tional identity for business schools. And leaderscan play a key role in imprinting or altering suchan identity (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Transforma-tional leadership is a leadership style that specif-ically holds potential for imprinting organizationalmindfulness and influencing mindful organizing.The commitment to employee welfare and empow-erment characteristic of a transformational styleenables employees to think, apply their knowledge(e.g., speak up), and learn by doing. For example,in a study of trauma units, Yun and colleaguesfound that applying an empowering approach dur-ing low-to-moderate-severity trauma events re-sulted in greater learning by team members with-out compromising patient safety (Yun, Faraj, &Sims, 2005). As such, empowering transformationalleadership may both create a context of organiza-

tional mindfulness and enable the processes ofmindful organizing. In addition, high-quality lead-er–member exchange (LMX) relationships arelikely to create contexts like organizational mind-fulness with a richer and more elaborate set of rolebehaviors for employees to enact (Hofmann,Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003). High-quality LMX rela-tionships also make it more likely that the moreopen and constructive communication of mindfulorganizing will result (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999).

Thus, it would be useful to explore what leads abusiness school to embrace organizational mind-fulness. One way to answer this question would beto survey business school deans on transforma-tional leadership and LMX and assess their impacton organizational mindfulness and mindful orga-nizing. To discover additional factors that mightcontribute to organizational mindfulness, onemight qualitatively examine business schools withhigh and low levels of organizational mindfulnessby interviewing deans to ascertain why theschools engage in these practices. In addition, itwould be interesting to look at the backgrounds ofdeans of business schools with high levels of or-ganizational mindfulness. Weick and Sutcliffe(2001) assert that generalists (e.g., people with op-erational and managerial experience) are morelikely and better able to cultivate organizationalmindfulness. An example of such a generalistmight be a dean who has managerial experiencein the business world as well as a doctorate andexperience as an academic.

In addition to leader-driven antecedents, organi-zational mindfulness and mindful organizing alsomay be influenced by characteristics of the orga-nization. Ray and colleagues (2011) assert thatwithin business schools organizational mindful-ness is inherently fragmented due to role special-ization. Middle managers and top managers at-tend to fundamentally different issues (e.g.,operational vs. strategic), in different ways (humanvs. conceptual; Beck & Plowman, 2009; Dearborn &Simon, 1958; Rerup, 2009). Their results provide ini-tial support for this position in that they find thatdeans, associate deans, and department chairs dif-fer with respect to their perceptions of organizationmindfulness. At the same time they also find somesuggestive evidence of shared perceptions withinroles (e.g., among associate deans; Ray et al., 2011).

Organizations exhibiting fragmented mindful-ness across levels pose a special challenge to the-ory and research on organizational mindfulness.Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) argue that “in the worstcase, the emerging picture will be fragmented,with people at certain levels or in particular func-tions or units giving answers that suggest they

Given these conditions, why would abusiness school or other reliability-seeking organization choose to bemindful?


have a rich set of mindful processes in place andothers giving answers that suggest mindlessnessis more the norm” (104). In other words, fragmenta-tion challenges the level of organizational mind-fulness an organization possesses. In addition torole specialization, we argue that task interdepen-dence and organizational size can also contributeto varying levels of organizational mindfulnessand mindful organizing.

First, organizational mindfulness and mindfulorganizing are critical when task interdependenceis higher rather than lower. Low task interdepen-dence makes the difficult and effortful work of or-ganizational mindfulness and mindful organizingless necessary because decisions and actionsdon’t need to be as tightly aligned and coordi-nated. It may be useful to recall that the originaltheory and principles of organizational mindful-ness were derived from the highly interdependentwork in HROs (e.g., Weick & Roberts, 1993) andmight not generalize to more loosely coupled orga-nizations (e.g., educational institutions, Weick,1976, or hospitals, Sexton, Helmreich, & Thomas,2000) or situations where task interdependence islow. Consequently, future research should con-sider the role of interdependence in shaping thelevels of organizational mindfulness and mindfulorganizing. It is also possible, however, that suchresearch might reveal that low task interdepen-dence can result in high levels of organizationalmindfulness because organizational mindfulnessprimarily relies on the actions of a relatively smallcadre of key administrators. For example, in aloosely coupled educational organization (Weick,1976) like a business school, the dean may be theprimary driver of what the college is doing (and theonly one who can assess it; see Glick, Huber,Miller, Doty, & Sutcliffe, 1990) as associate deans,department chairs, faculty and staff have muchmore local views and constrained roles (Hambrick& Mason, 1984).

