ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In recent years, research on mindfulness has grown rapidly in organizational psychology and organizational behavior. Specifically, two bodies of research have emerged: One focuses on the intrapsychic processes of individual mind-fulness and the other on the social processes of collective mindfulness. In this review we provide a pioneering, cross-level review of mindfulness in organizations and find that mindfulness is neither mysterious nor mystical, but rather can be reliably and validly measured, linked to an array of individual and organizational outcomes, and induced through meditative and nonmeditative practices and processes at the individual and collective levels. Our analysis of the combined literatures further reveals that although each literature is impressive, there is a significant need for multilevel mindfulness research that simultaneously examines individual and collective mindfulness and broadens its conception of context. This research agenda provides a more robust understanding of the antecedents, processes, and consequences of individual and collective mindfulness as well as more definitive evidence maximizing mindfulness and its benefits in practice.
Content may be subject to copyright.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Mindfulness in Organizations:
A Cross-Level Review
Kathleen M. Sutcliffe,1Timothy J. Vogus,2
and Erik Dane3,
1Carey Business School and School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202; email:
2Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203;
3Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77252;
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.
First published online as a Review in Advance on
January 29, 2016
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at
This article’s doi:
Copyright c
2016 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
The authors contributed equally to this review.
mindfulness, collective mindfulness, awareness, high-reliability
In recent years, research on mindfulness has grown rapidly in organizational
psychology and organizational behavior. Specifically, two bodies of research
have emerged: One focuses on the intrapsychic processes of individual mind-
fulness and the other on the social processes of collective mindfulness. In
this review we provide a pioneering, cross-level review of mindfulness in
organizations and find that mindfulness is neither mysterious nor mystical,
but rather can be reliably and validly measured, linked to an array of in-
dividual and organizational outcomes, and induced through meditative and
nonmeditative practices and processes at the individual and collective levels.
Our analysis of the combined literatures further reveals that although each
literature is impressive, there is a significant need for multilevel mindfulness
research that simultaneously examines individual and collective mindfulness
and broadens its conception of context. This research agenda provides a
more robust understanding of the antecedents, processes, and consequences
of individual and collective mindfulness as well as more definitive evidence
maximizing mindfulness and its benefits in practice.
Click here to view this article's
online features:
Download figures as PPT slides
Navigate linked references
Download citations
Explore related articles
Search keywords
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
“Live in the present.” It’s an ancient piece of advice, advanced throughout the ages. It is also the
centerpiece of one of the most rapidly ascending lines of scholarship today: mindfulness research.
The influence of mindfulness extends well beyond the legions of peer-reviewed studies on the
topic and even a journal, Mindfulness, devoted to the scientific study of its eponymous subject to
include an outpouring of popular press writing trumpeting the benefits of mindfulness, widespread
adoption of mindfulness practice in training and development programs of major corporations
ranging from Google to General Mills, features on prominent news programs such as 60 Minutes,
and even apps downloadable to most smartphones. Universities, too, have taken up the call. For
example, the director of mindfulness education at UCLA’s Mindful Awareness Research Center
leads on average 200 people every week in a silent Mindfulness Awareness meditation class held
at the Hammer Museum’s Billy Wilder Theater (Hanc 2015).
Growth in the scholarly and practitioner popularity of mindfulness has paralleled and con-
tributed to a corresponding growth in journalistic and scholarly critique (e.g., Ehrenreich
2009). More specifically, critics have deemed organizational implementations of mindfulness
McMindfulness (Purser & Loy 2013) and criticized foundational mindfulness research as lacking
sufficient rigor (e.g., Coyne 2014), or argued that the existing treatments of collective forms of
mindfulness (e.g., Weick et al. 1999) have neutered it of its emancipatory potential (Purser &
Milillo 2015). Still, the surge of interest in the topic dovetails with the observation that mindful-
ness can be studied systematically and rigorously. Through a combination of survey, experimental,
neurocognitive, and inductive methods (e.g., conversation analysis, ethnography), researchers have
placed mindfulness under the microscope, putting centuries-old claims about its benefits to the
Although such so-called scientization of mindfulness has also been critiqued, research has found
that, consistent with longstanding historical claims, mindfulness matters. Evidence shows that it is
associated with some of the very outcomes—enhanced psychological and physical well-being (e.g.,
Brown et al. 2007), for example—that people have long ascribed to it. Moreover, research indicates
that mindfulness can prove beneficial in ways that even historical accounts of the phenomenon did
not anticipate. To illustrate, researchers have demonstrated that mindfulness can slow aging (Epel
et al. 2009), improve standardized test performance (Mrazek et al. 2013), and produce measurable
changes in the human brain (H¨
olzel et al. 2011a). More germane to our review, organizational
research indicates that individual mindfulness is positively related to employee outcomes such as
work engagement (Leroy et al. 2013) and job performance (Dane & Brummel 2014), suggesting
that mindfulness contributes to an organization’s bottom line.
