250 word minimum

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 31

The Role of Mindfulness in Leading Organizational Transformation

A Systematic Review

Peter R. Aviles Long Island University, USA

Eric B. Dent Fayetteville State University, USA

The preponderance of literature on mindfulness and change is broad and far reaching with most examining the mindfulness construct from a psychological perspective and exploring the impact and influence on individual well-being. What is not so read- ily discussed is the correlation of mindfulness to leading organizational change and transformation. This paper seeks to address this gap by conducting a systematic review of the literature on mindfulness and organizational change and theorizes that mindfulness facilitates individual and organizational cognition to more efficiently meet the challenges of change.

O Mindfulness

O Leadership

O Organizational change

O Transformation

Peter R. Aviles is currently the Senior Director of Customer Service and Training for the Department of Capital Program Management (the engineering division) of the MTA-New

York City Transit. He has collectively over 30 years of experience as a college professor, consultant, manager, seminar facilitator, and trainer in banking, information processing and professional development curriculums. He holds a Doctor of Management degree from The University of Maryland University College, Masters of Science degree in Human Resources from Long Island University and serves as an Adjunct professor at Long Island University.

Previously, he has served as an adjunct at both York College of the New York City University system, and Essex County Community College in Newark, New Jersey.

Dr. Eric B. Dent is presently Professor of Leadership, Fayetteville State University. He is committed to an interdisciplinary research agenda that has resulted in publications in behavioral science, complexity theory, systems science, education, consulting, history,

communications, spirituality, organization development, and philosophy journals. Dr. Dent has won numerous awards and is a consultant to Fortune 500, government and non-profit

organizations as well as an invited speaker to national audiences. He earned the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Computer Science from Emory University and the M.B.A. and Ph.D. in

Organizational Behavior from The George Washington University.

u Long Island University, Room H700 Brooklyn Campus, NY 11201, USA

! [email protected]

u Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC 28301, USA

! [email protected]

DOI: [10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.ju.00005]

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 31 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

32 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

H eightened individual and organizational awareness and understanding of the environments in which they operate are important to meet the challenges of global complexity and uncer- tainty, especially as it pertains to change and organizational trans-

formation (Fries, 2009). Thietart and Forgues (1995, p. 19) analyzed chaos and organizations and noted that, “the existences of continuous processes of convergence and divergence, stability and instability, evolution and revolution” in every organization further exacerbate conditions and circumstances that challenge organizations and therefore the ability to effectively manage change. Kotter (2007, p. 96), acknowledging the high failure rate of change efforts in organizations, remarked, “the basic goal of a change initiative is to make fun- damental changes in how business is conducted in order to cope with a new, more challenging market environment.” Therefore, this raises the question of the potential impact of increased individual and organizational awareness and cognition to organizational change, and if mindfulness can improve the suc- cess rate of change.

This study seeks to investigate cognition and awareness in organizations by conducting a systematic review of the literature on mindfulness and change. The effect of change on organizations makes it an imperative to identify a cog- nitive strategy that will broadly examine and scan all facets of the environment to amend behaviors that may increase the likelihood of successful change. Ashford and Fried (1998, p. 305) stated that “Much of organizational behavior is argued to be performed mindlessly, on the basis of scripts learned through organizational socialization, work experiences and symbolic management.” Collectively, this lack of awareness is problematic, as the mindless behavior by organizational members may adversely impact or impede the success of positive organizational change. Furthermore, the dearth of scholarly literature that explicates on mindfulness as a strategic imperative for addressing change calls for study, research and investigation to reduce mindlessness and promote mindfulness.

To advance the discourse on mindfulness and the role and strategies that mindfulness may have in effectuating change and organizational transforma- tion, this research is guided by the following:

t How may mindfulness alter behaviors in organizations?

t How may mindfulness/mindlessness affect change in organizations?

t What strategies can organizations employ to increase mindfulness in any organizational change or transformation effort?

t What steps can organizations take to reduce organizational mindlessness?

This examination culminates in strategies for increasing mindfulness in organ- izations.

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 32 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 33

Mindfulness overview

The literature on mindfulness is not new and the Eastern perspective of mind- fulness has existed for at least 2500 years. The origins date back to the “funda- mental teachings on Satipatthana as preserved in the Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism; the School of Elders” (Dhiman, 2009, p. 58). Fries (2009, p. 5) found that “mindfulness is usually associated with meditation due to its long history in Eastern contemplative traditions, especially Buddhism.” However, mindfulness “has recently become a non-secular practice of many westerners” (Emanuel et al., 2010, p. 815).

The research on the Western or cognitive perspective of mindfulness and the differences that emanated from mindful to mindless behavior originated in 1974 with wide ranging results (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). Much of the current literature describes mindfulness as a meditative intervention, or as a socio-cognitive construct addressing varied areas of psychology that include clinical psychology and scientific applications (Baer et al., 2004), social psy- chology (Langer, 1989), health (Valentine et al., 2010), and education, political theory and communication processes (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). In clini- cal practice, interventions based on mindfulness are used as coping resources to address a multitude of disorders including chronic pain and stress, anxiety, depression, borderline personality disorders, and panic eating (Carmody et al., 2009; Schroevers & Brandsma, 2010; Baer et al., 2012). One result is that indi- viduals improve through mindfulness. Similarly, organizations may also suffer from disorders; especially as they seek to introduce change. Feldman (2003, p. 748) found that “change occurs as organizational participants alter their performances.” This alteration of behavior may be influenced in a mindful or mindless way. Vogus and Sutcliffe (2012, p. 728) argue that mindfulness has strategic and operational benefits and posit that “Organizational mindfulness means that leaders signal the importance of mindfulness to employees, which, in turn motivates them to act more mindfully.” However, Langer (1997, 2005) noted that there is a mindlessness that prevents individuals and organizations during periods of change from moving in new directions in an efficacious way. There are dangers inherent in mindlessness and Ray et al. (2011, p. 190) warned of the dangers; stating there is “an overreliance on established repertoires of behavior and outdated categories of information that can establish suffocating boundaries preventing not only performance improvements but performance stabilization.” Conversely, mindfulness enables one’s response to a situation to be more reflective as opposed to reflexive (Bishop et al., 2004). Research by Snippe and Nyklíček (2015) suggested that increasing mindfulness on a daily basis can be beneficial to improving psychological well-being. However, they warn that the association of cultivation of mindfulness to well-being is temporal and call for greater examination in pre/post mindfulness treatment change to more clearly establish that changes in mindfulness are associated with changes in well-being. These challenges call for organizations to develop strategies and employ processes and devices as a coping mechanism to address organizational

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 33 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

34 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

distress and illness. However, since mindfulness is only now incrementally making inroads in the workplace (Fiol & O’Connor, 2003; Yeganeh & Good, 2011) it provides an opportunity for further exploration of the influence of mindfulness on organizational change.

Mindfulness definitions

Dhiman (2009) informed that mindfulness has many different connotations. In his exploratory survey of mindfulness he enumerated multiple definitions:

Having the capacity to see any situation from several perspectives (Langer, 1993, p. 44). The combination of ongoing scrutiny of existing expectations, continuous refine- ment, and differentiation of expectations based on newer experiences, a willingness and capability to invent new expectations that make sense of unprecedented events, a more nuanced appreciation of context and ways to deal with it and identification of new dimensions of context that improve foresight and current functioning (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007, p. 42). A state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment phe- nomena occurring both externally and internally (Dane, 2011, p. 1000).