Second, organizational size may influence orga-nizational mindfulness and mindful organizing insimilar ways. Both may emerge and persist morereadily in smaller “organizations” like nuclearpower control rooms, wildland firefighting crews,or airplane cockpits. In contrast, as organizationsgrow in size (e.g., a firefighting crew grows into anincident command system), organizational mind-fulness can become fragmented and even degrade(Bigley & Roberts, 2001). Findings by Vogus andSutcliffe (2007a) provide support for these ideas inthat larger nursing units demonstrated lower lev-els of mindful organizing. Thus, in the absence ofpractices to manage the effects of size, we wouldexpect to observe more fragmentation and lower

levels of organizational mindfulness and mindfulorganizing in larger organizations. For example, itwould be interesting to see if there was actuallyvariation in organizational mindfulness depend-ing on the size of the business school examined byRay and colleagues (2011).

How Do Organizational Routines InfluenceOrganizational Mindfulness andMindful Organizing?

The relationship between routines and organiza-tional mindfulness has been a source of recentdebate in the literatures on organizational mind-fulness and mindful organizing (Levinthal & Re-rup, 2006; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). Traditionally,routines have been seen as mindless (e.g., Langer,1989). However, more recent work suggests thatorganizational mindfulness can be embodied inroutines (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006). In other words,organizational mindfulness derives, in part, fromthe breadth and richness of well-rehearsed rou-tines. More specifically, routines create a contextfor organizational mindfulness by setting expec-tations for what should occur (Salvato & Rerup,2011). For example, Rerup (2009) describes NovoNordisk’s Novo Way of Management as a tool forcreating and sustaining organizational mindful-ness over time.

The Novo Way of Management—a commitmentto openness, continuous learning, and dialogue—utilizes routines including regular organizationalaudits and “facilitation” sessions to coordinate at-tention to weak signals across the organizationand otherwise enhance organizational mindful-ness (Rerup, 2009). In a set of waste managementorganizations, Turner and Rindova (2012) find thatroutines increase organizational mindfulness tothe extent they operate as general guidelinesrather than exact procedures. Thus, routines seemlikely to foster organizational mindfulness whenthey set expectations that help individuals discernthreatening deviations (Rerup, 2009; Weick & Rob-erts, 1993) or act as general guidelines that bal-ance mindful consideration while preserving co-herence to ensure swift action.

Routines figure prominently in mindful organiz-ing as well. Mindful organizing derives from theexistence of a rich repertoire of routines that anorganization or workgroup can both draw uponand recombine to respond to unexpected events(Bigley & Roberts, 2001; Christianson, Farkas, Sut-cliffe, & Weick, 2009; Schulman, 1993). In addition,processes of mindful organizing can influence or-ganizational mindfulness specifically by becom-ing routines that can be deployed across the orga-


nization (e.g., the audits and facilitation of theNovo Way of Management (Rerup, 2009). As Rayand colleagues (2011) suggest, business school ac-creditation processes provide an excellent contextfor examining the relationship between routines,organizational mindfulness, and mindful organiz-ing. There is some evidence that the infrequentand highly formalized process of accreditation un-dermines organizational mindfulness. However, itis also possible that accreditation could providethe impetus and occasion for mindful action re-garding curriculum and mission that might other-wise be neglected (Romero, 2008; Zammuto, 2008).Thus, we posit that accreditation processes aremore likely to increase organizational mindfulnessto the extent that accreditation is viewed as ageneral guideline and a mechanism for attendingto weak signals. We also argue that higher levelsof mindful organizing make it more likely that abusiness school will use its accreditation processmore mindfully. In other words, business schoolaccreditation processes tend to drive organizationstoward formalization, documentation for account-ability, hard data, and incremental (and surface)improvements, (Julian & Ofori-Dankwa, 2006). Incontrast, we assert mindful organizing will tend torebalance the process such that a business schoolretains flexibility, focuses on real-time interaction,attends to weak signals captured in qualitativedata, and engages in deeper improvements thatquestion long-held assumptions.

How Does Individual Mindfulness InfluenceOrganizational Mindfulness andMindful Organizing?