More recently, researchers have begun to investigate the employee and organizational conse-
quences of collective mindfulness—defined as the collective capability to discern discriminatory
detail about emerging issues and to act swiftly in response to these details (Weick et al. 1999,
2000; Vogus & Sutcliffe 2012)—and, in doing so, have found an array of benefits. For employees,
mindful organizing is associated with lower turnover rates (Vogus et al. 2014a), and for organi-
zations, collective mindfulness is positively related to salutary organizational outcomes including
greater customer satisfaction (Ndubisi 2012); more effective resource allocation (Wilson et al.
2011); greater innovation (Vogus & Welbourne 2003); and improved quality, safety, and reliabil-
ity (e.g., Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007a,b). Interestingly, these effects are most commonly observed in
particularly trying contexts characterized by complexity, dynamism, and error intolerance.
Our review suggests that mindfulness research in the organizational sciences carries the po-
tential to shift our thinking on the nature of mindfulness itself. The view of mindfulness ad-
vanced here—one buttressed by cross-level observations drawn from a careful review of more
56 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
than 100 empirical studies and an additional survey of dozens of conceptual papers—suggests that
mindfulness is a more social construct than its name, implied mechanisms, and measurement
implies. As revealed through our organizational and cross-level investigation, mindfulness is em-
bedded in and powerfully shaped by multiple aspects of context, both in how it is triggered and
how it connects to other processes and individual and organizational outcomes. Highlighting such
connections, our review spotlights the emerging literature on collective mindfulness, which, as
with many collective constructs (Morgeson & Hofmann 1999), is not only shaped by top-down
organizational practices and processes but also enacted through a bottom-up process of social
action and interaction. However, collective mindfulness adds nuance with its particular character,
namely the focus of attention in collective mindfulness on the unexpected and the content of social
processes that undergird anticipating, detecting, and responding to it (Weick et al. 1999). Although
underemphasized in the literature, this claim follows from points raised in our review and provides
guidance as to where scholars could focus their attention moving forward. Researchers in orga-
nizational psychology and organizational behavior are especially and even uniquely well-suited to
integrate individual and collective mindfulness through multilevel theorizing and empirical re-
search that could augment existing accounts of mindfulness and also reorient research in notable
Despite these significant advances and noteworthy possibilities, mindfulness research remains
in its nascent stages, especially in the organizational sciences. The purpose of this review is to
synthesize multiple lines of research on mindfulness to provide organizational scholars with a
better understanding of what mindfulness is (across various levels of analysis), how it can be
measured, what fosters its development, and why and how it matters in the workplace. In addition,
we highlight numerous promising avenues for further research, specifically discussing the cross-
level and cross-cultural aspects of mindfulness. In the aggregate, the observations and frameworks
advanced in this review not only provide greater clarity of this burgeoning scholarly domain, but
also serve as a “user’s guide” for scholars and practitioners seeking to navigate, enrich, and apply
the insights emerging from this timeless and timely line of inquiry.
Although individual-level mindfulness does not have a single, universally accepted definition,
progress on this front is apparent. Indeed, within organizational psychology and organizational
behavior, definitions of individual mindfulness are more convergent than divergent. Table 1
features numerous definitions of individual mindfulness culled from articles recently published by
organizational and psychological scholars. For precision, we include each definition in its entirety,
along with (wherever relevant) the citation(s) the authors included alongside their definition (to
provide further insight into the conceptual lineage associated with the definition).
Common across these definitions is the observation that mindfulness is a particular state of
consciousness—one in which an individual focuses attention on present-moment events. For ex-
ample, Zhang & Wu (2014, p. 24) define mindfulness as “a mental state with the characteristics of
present-focused awareness and attention.” Similarly, mindfulness has been described as “a recep-
tive state of mind wherein attention, informed by awareness of present experience, simply observes
what is taking place” (Niemiec et al. 2010, p. 345). Defining mindfulness as a present-moment
focused state of consciousness aligns with historical perspectives on the concept and is in keeping
with investigations of the topic in cognitive and social psychology (e.g., Brown & Ryan 2003,
Brown et al. 2007, Mrazek et al. 2012). Indeed, several of the definitions included in Table 1 are
rooted in a foundational observation published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Mindfulness in Organizations 57
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Table 1 Definitions of individual mindfulness
Source Definition of individual mindfulness
Baas et al. (2014) A state of conscious awareness resulting from living in the moment (Brown & Ryan 2003,
Kabat-Zinn 1994)
Carlson (2013, p. 175) Attention to one’s current experience and nonevaluative observation of that experience
(Bishop et al. 2004)
Creswell & Lindsay (2014, p. 402) Monitoring one’s present-moment experience with acceptance
Dane (2011, p. 1000) A state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment phenomena
occurring both externally and internally
Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg (2015) A meta-cognitive ability defined as “a state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking
place in the present” (Brown & Ryan 2003, p. 822) and involves conscious perception and
processing of external stimuli (in contrast to automatic tendencies)
ulsheger et al. (2013, p. 310) A state of nonjudgmental attentiveness to and awareness of moment-to-moment
experiences (Bishop et al. 2004, Brown & Ryan 2003)
ulsheger et al. (2014, p. 1114) A state of consciousness in which individuals pay attention to the present moment with an
accepting and nonjudgmental attitude (Brown et al. 2007, Kabat-Zinn 1994)
Langer (2014, p. 11) An active state of mind characterized by novel distinction-drawing that results in being
(a) situated in the present, (b) sensitive to context and perspective, and (c) guided (but not
governed) by rules and routines
Leroy et al. (2013, p. 238) A receptive attention to and awareness of external (e.g., sounds) and internal (e.g., emotions)
present-moment states, events, and experiences (Brown & Ryan 2003, Dane 2011)
Niemiec et al. (2010, p. 345) A receptive state of mind wherein attention, informed by awareness of present experience,
simply observes what is taking place
Reb et al. (2014) Present-moment awareness with an observing, nonjudging stance (e.g., Bishop et al. 2004,
Brown et al. 2007, Mikulas 2011)
Ruedy & Schweitzer (2010, p. 73) An individual’s awareness, both internally (awareness of their own thoughts) and externally
(awareness of what is happening in their environment)
Zhang et al. (2013, p. 433) A present-focused awareness and attention (the presence factor) with an open attitude
toward ongoing events and experiences (the acceptance factor) (Bishop et al. 2004)
Zhang & Wu (2014, p. 24) A mental state with the characteristics of present-focused awareness and attention (Bishop
et al. 2004, Brown et al. 2007, Langer 1989b)
that mindfulness is “the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present”
(Brown & Ryan 2003, p. 822).