Fiol and O’Connor (2003, p. 59) stated that:

Those who manifest mindfulness engage in thought patterns that allow them to make a larger number of currently relevant, more precise distinctions. By remaining alert to potential changes in their situation, mindful individuals are more adaptively responsive to shifts in their environment.

The extant literature on mindfulness from the socio-psychological perspec- tive points to success for cognitively challenged individuals. Langer (1997) examined mindfulness in multiple contexts including an educational context where it was determined that teaching practices that are mindful can have a profound effect on the ability of students to learn. To further illustrate the need to be mindful, Langer and Moldoveanu (2000) found that driving with antilock brakes may be harmful if one resorts to prior learned behaviors because it may lead to preventable accidents. This example serves to illuminate the point that as mindlessness occurs in everyday life, it also occurs in the workplace.

The work of Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) and Weick et al. (2000) on high reli- ability organizations (HROs) indicated that organizations face numerous issues on a daily basis. They focus on organizations where outcomes may be cata- strophic if individuals and organizations behave mindlessly. Some examples are the Bhopal, Three Mile Island, and the Challenger catastrophes. However, organizations can experience a different type of catastrophe. The financial crisis involving Lehman Brothers did not result in the literal loss of life, but their loss can be categorized as catastrophic.

Organizations are continually presented with unpredictable challenges and yet many continue to plod along following the same routines not

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 34 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 35

understanding the demands placed on them (Coutu, 2003). The focus on heightened awareness that contributes to improved individual efficacy as a result of mindfulness translates to change and transformation in organiza- tions. Given the range of definitions, Dane (2011) suggested that there is grow- ing evidence that the academic and philosophical perspectives of mindfulness have a propensity to be relatively convergent and the definitions advanced by scholars and others are largely cohesive. Therefore, although mindfulness has many interpretations, it is fundamentally having the capacity to see any situ- ation from several perspectives (Langer, 1993, p. 44). Given the multitude of definitions, in the current review, the definitions by Langer and Moldoveanu (2000) (individual mindfulness) and Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) (collective mindfulness) are among the most comprehensive and therefore will guide this study.

Potential significance of mindfulness for improving change effort success

The challenges to organizations, whether they are called total quality man- agement, reengineering, restructuring, or rightsizing, require examination of the one thing these terms have in common: fostering change. However, these efforts often fail to consider the socio-cognitive aspects of change that can determine the success or failure of any change initiative. Kotter (2007), in his description of corporate change efforts, found that change is necessary but incredibly difficult. Vogus and Welbourne (2003, p. 877) reaffirmed the perspec- tive that reliability-seeking organizations (organizations seeking to minimize the possibility of a catastrophic event) are “tightly coupled to their unpredict- able and complex environments in such a manner that although the human mortality rate is low, the risk of small failures amplifying into organizational mortality is high.”

Examining the current literature on mindfulness revealed that there are many disparate components. The literature on scientific mindfulness (Jon- sen et al., 2010, p. 5) needs to be understood from the perspective that the mindfulness construct is not static but variable (Rerup, 2004). In addition, consideration must be given to the propensity to engage in cognitive entrench- ment (“a high level of stability in one’s domain schema,” Dane, 2010) or pre- mature cognitive commitment to a position deemed an “unconditional truth” (Chanowitz & Langer, 1981) based on initial exposure to information or the mindless response to the presentation of information and the effect of these attitudes on perceptual accuracy (Fiol & O’Connor, 2003). Therefore, organi- zations must move beyond current processes to meet these challenges with different strategies. The intent is to generate multiple perspectives enabling organizations to extend beyond conventional methodologies to successfully navigate the new realities.

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 35 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

36 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Potential broader contribution of mindfulness

This research explores the utility of mindfulness as a strategic imperative for dealing with change and may have far reaching considerations based on some of the current literature in areas such as problem-solving (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000), decision-making (Fiol & O’Connor, 2003), role conflict and organizational ethics (Valentine et al., 2010), diversity (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000), emotions (Hede, 2010), performance (Dane, 2011; Shao & Skarlicki, 2009) and leadership (Dhiman, 2009; Sethi, 2009). The challenges of understanding mindfulness also make any scholarly discussion more significant in terms of deepening our under- standing of this construct and of its operation as attempts are made to extend the boundaries of knowledge on mindfulness and its potential effects (Brown et al., 2007). Furthermore, questions arise concerning the drivers of mindfulness. Remmers et al.’s (2015) research on mindfulness and intuition states that “cur- rent research is far from empirically elucidating the array of driving mechanisms by which mindfulness operates.” The incorporation of mindfulness may result in reexamining the conventional models of organizational learning.

Methodology

The methodology used for this study was evidence-based research using a systematic review. Systematic reviews are high quality, extensive reviews with the goal of eliminating any bias. This methodology is used for identifying and evaluating extensive literatures, identifying key scientific contributions and a means for practitioners to use evidence provided by research to inform their decisions (Tranfield et al., 2003). “The aim of systematic review is to provide collective insight through theoretical synthesis. . .for academics, the reviewing process increases methodological rigour” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 220). In an Academy of Management Learning and Education special issue devoted to the hot topic of evidence-based research, Briner and Walshe (2014) further argued that systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous when compared to traditional reviews. Although the process of conducting systematic reviews is not as well known in the management literature as it is in other disciplines, and some remain unsure of their purpose, which may lead some to question the practical and academic value, Briner and Walshe (2014, p. 308) posited that systematic reviews adopt “a replicable, scientific and transparent process, in other words, a detailed technology that aims to minimize bias through exhaus- tive literature searches.” This allows for the assemblage and review of relevant literature. This review may more effectively identify gaps, contradictions and consistencies in research findings and, “provides a basis for planning and interpreting new primary research” (Briner & Walshe, 2014, p. 418). Rousseau (2006, p. 261) posited that “improved managerial competence is a direct out- growth of a greater focus on evidence based management” which is informed

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 36 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 37

based on practice and which in turn is informed by research. Evidence-based research is not conducted solely for gaining scientific contributions but also to apply the best available evidence to affect and improve management practice (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Reay et al., 2009). The compilation of libraries that were developed in multiple areas and disciplines including medicine, social policy, international development, mental health and substance abuse, and business sustainability, as well as the Center for Evidence Based Management, are further examples of the growth and acceptance of these bodies of evidence that gathered together allow for a systematic review of existing literature. Sys- tematic reviews help address practice related questions (Briner et al. (2009).

Petticrew and Roberts (2006) offered 12 steps for undertaking systematic reviews. As we conducted these steps we were also mindful to incorporate Reay et al.’s (2009) guidance to preserve research integrity and consider whether the studies reviewed were valid, reliable, and compliant with other assessment cri- teria. Only those findings deemed “methodologically rigorous and theoretically sound and relevant” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 212) were included.