Our earlier discussion of individual mindfulnessand its relationship to organizational mindfulnessand mindful organizing suggests interesting direc-tions for future conceptual and empirical work.First, under what conditions does individual mind-fulness lead to mindful organizing? Is it a directrelationship whereby greater levels of individualmindfulness (e.g., the Mindful Attention Aware-ness scale [MAAS] of Brown & Ryan, 2003) lead tohigher levels of mindful organizing? Or does indi-vidual mindfulness lead to mindful organizingonly when other traits (e.g., extraversion) or taskexpertise (Dane, 2011) that facilitate the social pro-cesses that comprise mindful organizing are prev-alent? Would individual mindfulness similarly re-sult in mindful organizing only when workcharacteristics (e.g., task interdependence), or rou-tines are in place (e.g., protocols for interaction)which ensure that individual insights are sociallyshared?

Second, how does individual mindfulness affectorganizational mindfulness? More specifically,how widespread must individual mindfulness beto result in organizational mindfulness? Fiol andO’Connor (2003) suggest that organizational mind-fulness is a function of senior managers that scanmore broadly and question interpretations. Thus,the individual mindfulness of top administratorswould seem to be especially important. What pro-portion of top team members (i.e., dean and asso-ciate deans) need to possess high levels of individ-ual mindfulness to result in organizationalmindfulness? Moreover, which form of individualmindfulness (Western or Eastern) has greater im-pact on the emergence of mindful organizing andorganizational mindfulness? Answering this ques-tion would also provide an opportunity to empiri-cally distinguish Eastern mindfulness, Westernmindfulness, organizational mindfulness, andmindful organizing. If individual mindfulness isestablished as an antecedent of organizationalmindfulness and mindful organizing, it would beuseful to explore the extent to which routines ofmindful practice generate individual and organi-zational mindfulness among top administrators.Sadler-Smith and Shefy (2007) provide some evi-dence that training programs could instil individ-ual mindfulness.

What Are the Organizational Outcomes ofOrganizational Mindfulness andMindful Organizing?

There is emerging qualitative (Bigley & Roberts,2001; Madsen et al., 2006; Rerup, 2009) and quanti-tative (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007a, 2007b) evidencethat mindful organizing is related to reliability andsafety. However, it may be useful to expand theconceptual and empirical linkages between orga-nizational mindfulness and mindful organizingand a wider array of outcomes. Specifically, doorganizational mindfulness and mindful organiz-ing affect opportunity (e.g., successfully enteringnew markets, introducing new innovations) as wellas threat-related outcomes (Rerup & Salvato, 2012)?For example, an important change in the deliveryof education has been the emergence of distancelearning and competition from on-line and corpo-rate universities (Julian & Ofori-Dankwa, 2006). Doschools with higher levels of organizational mind-fulness incorporate new modes of instruction (e.g.,distance learning) earlier and more completely?Are they able to detect and respond to marketopportunities and otherwise adapt more quickly?There is suggestive evidence that organizationalmindfulness is associated with innovation (Vogus


& Welbourne, 2003), but this relationship requiresfurther and more direct examination.

Both the conceptual and empirical literatureshave mostly posited and found that organizationalmindfulness has a positive linear relationshipwith outcomes. However, there is some evidencethat organizational mindfulness may have dimin-ishing returns in particular contexts. In a qualita-tive study of habitual entrepreneurs, Rerup (2005)found that organizational mindfulness contributesto their success, but that too much mindfulnesshad negative impacts on their ability to act (i.e., toomuch preoccupation with failure was paralyzing).Business schools might impose a different bound-ary condition on organizational mindfulness inthat it may be most beneficial cyclically. That is,issues that need to be addressed mindfully mightbe most prevalent at the beginnings and ends ofsemesters (when student and curricular problemsbecome most visible) or when various rankings arereleased (and provide an indicator of the businessschool’s perceived health).

We previously described how individual mind-fulness might impact organizational mindfulnessand mindful organizing, but it would also beworthwhile to explore the effects of individualmindfulness on performance outcomes. Is the indi-vidual mindfulness of top administrators sufficientto secure the operational benefits of organizationalmindfulness? If so, what proportion of administra-tors needs to be mindful? Moreover, under whatconditions might individual mindfulness captureall the performance benefits of organizationalmindfulness and mindful organizing? For in-stance, individual mindfulness might be sufficientfor organizational performance when task interde-pendence is low. Examining these questions wouldprovide important insight into whether hiring mind-ful managers or selecting mindful employees areviable substitutes for mindful organizing.

What Are the Individual Outcomes ofMindful Organizing?