The primary search criteria consisted of the key search of the terms mindful- ness and change, mindfulness and organizational change, and mindfulness and organizational transformation. Extensive database searches were conducted on these terms, even outside the area of business and management because the study of mindfulness has roots in other disciplines. The literature on mindful- ness and organizational change and transformation is relatively scant. The literature in the Web of Science which indexes the social science citation index of the top 200 journals reflects 828 articles on mindfulness and change with only 16 categorized as management, five as business and three as social sci- ences. The preponderance of the literature is centered on cognitive processing (258 articles) and clinical psychology (233) with those articles listed as cognitive processing (inclusive of psychiatry and psychology) having some relevancy to the construct of mindfulness though they do not have specific relevancy to the application of management. In 1997 there were only three articles on mindful- ness and organizational change but 27 by 2015. This increase in the literature is also indicative of the increase in organizations adopting mindfulness programs. Lee’s (2012, p. 26) examination of the literature identified organizations such as Google, Apple, Yahoo, Ford, GE, IBM, Nike, 3M, Toyota and the military that have incorporated mindfulness training. Any other source of data conceivable was employed such as the snowballing method of investigating the references of each article found.

Finding for research question #1

RQ1: How may mindfulness alter behaviors in organizations?

Langer and Moldoveanu (2000) noted that the essence of mindfulness is change and part of change involves the alteration of behaviors in organizations.

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 37 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

38 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Ashforth and Fried (1988, p. 305) argued that much of organizational behavior is performed mindlessly and is primarily attributed to the predisposition to scripts. The scripts, whether they are event schema or task performance, specify a sequence of occurrence in given situations (Gioia & Poole, 1984). These scripts become ingrained and part of organizational functionality. In other words, “the individual cognitively links components of the behaviors, chunks them into differentiable subroutines and abstracts critical features and decision rules for identifying and programming future enactments” (Ashforth & Fried, 1988, p. 309). The reversion to the use of a script based on a stimulus cue is considered mindless behavior. However, when the stimulus cue is processed, and cognition results in greater sensitivity to the environment the result is openness to new information and enhanced awareness. The behavior is altered as a result of mindfulness.

Shao and Skarlicki (2009) investigated mindfulness and its role in predict- ing individual performance. They considered whether there was a relationship between mindfulness and performance via their study of 149 managers in an MBA program for enhancing the understanding of behaviors in organizations. Using the definition of mindfulness by Brown and Ryan (2003), Shao and Skar- licki (2009, p. 195) posited that “a mindful individual is someone who has both concentrated attention and high quality awareness of their moment-to-moment experience.” They theorized that mindfulness relates to performance. The find- ings supported the hypothesis that mindfulness and performance positively interacted to predict performance though it was stronger for women than for men (Shao & Skarlicki, 2009, p. 198).

Dane (2011) examined mindfulness and sought to investigate its effects on workplace task performance. Specifically, he noted that the research is under- developed as to whether or not mindfulness has an effect on how individuals perform their tasks. Dane (2011, p. 1004) stated that “when individuals are in a mindful state, their attention to external phenomena is quite wide to the extent that they are attuned to a relatively large number of stimuli, materials and data in the surrounding environment.” One may have a perspective that mindfulness is therefore beneficial in all contexts and circumstances but Dane cautioned that the wide attentional span may be harmful in that it may misallocate attention or misallocate an inappropriate amount of attention. However, there is a correla- tion between task performance and environment. In a dynamic environment, maintaining a wide attentional breadth may encourage effectual task perform- ance when improvisation is called for though it may be detrimental in a static environment. Dane noted the positive correlation between mindfulness and task performance when one has a high level of expertise in a dynamic environ- ment and negative when expertise is low or the environment is static. It can therefore be concluded that the net effect of mindfulness on task performance is dependent on task environment and level of task expertise.

Weick and Sutcliffe’s (2007) research on high reliability organizations (HROs) demonstrated how organizational principles of HROs encourage mindfulness and alter behaviors in organizations by promoting awareness of discriminatory detail and improvement in quality, reliability and productivity. Moreover, to be

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 38 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 39

an HRO necessitates that old perspectives and routines be rigorously exam- ined, and the outcomes of such inspection are that organizational members are forced to think and act differently lest they cease being a high reliability organization. HROs are determined to act mindfully; they organize themselves to better notice changes, especially the unexpected, by continuously updat- ing, seeking deeper interpretations of the problem, the context, and potential remedies (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). HROs cannot be successful unless there is a continuous mindful alteration of organizational behaviors. Furthermore, Feldman (2003) posited that change occurs when organizational participants alter their performances.

Hoy (2003, p. 100), described mindfulness as the “continuous scanning and monitoring of activities and special attention to the smallest subtleties and deviations where questioning and openness are encouraged.” The mechanism of continuous scanning and monitoring is likely to encounter a situation or circumstance that is new, different or non-routine. The alteration of behavior is likely to result if the situation or circumstance is cognitively approached. Hoy (2003, p. 100) concluded that “mindfulness might be the antidote for correcting inappropriate goals, objectives and behaviors.”

One of the areas of investigation as to whether mindfulness alters behaviors in organizations centered on routines in organizations. Gersick and Hackman (1990, p. 69) discussed the challenges organizations face with a habitual rou- tine defined as: “A habitual routine exists when a group repeatedly exhibits a functionally similar pattern of behavior in a given stimulus situation without explicitly selecting it over alternative ways of behaving.” The danger of habitual routines is that group members’ conscious attention or choice is not engaged therefore they function automatically and continue to preserve and perpetuate current patterns of behavior. Only an extraordinary event may possibly disrupt these routines. Gersick and Hackman noted that to alter behavior in organiza- tions, there must be a force for change that will intervene to bring about a change in structure or composition of the group, a redesign of the group task or an alteration of the group’s authority. They also noted that one of several possible dysfunctional consequences of habitual routines is that performance can erode because members miscode performance situations. Habitual routines “can also reduce the likelihood of innovative performance processes and contribute to stagnation of groups and its members” (Gersick & Hackman, 1990 p. 72). Gersick and Hackman summarized these perspectives and argued for a differ- ent approach to alter behavior in organizations when they noted the promising work of Langer and the benefit of mindfulness as the opportunity to switch from schema driven automatic processing to conscious engagement. Lastly, Malinowski and Lim (2015) posited that being able to step back from automatic, habitual reactions is the facet of mindfulness most central for predicting work engagement and well-being.

The literature referenced demonstrates the value and contributions that each make in assessing whether organizational behavior is altered via mindfulness. The argument for mindfulness is made by Armenakis and Burnes (2015) who posit that the efficacy of mindfulness is based on a person’s ability to recognize

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 39 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

40 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

their habitual ways of thinking, feeling and behaving and not be influenced by biases or preconceived ideas. However, not all contribute equally. Therefore, an organizing scheme was used to identify the most relevant articles based on the extensiveness of the research on the cognitive perspective of mindful- ness. Based on this criterion, the findings by Dane (2011) of both positive and negative correlations are most impactful although Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) and Shao and Skarlicki (2009) convincingly argued that behavior is alterable through mindfulness.

Finding for research question #2

RQ2: How may mindfulness/mindlessness affect change in organizations?

Hales et al. (2012) concluded that when mindfulness is applied properly, the reliability of organizational processes is improved based on their research of a health care setting that found that the number of negative incidents between nurses and the family dropped to 520 from 972 a year earlier after the introduc- tion of mindfulness training. This research also revealed improvement in per- formance as admissions increased 48%, the average occupancy rate increased 3% from 87% to 90% and the number of failed nurse-supervisor incidents dropped from 12% to 9%. These developments are all attributed to mindfulness training (Hales et al., 2012).

The literature most relevant to the mindfulness/mindlessness discussion from a cognitive perspective is found in the research of Langer (1989, 1993, 1997, 2005) and Langer and Moldoveanu (2000). Langer and Moldoveanu (2000, p. 129) posited that “mindfulness theory should change individuals and organizations in two ways: increasing mindfulness and decreasing mind- lessness.” Studies on the construct of mindfulness within a business context indicated that increases in mindfulness are associated with increased creativity, decreased accidents and better retention of information (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). Among the significant changes that are affecting organizations are changes in demographics. These changes are not limited to gender where there is an increasing presence of females; they are also represented in many non- traditional roles. Langer and Moldoveanu (2000) stated that other demographic workplace changes such as the “graying of America” challenge organizations to retain institutional knowledge. To retain institutional knowledge, Langer and Moldoveanu (2000) suggested mindfulness for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Additionally, the increase in the pace of technology, and the complexities that call for novel approaches to problem solving and deci- sion making if done mindlessly can imperil organizations; whereas if done mindfully, can sustain organizations. The exhaustiveness of Langer’s research is seminal to the mindfulness construct and is the research most referenced by other scholars with the 1989 book on mindfulness cited over 2300 times.

Communication is a core competency for effective change initiatives. Ucok (2006, p. 1024) examined transparency, communication and mindfulness, and

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 40 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 41

active mindful listening as a method of communication and based on qualitative research, posited that if we could actually be present to listen to each other in the workplace by paying attention, we may reduce or mitigate misunderstand- ings and confusion and may lessen the time and energy spent in repairing what was missed or misunderstood because of our inattentiveness. Burgoon et al. (2000) examined communication and noted that communication may instigate mindful or mindless states. They argued that mindless behavior influences communication and that it often may result in miscommunication, misunderstandings and misperceptions potentially harmful to organizational processes. Communication is also a critical component in the resolution of organizational conflict. A mindful approach may effectively resolve the conflict whereas a mindless approach in which people do not listen to one another, or blame others without acknowledgment of their role, only exacerbates the conflict. Greater mindfulness prior and during the course of communication can amass considerable benefits in diverse important practical communication contexts. Burgoon et al. (2000) acknowledged that the use of mindfulness is not a guarantee for communication success if the requisite skill sets needed to monitor and adapt messages are not present and appropriately channeled. However, the absence of mindfulness further challenges organizational change effectiveness.

Research by Gondo et al. (2013), on developing a readiness for change, found that when there is recognition by organizational members involved in a change process of the need to alter routine behaviors that are no longer appropriate, the change recipients are being mindful. Gondo et al. (2013) cited the research of Tsoukas and Chia (2002) and noted that change occurs and that individuals work to mindfully make it work not because of top down prescriptions. The chal- lenge in developing a “readiness for change” is to have organizational members identify and alter entrenched perspectives or routines. Mindfulness is defined by Langer (1993, p. 44) as “the combination of ongoing scrutiny of existing expectations, continuous refinement and differentiation” and by Weick & Sut- cliffe (2007, p. 42) as “a state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment phenomena occurring both externally and internally”; i.e. focuses attention on the intersection of mindfulness and change.

Higgs and Rowland (2010) examined the role of self-awareness in develop- ing effective change leadership. To assess whether leadership self-awareness affected change, they conducted unstructured interviews with 33 leaders from 33 different organizations of varying scale and scope including global to small community organizations in the United Kingdom. The participants were asked to recall two successful change initiatives (validated by superiors prior to inclu- sion in the results) where they had a significant leadership role. The interview results underwent several reiterations of analyses including the creation of new categories based on their examination of the shape (extent of a leader- centric approach), frame (extent others participated in how things were done), and capacity (extent to which organizational processes and systems supported the change). The analysis revealed that less successful change efforts (those not meeting expected levels of goal attainment) were more prominent in the

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 41 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

42 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

leader-centric approach. Higgs and Rowland (2010, p. 382) determined that “leaders who appeared to be self aware used their presence in the organization in mindful, not impulsive ways.” Overall they “found that in order to support leaders of change, interventions designed to enhance individual self-aware- ness. . .could lead to an improvement in capability to lead change in a productive manner” (Higgs & Rowland, 2010, p. 384).

Finding for research question #3

RQ3: What strategies can organizations employ to increase mindfulness in any organi- zational change or transformation effort?

Organizations employ several strategies to increase mindfulness, especially when it involves organizational change in organizations. The most common approach is through education in the form of training. However, training efforts are not universal in design, administration or facilitation. Education, especially management education, emphasizes a rational-empirical linear approach that is the foundation of knowledge across most disciplines (Dumas, 2007). To increase mindfulness, a nonlinear approach may be more effective. Langer (1997, p. 2) identified seven myths that undermine the process of learning including “the basics must be learned so well that they become second nature” and “rote memorization is necessary in education.” These myths represent a more mindless than mindful approach to education as they promote an inflex- ible approach to learning. This approach becomes institutionalized as the organization’s culture. Langer (1989) commented on the educational process noting that:

the style of education that concentrates on outcomes generally also presents facts unconditionally. This approach encourages mindlessness. If something is pre- sented as an accepted truth, alternative ways of thinking do not come up for consid- eration. Such a single-minded way of viewing the world can generalize to virtually everything we do. By teaching absolutes we pass on our culture from one generation to the next. It brings stability. . .but the cost may be high (Langer, 1989, p. 35).

This statement is further indication of the significance of education as a strat- egy for increasing mindfulness in organizations but equally significant is how education is delivered within an organization. If not mindfully designed and delivered, the outcome may be mindlessness. By contrast Langer espoused taking a more mindful approach to learning. She stated that “this approach has three characteristics: 1) The continuous creation of new categories 2) Open- ness to new information 3) Implicit awareness of more than one perspective” (Langer, 1997, p. 4).

Kabat-Zinn (2005) also advocated for education but education of the self through meditation. Although meditation is outside the scope of this paper, it is among the findings that an organization can employ to increase mindfulness. Kabat-Zinn (2005) emphasized and postulated that individuals understand the

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 42 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 43

nature of change and that change is continuous and ongoing. If one accepts this perspective, there may be a greater level of receptivity and the individual may be more amenable to embrace change.

Tan (2012), one of the original engineers at Google, adapted the Kabat-Zinn (2005) meditative model and developed a mindfulness based curriculum titled “Search Inside Yourself” that sought to aid individual development. This pro- gram, developed in 2007, linked mindfulness and emotional intelligence as a way to increase personal fulfillment and efficiency in the workplace. This seven week program is focused on attention training (cognition), self-knowledge and self-mastery (emotion) to create useful mental habits to develop trust and pro- ductive collaborations. The premise is that positive change in individuals leads to positive relationships and a positive approach to change.