At this early stage in its development, little isknown about the subjective experience of workingin contexts with high levels of organizationalmindfulness or engaging in mindful organizing.Although it is rarely acknowledged, organizationalmindfulness and mindful organizing are effortfuland costly (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Vogus & Wel-bourne, 2003). Mindful organizing, in particular, iscostly in the sustained commitment and effort itdemands from employees on the front line (Roe &Schulman, 2008). High commitment and effort cou-pled with the potential hazards inherent in the

work can result in employee exhaustion and turn-over. However, it is possible that mindful organiz-ing may reduce the likelihood of turnover becauseit provides a great deal of social support and re-sources that improve the experience of work andenhance performance. These competing hypothe-ses merit further exploration.

There may also be a reciprocal relationship be-tween affective commitment (Meyer, Allen, &Smith, 1993) to an organization and mindful orga-nizing over time. Affective commitment to an orga-nization might lead an individual, and to the ex-tent commitment is shared, groups, to engage inthe types of discretionary behaviors that comprisemindful organizing. It is also plausible that, overtime, mindful organizing can influence affectivecommitment to an organization. That is, engagingin mindful organizing and its intense focus on de-livering highly reliable performance may corre-spond with the deeply held organizational valuesthat inspired individuals to join the organization.As such, mindful organizing would increase affec-tive commitment to the organization.

It is equally possible that normative commit-ment (i.e., feeling one ought to remain in theorganization; Meyer et al., 1993) might also be anoutgrowth of mindful organizing. As mindful or-ganizing is consistent with organizational idealsand values (e.g., ensuring highly reliable educa-tional outcomes for students and operationaloutcomes for schools), it is possible that it couldgenerate normative commitment in the form of amoral duty rather than indebtedness (Meyer &Parfyonova, 2010) and lead employees to fulfiltheir obligations to their organization (e.g., by us-ing all of their skills, collaborating with coworkerson curriculum changes, and staying up-to-date onnew knowledge in their field and the businessschool environment). Mindful organizing may alsogenerate a commitment profile—for example, si-multaneously high levels of affective and norma-tive commitment—that in turn drives subsequentdiscretionary behaviors like mindful organizing(Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006; Wasti, 2005).Therefore, the effects of mindful organizing onmultiple forms of commitment to an organizationmight also further reinforce and deepen the pro-cesses of mindful organizing over time. We sum-marize the research agenda in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Ray and colleagues’ (2011) study makes severalvaluable contributions to our understanding of or-ganizational mindfulness. It begins to address un-derexplored and conflicting aspects of prior theo-


rizing on organizational mindfulness. Perhapsmore importantly, by developing and validatingtheir measure of organizational mindfulness, theirstudy heightens latent tensions in the mindfulnessliterature and highlights avenues for future re-search. We have used their work as an occasion forreconciling the literature by both differentiatingand reconciling organizational mindfulness andmindful organizing, establishing where organiza-tional mindfulness and mindful organizing aremost important, and clarifying how and when or-ganizational mindfulness and mindful organizingcan be most fruitfully deployed in research andpractice. Clearer theorizing leads to a set of re-search questions that seek to clarify the construct,its individual and organizational antecedents, andits consequences for individuals and organiza-tions. We hope our dialogue with Ray and col-leagues’ (2011) excellent contribution can advancethe integration of organizational mindfulness intomainstream organization theory and increase itsrelevance for business schools.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. L. 2010. IT is risky business: Three essays onensuring reliability, security, and privacy in technology-mediated settings. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofMaryland, College Park, MD.

Barton, M. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2009. Overcoming dysfunctionalmomentum: Organizational safety as a social achievement.Human Relations, 62: 1327–1356.

Beck, T. E., & Plowman, D. A. 2009. Experiencing rare and un-usual events richly: The role of middle managers in ani-mating and guiding organizational interpretation. Organi-zation Science, 20: 909–924.

Bedeian, A. G. 2002. The Dean’s disease: How the darker side ofpower manifests itself in the office of the Dean. Academy ofManagement Learning and Education, 1: 164–173.

Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. 2001. The incident commandsystem: High-reliability organizing for complex and vola-tile task environments. Academy of Management Journal,44: 1281–1300.

Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Rosenthal, M. M.2006. A sensemaking lens on reliability. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 27: 897–917.

TABLE 1A Research Agenda for Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing

Category Research question Proposed relationships

Individual and organizationalantecedents of organizationalmindfulness

Why do organizations pursue organizationalmindfulness?