An alternative to formalized training are the five organizational principles of high reliability organizations espoused by Weick and Sutcliffe (2001). These organizational principles position individuals and organizations to manage uncertainty and change and together form a collective state of mindfulness:

1. Preoccupation with failure. HROs are wary of the liabilities of success. This perspective avoids drifting into automatic processing

2. Reluctance to simplify interpretations. Knowing that the world is complex, unstable and unpredictable, they position themselves to see as much as possible. Less simplification positions them to see more

3. Sensitivity to operations. Attentive to the front lines, less strategic and more situational. Continuous adjustments prevent errors from accumulating and enlarging. Managerial and workforce fear, ignorance or indifference under- mines the system. Anomalies are noticed before problems arise

4. Commitment to resilience. Resilience is keeping errors small and impro- vising workarounds that allow the system to continue functioning. HROs develop the capability to detect, contain and bounce back from errors with- out being disabled by them

5. Deference to expertise. Authority gravitates to those with expertise despite organizational rank

These principles can be used to correct errors before they escalate into catas- trophe and organizations can develop these practices to respond to challenges more mindfully thereby building a collective state of mindfulness (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).

Tversky and Kahneman (1986, p. S274) examined the concepts of rationality and loss aversion in the context of decision making and noted that “significant errors of judgment and choice can be documented in real world decisions that involved high stakes and serious deliberation.” Based upon the use of evaluation of economic transactional gains and losses, they found that responses to change are more intense when changes are unfavorable (losses) than when they are favorable (gains). This framing of the change initiative may become an impor- tant organizational strategy to increase mindfulness. Additionally, Tversky and

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 43 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

44 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Kahneman (1986) found that incentives are more effective when attention is focused and deliberation is prolonged. Consequently, organizational members are more apt to take measures to reduce or mitigate errors that surface from insufficient attention and effort than to take action when the errors surface as a result of their misperception or faulty intuition. An important considera- tion in the use of incentives as a preventative measure to reduce or eliminate errors is the element of learning. Tversky and Kahneman (1986, p. S274) noted that “effective learning takes place only under certain conditions: it requires accurate and immediate feedback about the relation between the situational condition and the appropriate response.” Therefore, the use of incentives is a consideration as a strategy for organizations to increase mindfulness but it also has to contain education as part of the equation for increasing mindfulness in organizations.

Lastly, modeling is a consideration as a strategy for increasing mindfulness in any change initiative. Epstein (1999) suggested that modeling of mindful- ness by practitioners can enhance the ability to engage in moment to moment awareness and increase curiosity about new information that may lead to nov- elty. Modeling by mindfulness practitioners that serve as mentors may take tacit knowledge and spread the knowledge throughout the organization making it more explicit. This may precipitate a more mindful and conscious approach to cultivate awareness (Epstein, 1999).

A review of the literature reveals several strategies that organizations may employ to increase mindfulness. The primary approaches are through educa- tion as evidenced by Google and other organizations as well as that espoused by Langer (1989, 1997). In addition, incentives (Tversky & Kahneman, 1986) and modeling (Epstein, 1999) are also being employed.

Finding for research question #4

RQ4: What steps can organizations take to reduce organizational mindlessness?

Langer and Piper (1987) informed that mindlessness is the rigid use of infor- mation where the individual lacks awareness of novelty and information is per- ceived to have a singular meaning. They also noted that studies on mindlessness have revealed its deleterious effects. Contributing to mindlessness is premature cognitive commitment that generally arises when information is considered not to have relevance. To combat mindlessness in this situation, organizations must present information conditionally rather than absolutely and in a manner that is deemed to have relevance and thus stimulate cognitive flexibility (Langer & Piper, 1987). This perspective was substantiated in experiments where results showed that groups presented with information conditionally were 40% more mindful than those who did not receive information conditionally. Equally important is the context in which data or information is presented. If the

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 44 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 45

information is not contextually appropriate, there is the likelihood that there will be an increase in mindlessness rather than mindfulness.

Ashforth and Fried (1988) discussed mindfulness, scripts and organizational behaviors and noted that scripts can contribute to mindlessness and suggested methodologies for reducing organizational mindlessness. One condition is task performance, found in operating environments where there is an emphasis on routinization and adherence to rules and regulations. Mindlessness generally increases with routinization unless there are signals that interrupt the rou- tine. Continuation of this type of process enhances cognitive detachment and promotes organizational dysfunction. Organizations can introduce different stimuli to reduce mindlessness though the literature suggests a hesitancy to do so on the basis of potential costs. However, to not introduce some stimuli generates costs of a different nature as a result of a decline in performance (Ashforth & Fried, 1998). The disasters of Bhopal and Three Mile Island are cited as examples of an outgrowth of routinized task performance.

Decision making is another area that presents an opportunity for organi- zations to reduce mindlessness. The structure of many organizations limits decision making to selected roles. Increasing the decision making span can provide a stimulus for greater cognitive engagement. One of the organizing principles of HROs is deference to expertise. In this scenario, decisions are made by front line personnel based on expertise regardless of title or function. Weick and Sutcliffe (2001), in the construction of this principle, emphasized that deference to expertise does not equate to experience as they are two differ- ent concepts. Fiol and O’Conner (2003) noted that mindfulness can enhance the manager’s capability to differentiate when faced with bandwagons and make the best decision for the firm rather than make a decision based on the perspectives of the majority.

Limitations

The investigation and analyses revealed a dearth in the literature on mindful- ness and change (Dane, 2011). Furthermore, the preponderance of the mind- fulness literature focuses on the Eastern or meditative perspective rather than the Western or cognitive which is the focus of this paper. Research by Reb et al. (2014) found that the study of mindfulness within a Western scientific paradigm is relatively recent and much of the research has been in psychology and medicine. What is absent in their review is any discussion on mindful- ness in the field of management. Reb et al. (2014) also stated that there is a lack of research that documents how someone’s mindfulness will impact oth- ers in the workplace, though Shao and Skarlicki (2009) posited that there is empirical research starting to inform the role of mindfulness in the workplace. These disparate positions on mindfulness and the workplace point to a gap in understanding the progression of the use of mindfulness in the workplace.

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 45 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

46 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Moreover, Glomb et al. (2011) concurred with Dane (2011) and others as to the limited research on mindfulness in the workplace and posited that there is even less research that has focused on the interpersonal aspects of mindfulness that further lessens our understanding of the effects of mindfulness. Furthermore, mindfulness should not be construed as the panacea for all issues related to change, but the dearth of literature restricts one’s ability to be informed of the extent to which mindfulness can influence positive change in the workplace. Lastly, the literature on mindfulness and organizational change is more scant than on mindfulness or change. The lack of empirical studies limits the ability to conduct a meta-analysis. This underscores the gap in the literature and an opportunity for future research.

Summary of the findings

There is a preponderance of literature that associates routines and scripts with mindlessness and automaticity though Turner and Rinhova (2012) argued that some routines and scripts are mindful provided organizational members exert flexibility to maintain organizational consistency and effectiveness. Ashforth and Fried (1988) postulated that organizational behavior is predicated on mindlessness and discussed cognitive schemas or generalized knowledge that resulted in script based behavior. Staw et al. (1981) discussed organizations that responded to challenges by reverting to more script based behavior to regain or maintain organizational control and efficiency. Jordan et al. (2009) ques- tioned the capability of routines that occur in complex social, technological and physical settings where there is a lack of predictability. Coutu (2003) found that organizations plod along following the same routines when faced with unpre- dictable challenges. Hoy (2003, p. 94) described the fine balance between mind- fulness and mindlessness, individuals and routines and the dangers of blindly adhering to routines and posited that “individuals and organizations are easily seduced by routine ways of doing things that worked at one time.” Hoy further postulated that entrapment by absolute categories and routines occurs relatively easily. These routines are difficult to break and impede the ability to respond to a dynamic world in diverse and novel ways. Furthermore, Langer (1989, p. 4) stated “that when we blindly follow routines, or unwittingly carry out senseless orders, we are acting like automatons, with potentially grave consequences for ourselves and others.” These perspectives categorized the continued practice of organizational routines in the face of new, complex and unpredictable chal- lenges as mindlessness. However, all researchers of mindlessness do not view it from the same perspective.

Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) stated that mindlessness and routines are not synonyms and explained the difference between mindlessness and routines when they stated that mindless acts are automatic and routine acts are merely customary. They cautioned that if the assumption is made that routine refers to automaticity, perhaps the question of “what if” will not be asked during the

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 46 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 47

activity. The determinant in ascertaining if the activity is mindless or if it is mindful rests with the level of cognition associated with the activity. Weick and Sutcliffe provided maintenance personnel as an example to distinguish mind- less from mindful activity. Personnel who perform similar tasks on a frequent basis may continue to do so mindlessly not noticing the change whereas the more mindful personnel tend to rework the routine to fit the changed condition.

However, there are researchers that present an alternative perspective on routines and argued that routines are actually emblematic of mindfulness and not mindlessness. Though Feldman (2003) defined routines as the mindless repetition of actions, she argued that organizational participants can use what they understand about organizational functionality to direct their performance within the routine; and in doing so can exhibit mindful behavior by conscious action that is sensemaking based on the context in which the work is performed. The resulting stability is based on mindfulness rather than mindlessness (Feldman, 2003). Hoy (2003) also espoused a view that the creation of routine categories serves as a mechanism for order as sense is made out of complexity.

Turner and Rindova (2012) also examined routines and investigated the bal- ancing act of organizational consistency and ongoing change. They observed that organizational members seek consistency because it allows them to act less mindfully; however organizational members also are aware that mindfulness is a necessity to attain consistency. The analysis by Turner and Rindova (2012, p. 43) concluded that patterns are mutually “constitutive because patterns of consistency generate understandings of the routine that enables employees to respond to change effectively.” Further, they posited that their “study highlights that actors also engage in mindful processes in order to preserve consistent, well-learned and agreed upon patterns of behavior that they associate with cognitive and coordinative efficiencies” or less-mindful activities (Turner & Rindova, 2012, p. 43). Therefore, they argued that mindfulness is necessary to maintain organizational consistency in the function of routines.

Research on developing a readiness for change by Gondo et al. (2013, p. 39) posited that “a key component of developing a readiness for change involves cre- ating the mindfulness that is needed to surface implicitly held understandings during change and the mechanism by which mindfulness does so is through altering the allocation of attention.” Gärtner (2014) studied the preparedness of organizational members to implement organizational change and examined if this readiness may be enhanced by mindfulness. They conclude that manag- ers that are mindful are more likely to examine what they know as well as their tacitly held expectations (Gärtner, 2014). Ruedy and Schweitzer (2010, p. 83) suggested that “the cultivation of awareness through mindfulness offers a possi- ble avenue for curbing unethical behavior.” Ray et al. (2011) informed that there are variances in the levels of mindfulness as all organizational members are not equally mindful; that the organizational role influences organizational mindful- ness and that individuals at the top view the organization as more mindful than those in different organizational roles. Vogus and Sutcliffe (2012) supported the perspective that organizational mindfulness is based on the top administration in stating that organizational mindfulness is a stable organizational attribute

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 47 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

48 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

that results from practices and structures implemented by top administrators. Vogus and Sutcliffe (2012, p. 724) further explicated on the role of top manage- ment in positing that “top administrators instill organizational mindfulness when they look for multiple and deeper explanations for emerging problems; pay attention to operational data and act swiftly.” Furthermore, Ray et al. (2011) posited that “other organizational contexts are ripe for exploring organizational mindfulness.”

This research explored the work of both Langer and Weick and Sutcliffe and confirmed the existence of both individual and collective mindfulness. In addi- tion it substantiated that mindfulness as stated by Gärtner (2014, p. 66) should “mediate the way in which changes are interpreted and therefore shape whether the perceived costs are unacceptably high or not and whether vested interests are really at stake.” However, Gärtner also cautioned against assuming that mindfulness is inherently positive as there may be mitigating factors such as task experience and that a more mindful person might actually impede rather than promote readiness. Vogus and Sutcliffe (2012) cautioned that restricting the implementation of organizational mindfulness to the upper echelon of the organization may have the unintended consequence of making the organiza- tion less mindful as research has supported the perspective that front line opera- tors are critical to creating organizational mindfulness. Therefore, mindfulness is strategically and organizationally more reliable when operationalized across all organizational levels (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012). Additionally, Becke (2012) found that organizational mindfulness is not limited to HROs as described by Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) but can actually be extended to other organizations as well. This perspective is further evidenced by the research of organizational mindfulness that business schools like other organizations may not be consid- ered “high reliability” but nevertheless are similarly “tightly coupled” because of the nature of dynamic environments for which there are no prior interpretations (Ray et al., 2011). Therefore, the concept of organizational mindfulness can be applied to permanent reorganization (Becke, 2014).

The investigation based on the research questions indicates that strategies exist via education, modeling and communication mechanisms that can alter behavior to build individual mindfulness. The literature suggests a positive correlation between mindfulness and leadership that may accelerate develop- ment and mitigate derailment whereas the organizational principles of high reliability organizations may build organizational mindfulness. Mayer (2015) researched leadership preferences of women working in higher education and found mindfulness as a powerful tool in management as it pertains to ethics, diversity or decision making and that mindful self-competencies form the basis for mindful leadership practices. Also, the research on individual performance supports the position that mindfulness can result in more informed deci- sion making, problem solving and influence performance based on environ- ments, expertise and gender. Hales et al. (2012) determined that mindfulness, if applied properly, can improve the reliability of organizational processes. Moreover, the literature is clear as to the benefits of mindfulness in improving individual health and well-being through cognitive efforts that can result in

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 48 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 49

individual stress reduction. Malinowski and Lim (2015) state that well-being is directly influenced by mindfulness. Though the literature does not often directly address mindfulness and change, it does identify areas where mind- fulness or mindlessness affects organizational effectiveness. These findings provide increasing opportunities and areas for continued study, research and examination of the construct of mindfulness and management and the poten- tial to affect organizational functionality.