• Leader identity• Empowering transformational leadership• Role specialization• High task interdependence/Low task

interdependence (competing hypotheses)• Routines that set expectations or act as

general guidelinesHow does individual mindfulness influence

organizational mindfulness?• Individual mindfulness of top managers

When is individual mindfulness a substitutefor organizational mindfulness?

• Low task interdependence

Individual and organizationalantecedents of mindfulorganizing

Why does mindful organizing emerge? • Empowering transformational leadership• High-quality LMX• Task interdependence• Smaller organization size• Preexisting stock of routines• Affective organizational commitment

Under what conditions does individualmindfulness influence mindfulorganizing?

• Individual mindfulness• Individual mindfulnessa extraversion• Individual mindfulnessa task expertise

Consequences of organizationalmindfulness

How does organizational mindfulness affectorganizational outcomes?

• Opportunity outcomes (new market entry,innovation)

• Curvilinear relationship (at moderatelevels)

• Timing (at the beginning/end ofsemesters)

Consequences of mindfulorganizing

How does mindful organizing affectindividual outcomes?

• Reduce burnout and turnover• Increase affective and normative

organizational commitment• High affective and normative

commitment profile

a Indicates multiplication as in an interaction effect between individual mindfulness and task expertise.


Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. 2003. The benefits of being present:Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 822–848.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. 2007. Mindfulness:Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary ef-fects. Psychological Inquiry, 18: 211–237.

Christianson, M. K., Farkas, M. T., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E.2009. Learning through rare events: Significant interrup-tions at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum. Organiza-tion Science, 20: 846–860.

Dane, E. 2011. Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects ontask performance in the workplace. Journal of Manage-ment, 37: 997–1018.

Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Selective perception: A noteon the departmental identification of executives. Sociome-try, 21: 140–144.

Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing orga-nizational routines as a source of flexibility and change.Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118.

Fiol, M., & O’Connor, E. J. 2003. Waking up! Mindfulness in theface of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review, 28:54–70.

Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. 2006. Combinedeffects of the three commitment components on focal anddiscretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’spropositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 331–345.

Giacalone, R. A. 2009. Academic ranking in research institu-tions: A case of skewed mind-sets and professional amne-sia. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8:122–126.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiv-ing in strategic change initiation. Strategic ManagementJournal, 12: 433–448.

Glick, W. H., Huber, G. P., Miller, C. C., Doty, D. H., & Sutcliffe,K. M. 1990. Studying changes in organizational design andeffectiveness: Retrospective event histories and periodicassessments. Organization Science, 1: 293–312.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: Theorganization as a reflection of its top managers. Academyof Management Review, 9: 193–206.

Hede, A. 2010. The dynamics of mindfulness in managing emo-tions and stress. Journal of Management Development, 29:94–110.

Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. 1999. Safety-related behavioras a social exchange: The role of perceived organizationalsupport and leader-member exchange. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84: 286–296.

Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. 2003. Climate asa moderator of the relationship between leader-memberexchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climateas an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 170–178.

Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. 2006. Is accreditation good forthe strategic decision making of traditional businessschools? Academy of Management Learning and Educa-tion, 5: 225–233.

Katz-Navon, T., Naveh, E., & Stern, Z. 2005. Safety climate inhealthcare organizations: A multidimensional approach.Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1073–1087.

Langer, E. J. 1989. Mindfulness. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Langer, E. J. 2009. Counterclockwise: Mindful health and thepower of possibility. New York: Ballantine Books.

Levinthal, D. A., & Rerup, C. 2006. Crossing an apparent chasm:Bridging mindful and less mindful perspectives on organi-zational learning. Organization Science, 17: 502–513.

Madsen, P. M., Desai, V. M., Roberts, K. H., & Wong, D. 2006.Mitigating hazards through continuing design: The birthand evolution of a pediatric intensive care unit. Organiza-tion Science, 17: 239–248.

March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizationallearning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: Theorganizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

McPhee, R. D., Myers, K. K., & Trethewey, A. 2006. On collectivemind and conversational analysis: Response to Cooren.Management Communications Quarterly, 19: 311–326.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. 1993. Commitment toorganizations and occupations: Extension and test of athree-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 78: 538–551.

Meyer, J. P., & Parfyonova, N. M. 2010. Normative commitment inthe workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualiza-tion. Human Resource Management Review, 20: 283–294.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure of collectiveconstructs: Implications for multilevel research and theorydevelopment. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249–265.

Ocasio, W. 2011. Attention to attention. Organization Science,22: 1286–1296.

Ray, J. L., Baker, L. T., & Plowman, D. A. 2011. Organizationalmindfulness in business schools. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 10: 188–203.