Thoughts, trends, and future research

Innovation

An ongoing concern of any organization is finding ways to enhance individual and organizational creativity that leads to innovation. Innovation is the “imple- mentation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others and within an institutional order” (Van de Ven, 1986, p. 590). The man- agement of this innovation process is a critical component for organizational viability, growth and competitiveness. A central problem in the management of innovation is maintaining attention by humans; a problem that has plagued management dating back to the 1980s and is a central concern of organizational leaders on innovation effectiveness (Van de Van). This raises the question of how individuals become vested in the development of new ideas rather than the protection of existing practices. Furthermore, Van de Ven noted that the litera- ture on the management of innovation ignored cognitive and social research by psychologists on the limited capability of human beings to manage complex- ity and maintain attention. The implication is clear. Within management of innovation is a need for a cognitive approach that can manage the problem of human attention that focuses on paying attention to new ideas. Oredo and Nji- hia (2015) examined mindfulness and cloud computing adoption and noted that mindfulness is a moderating factor between quantity and quality of innovation and that mindfulness as used in high reliability organizations is contributory to cloud adoption decisions. Thus, mindfulness, described by Langer (2000) as a cognitive process of drawing novel distinction and being more open to new information, fits the bill. Therefore organizations seeking to manage innovation may become aware of one of the key elements in the literature on cognition; namely the construct of mindfulness and its capacity for increased cognition, focus and creativity.

Ethics and globalization

Globalization presents numerous challenges for organizations. Contributing factors to the escalating challenges that organizations face from globalization include profit maximization, environmental issues, the cultural impact of global

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 49 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

50 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

operations, the state of relationships with other global entities, and the lack of global ethical standards (Carroll, 2004). As many global organizations oper- ate in multiple countries under multiple legal and regulatory authorities, the difficulty in identifying a universal controlling legal authority for conducting business ethically and creating and sustaining ethics and compliance initiatives can create uncertainty for global organizations (Dubinsky & Richter, 2009). Fur- thermore, Boatright (2000) posited that, because of globalization, any company, regardless of how well intentioned, can be compromised because of competi- tion that may be exacerbated by endemic corruption. The scandals of corporate misconduct involving fraud (Enron, Arthur Andersen, World Com), overcharg- ing on government contracts (Halliburton) and theft (Tyco International) are well documented and illustrate some of the ethical challenges that confront organizations (Mahdavi, 2009). Armenakis and Burnes (2015) state that the 2008 financial crisis exemplifies that many organizations have entrenched unethical practices that have not changed. These examples demonstrate a lack of ethical conduct that while not indicative of all global entities, does reveal the existence of ethical lapses that concern the global community. Ruedy and Sch- weitzer (2010) informed that in addition to these scandals, unethical behavior is commonplace and extant research is challenged to explain the extensiveness of unethical behavior. Their research found a significant link between mindful- ness and ethical decision-making and posits that mindfulness promotes greater ethical intention and lesser ethical infractions (Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010, p. 81). They concluded that “individuals high in mindfulness report that they are more likely to act ethically, uphold ethical standards and are more likely to use a principled approach to ethical decision-making” (Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010, p. 73). The implication for the future is clear. The reliance on current practices and protocols are inadequate to constrain ethical malfeasance. The global com- munity is in need of an intervention that promotes awareness with the hope to ameliorate organizational misconduct. The success of high reliability organiza- tions using collective mindfulness may be the impetus for greater utilization of mindfulness to address the ethical and legal challenges.

Mindfulness as a competitive advantage

The principles of high reliability organizations are premised on the construct of mindfulness and, while counterintuitive, may better position organizations to be more enlightened to the environment and more cognizant of the cues that aid in either reducing or mitigating the threats and challenges. The principles also provide a blueprint for organizations seeking to better prepare themselves to better manage unexpected events and increase resiliency when faced with uncertainty (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Adherence to these principles can make individuals and organizations more open to information, especially informa- tion that is disconfirming, and aid in the generation of multiple perspectives as opposed to being reliant on a single perspective. As a trend, organizations that have embraced mindfulness and can demonstrate incorporation of these prin-

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 50 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 51

ciples can use it to enhance their brand and use it as a point of differentiation and competitive advantage.

In 2009, the International Federation of Accountants argued that the govern- ance structure should go beyond the conformance perspective (historic dimen- sion) and equally support a performance dimension (forward looking) that can lead to better outcomes (Williams & Seaman, 2010). Conformance is focused on responsibilities of accountability, assurance and risk oversight whereas performance is centered on strategy, value creation, and resource utilization. By incorporating the performance dimension, Williams and Seaman posited that the failures of governance can be reduced as organizations will periodically evaluate results to ensure the ongoing scrutiny of their governance systems and provide flexibility to adjust for continual effectiveness.

The issue of governance is part of the current national debate as to the extent of rigidity or flexibility in governance. However, if effectiveness and efficiency are the drivers, and both dimensions of governance can co-exist; organizational interest will increase. A model that can provide for either or both has great desir- ability; hence there is a trend toward adopting these practices. Williams and Seaman (2010) discussed the implications of the types of governance dimen- sions supported by changes in management accounting systems that influence capacity for mindfulness and subsequently, through these cognitive processes enhance organizational effectiveness.

The implications of the implementation of these governance dimensions are that organizations perceive that they can improve themselves by the incorpora- tion of the construct of mindfulness either through training, increasing their brand and organizational effectiveness, becoming more of a high reliability organization or using mindfulness to improve governance, then there may be a greater likelihood of acceptance of mindfulness by organizations.

References

Armenakis, A.A., & Burnes, B. (2015). Organizational change: A focus on ethical cultures and mindfulness. Journal of Change Management. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2015.1009720

Ashford, S.J., & DeRue, D.S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engage- ment. Organizational Dynamics 41(2), 146-154. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.008

Ashforth, B.E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindfulness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41(4), 305-329.

Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment 13(1), 27-45.

Baer, R.A., Carmody, J., & Hunsinger, M. (2012). Weekly change in mindfulness and perceived stress in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(7), 755-765.

Becke, G., Behrens, M., Bleses, P., Meyerhuber, S., & Senghaas-Knobloch, E. (2012). Organizational and political mindfulness as approaches to promote social sustainability. Retrieved from Springer.com

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 51 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

52 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Bishop et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241. doi: 10.1093/CLIPSY/BPH077

Briner, R.B., & Walshe, N.D. (2014). From passively received wisdom to actively constructed knowledge: Teaching systematic review skills as a foundation of evidence-based man- agement. Academy of Management Learning and Education 13(3), 415-432. doi:10.5465/ amle.2013.0222

Brown, K., Ryan, R., & Creswell, J.D. (2007). Addressing fundamental questions about mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 272-281. doi: 10.1080/10478400701703344

Burgoon, J.K., Berger, C.R., & Waldron, V.R. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal com- munication. Journal of Social Issues 56(1), 105-127.

Carmody, J., Baer, R.L.B., Lykins, E., & Olendzki, N. (2009). An empirical study of the mechanisms of mindfulness in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 613-626. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20579

Carroll, A.B. (2004). Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future chal- lenge. Academy of Management Executive 18(2), 114-120.

Chanowitz, B., & Langer, E.J. (1981). Premature cognitive commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 1051-1063.

Coutu, D. (2003). Sense and reliability. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 84-90. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579-603.

Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4), 997-1018. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Dhiman, S. (2009). Mindfulness in life and leadership: An exploratory survey. Interbeing, 3(1), 55-80. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Dubinsky, J.E., & Richter, A. (2009). The global ethics & integrity benchmarks. The Carn- egie Council. Retrieved from http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/ data/000088

Dumas, C. (2007). Cultivating mindfulness in management education. International Jour- nal of Learning, 14(4), 53-60.

Emanuel, A.S., Updegraff, J.A., Kalmbach, D.A., & Ciesla, J.A. (2010). The role of mindful- ness facets in affective forecasting. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 815-818. Retrieved from Science direct

Epstein, R.M. (1999). Mindful practice. Journal of American Medical Association, 282(9), 830- 881. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Feldman, M. (2003). A performance perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727-752. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Fiol, C.M., & O’Connor, E.J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 54-70. Retrieved from Business Source complete

Fries, M. (2009). Mindfulness based stress reduction for the changing work environment. Journal of Academic & Business Ethics, (2) 1-10. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Gärtner, C. (2013). Enhancing readiness for change by enhancing mindfulness. Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 52-68.

Gersick, C.J.G., & Hackman, J.R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.

Gioia, D.A., & Poole, P.P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review 9(3), 449-459. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 30, 115-157.

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 52 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 53

Gondo, M., Patterson, K. D., & Palacios, S. T. (2013). Mindfulness and the development of a readiness for change. Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 36-51.

Hales, D.N., Kroes, J., Chen, Y., & Kang, K.W. (2012). The cost of mindfulness: A case study. Journal of Business Research, 65(4), 570-578. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.023

Hede, A. (2010). The dynamics of mindfulness in managing emotions and stress. The Journal of Management Development, 29(1), 94-110. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2010). Emperors with clothes on: The role of self-awareness in developing effective change leadership. Journal of Change Management, 10(4), 369-385. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2010.516483

Hoy, W.K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87-108

Jonsen, K., Aycan, Z., Berdrow, I., Boyacigiller, N., Brannen, M.Y., Canney, S. et al. (2010). Scientific mindfulness: A foundation for future themes in international business. Acad- emy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Jordan, S., Messner, M., & Becker, A. (2009). Reflection and mindfulness in organiza- tions: Rationales and possibilities for integration. Management Learning, 40(4), 465-473. doi:10.1177/1350507609339687

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness (15th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Delta Trade Paperback/ Bantam Dell.

Khong, B. (2009). Expanding the understanding of mindfulness: Seeing the tree and the forest. Humanistic Psychologist, 37(2), 117-136. doi:10.1080/08873260902892006

Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96-103. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database

Langer, E.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group. Langer, E.J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 43-50. Langer, E.J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group. Langer, E.J. (2005). On becoming an artist: Reinventing yourself through mindful creativity.

West Chester, Pennsylvania, US: APA Division 46, Media Psychology. Langer, E.J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). Mindfulness research and the future. Journal of Social

Issues, 56(1), 129-139. Retrieved from Business Source Complete Mahdavi, I. (2009). International business ethics: strategies and responsibilities. Journal of

Academic & Business Ethics, 2, 1-6. Malinowski, P., & Lim, H.J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Positive affect, hope and optimism

mediate the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement and well- being. Mindfulness. doi: 10 1007/s12671-015-0388-5

Mayer, C. H., & Surtee, S. (2015). The leadership preferences of women leaders working in higher education. GÉNEROS-Multidisciplinary Journal of Gender Studies, 4(1), 612-636.

Oredo, J.O., & Njihia, J.M. (2015). Mindfulness and quality of innovation in cloud com- puting adoption. International Journal of Business and Management 10(1), 144-159. doi. org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n1p144

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, & total nonsense. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Rapgay, L., & Bystrisky, A. (2009). Classical mindfulness: An introduction to its theory and practice for clinical application. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1172, 148-162. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04405.x

Ray, J. L., Baker, L. T., & Plowman, D. A. (2011). Organizational mindfulness in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 188-203.

Reay, T., Berta, W., & Kohn, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on evidence-based manage- ment? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 5-18.

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 53 06/07/15 4:56 PM

peter r. aviles, eric b. dent

54 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Reb, J.M., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of the supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Retrieved from springer.com. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z

Remmers, C., Topolinski, S., & Michalak, J. (2015). Mindful(l) intuition: Does mindfulness influence the access to intuitive processes? Journal of Positive Psychology 10(3), 282-292. doi: 10 1080/1743960.2014.950179

Rerup, C. (2004). Variations in organizational mindfulness. Academy of Management Pro- ceedings Conference paper MOC: B1. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database

Rerup, C. (2006). Success, failure and the gray zone: How organizations learn or don’t from ambiguous experience. Academy of Management Proceedings, BB1-BB6. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.

Ruedy, N.E., & Schweitzer, M.E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 73-87. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0796-y

Schroevers, M., & Brandsma, R. (2010). Is learning mindfulness associated with improved affect after Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy? British Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 95-107. doi: 10:1348/000712609x424195

Sethi, D. (2009). Mindful leadership. Leader to Leader (51), 7-11. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Shao, R., & Skarlickli, D. (2009). The role of mindfulness in predicting individual perform- ance. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 41(4), 195-201. doi:10.1037/a0015166

Smyth, L. (2012). Escalation and mindfulness. Negotiation Journal, 28(1), 45-72. Snippe, E., Nyklíček, I., Schroevers, M. J., & Bos, E. H. (2015). The temporal order of change

in daily mindfulness and affect during mindfulness-based stress reduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000057

Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E., & Dutton, J.E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(4), 501-524. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Tan, C.M. (2012). Search inside yourself. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Thietart, R.A., & Forgues, B.B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science,

6(1), 19-31. doi: 10.2307/2635237 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evi-

dence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Turner, S.F., & Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science. 23(1), 24-46. doi:10.1287.orsc.1110.0653

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), S251-S278

Ucok, O. (2006). Transparency, communication and mindfulness. Journal of Management Development 25(10). 1024-1028. doi: 10.1108/02621710610708676

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Varca, P.E. (2010). Role conflict, mindfulness, and organizational ethics in an education-based healthcare institution. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 455- 469. doi: 10.1007/S10551-009-0276-9.

Van Dam, N.T., Earleywine, M., & Borders, A. (2010). Measuring mindfulness? An item response theory analysis of the mindful attention awareness scale. Personality and Indi- vidual Differences, 49(7), 805-810. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

Van de Ven, A.H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science 32(5), 590-607.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802-821. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.22527385

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 54 06/07/15 4:56 PM

the role of mindfulness in leading organizational transformation

The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 55

Vogus, T.J., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2012). Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: A reconciliation and path forward. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 722-735. doi: org/ 10.5465/amle.2011.0002C

Vogus, T., & Welbourne, T. (2003). Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(7), 877-903. doi:10.1002/job.221

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmuller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measur- ing mindfulness-the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences 40(8), 1543-1555.

Weick, K., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern wisdom and western knowl- edge. Journal of Management Inquiry, (15)3, 275-287. doi:10.1177/1056492606291202

Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

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

Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2000). High reliability: The power of mindfulness. Leader to Leader, 2000(17), 33-38. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database

Williams, J.J. & Seaman, A.E. (2010). Corporate governance and mindfulness: The impact of management accounting systems change. Journal of Applied Business Research, 26(5), 1-17. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global

Yeganeh, B., & Good, D. (2011). Metaphorically speaking: Micro-blogging as a way to reframe workplace interaction. OD Practitioner, 43(3), 12-17.

Yeganeh, B., & Kolb, D. (2009). Mindfulness and experiential learning. OD Practitioner, 41(3), 13-18. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database

q

JAME20_3_Aviles & Dent.indd 55 06/07/15 4:56 PM

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.