Rerup, C. 2005. Learning from past experience: Footnotes onmindfulness and habitual entrepreneurship. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 21: 451–472.

Rerup, C. 2009. Attentional triangulation: Learning from unex-pected rare crises. Organization Science, 20: 876–893.

Rerup, C., & Salvato, C. 2012. The role of attention triangulationin organizational learning processes. In N. Seel, (Ed.), En-cyclopedia of the sciences of learning: 2882–2886. New York:Springer Science.

Roe, E., & Schulman, P. R. 2008. High reliability management:Operating on the edge. Stanford, CA: Stanford BusinessBooks.

Romero, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing facultyconcerns. Academy of Management Learning and Educa-tion, 7: 245–255.

Roth, E. M. 1997. Analysis of decision making in nuclear powerplant emergencies: An investigation of aided decision mak-ing. In C. Zsambok & G. Klein, (Eds.), Naturalistic decisionmaking: 175–182. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. 1996. Attitudes andeffectiveness: Examining relations at an organizationallevel. Personnel Psychology, 49: 853–882.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Shefy, E. 2007. Developing intuitive aware-ness in management education. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 6: 186–206.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information process-ing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 23: 224–253.


Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. 2011. Beyond collective entities: Multi-level research on organizational routines and capabilities.Journal of Management, 37: 468–490.

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psy-chology, 40: 437–453.

Schulman, P. R. 1993. The negotiated order of organizationalreliability. Administration and Society, 25: 353–372.

Scott, W. R. 1994. Open peer commentaries on “accidents inhigh-risk systems”. Technology Studies, 1: 23–25.

Sexton, J. B., Thomas, E. J., & Helmreich, R. L. 2000. Error, stress,and teamwork in medicine and aviation: Cross sectionalsurveys. BMJ, 320: 745–749.

Turner, S. F., & Rindova, V. 2012. A balancing act: How organi-zations pursue consistency in routine functioning in theface of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23: 24–46

Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2007a. The safety organizing scale:Development and validation of a behavioral measure ofsafety culture in hospital nursing units. Medical Care, 45:46–54.

Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2007b. The impact of safety orga-nizing, trusted leadership, and care pathways on reportedmedication errors in hospital nursing units. Medical Care,45: 997–1002.

Vogus, T. J., & Welbourne, T. M. 2003. Structuring for high reli-ability: HR practices and mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,24: 877–903.

Waller, M. J. 1999. The timing of adaptive group responses tononroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42:137–147.

Wasti, S. A. 2005. Commitment profiles: Combinations of orga-nizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 67: 290–308.

Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupledsystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1–19.

Weick, K. E. 2009. Making sense of the organization. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. 2006. Organizing for mindfulness:Eastern wisdom and Western knowledge. Journal of Man-agement Inquiry, 15: 275–287.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organiza-tions: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 38: 357–381.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2001. Managing the unexpected:Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2006. Mindfulness and the qualityof organizational attention. Organization Science, 16: 409–421.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2007. Managing the unexpected:Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty, (2nd ed.).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 1999. Organizing forhigh reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. InB. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings, (Eds.), Research in organiza-tional behavior, 21: 81–123. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P. 2005. Contingent leadership andeffectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 90: 1288–1296.

Zammuto, R. F. 2008. Accreditation and the globalization ofbusiness. Academy of Management Learning and Educa-tion, 7: 256–268.

Zohar, D. 1980. Safety climate in industrial organizations: The-oretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 65: 96–102.

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. 2004. Climate as a social-cognitive con-struction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxiesof behavior patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(2):322–333.

Timothy J. Vogus ([email protected]) is assistantprofessor of management at theOwen Graduate School of Man-agement, Vanderbilt University.He received his PhD from the Uni-versity of Michigan. Vogus’ re-search focuses on the cognitive(mindful organizing), cultural,and emotional processes throughwhich individuals and work-groups enact highly reliableperformance.

Kathleen M. Sutcliffe ([email protected]) is the Gilbert andRuth Whitaker Professor of Busi-ness Administration and profes-sor of management and organi-zations at the Stephen M. RossSchool of Business at the Univer-sity of Michigan. For the past de-cade, Sutcliffe’s research hasbeen aimed at understandinghow organizations and theirmembers cope with uncertaintyand unexpected events, and howcomplex organizations can be

designed to be more reliable and resilient.


Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing: A Reconciliation and Path Forward

Documents