Some definitions included in Table 1 indicate that the present-moment attentiveness associated
with mindfulness concerns not only external events but also internal (or intrapsychic) events,
such as intuitions and emotions. For example, Leroy et al. (2013, p. 238) note that mindfulness
involves attending to “external (e.g., sounds) and internal (e.g., emotions) present-moment states,
events and experiences,” and Ruedy & Schweitzer (2010, p. 73) observe that mindfulness concerns
awareness of one’s “own thoughts” as well as “what is happening in [one’s] environment.” Thus,
mindfulness entails awareness of “phenomena occurring both externally and internally” (Dane
2011, p. 1000).
The portrait of individual-level mindfulness suggested thus far—i.e., paying attention to in-
ternal and external present-moment events—provides a basis for comparing and differentiating
mindfulness from other attention-related concepts. For example, mindfulness is similar to absorp-
tion (Rothbard 2001) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1990), insofar as each of these states involves
directing attention to present-moment events. However, mindfulness is distinct from these con-
cepts because it involves wide attentional breadth—that is, it involves directing attention toward
58 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
not only external events and phenomena but also internal events (Dane 2011; see also Sheldon
et al. 2015 for empirical distinctions between mindfulness and flow).
Despite the similarities across various definitions of mindfulness, differences exist. Most no-
tably, definitions differ on whether mindfulness consists solely of focusing attention on present-
moment events or whether additional features or qualities characterize mindfulness. For example,
as reflected in Table 1, some definitions suggest that, to be mindful, one’s connection to the
present moment must be nonjudgmental (e.g., H ¨
ulsheger et al. 2013, Sheldon et al. 2015). That
is, in attending to present-moment events, one refrains from making judgments or evaluations,
and thus maintains a nonjudging stance (Reb et al. 2014). This view of mindfulness aligns closely
with traditional Eastern perspectives on the topic, which emphasize the importance of adopting
an open and accepting attitude toward the events one encounters (see Bishop et al. 2004).
A different line of research—one pioneered by Ellen Langer—defines mindfulness as “an active
state of mind characterized by novel distinction-drawing that results in being (1) situated in the
present; (2) sensitive to context and perspective; and (3) guided (but not governed) by rules and
routines” (Langer 2014, p. 11; see also Langer 1989b). This definition departs from the others
included in Table 1, most notably for its focus on drawing distinctions. Indeed, Langer’s view of
mindfulness is more directly tied to creative thinking than to Eastern perspectives on the concept.
This does not mean, however, that Langer’s views on mindfulness are incommensurate with
Eastern perspectives. In fact, Langer (2014) has suggested the line often drawn between other
accounts of mindfulness and her own is unduly stark.
Research on collective mindfulness exhibits greater definitional coherence than its individual
analogue. This is primarily a function of Weick et al.’s (1999) highly influential work, which intro-
duced the concept to organizational psychology and organizational behavior and has continued to
serve as the canonical conceptualization. Their definition of collective mindfulness is alternatively
referred to as mindful organizing (the two terms used interchangeably throughout our review)
and originally builds on the individual-level work of Langer (1989a) and her three aspects of
mindfulness (Weick et al. 1999). Collective mindfulness comprises five interrelated processes at
multiple organizational levels: preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify interpretations,
sensitivity to operations, commitment to resilience, and deference to expertise (Vogus & Sutcliffe
2012; Weick et al. 1999; Weick & Sutcliffe 2001, 2006, 2007). Preoccupation with failure is the
active consideration and ongoing wariness of the possibility of failure that treats any failure or
near miss as an indicator of potentially larger problems (LaPorte & Consolini 1991). Reluctance
to simplify interpretations means actively questioning received wisdom and operating assump-
tions to better uncover blind spots (Schulman 1993). Sensitivity to operations means creating and
maintaining a current, integrated understanding of operations in the moment (Weick et al. 1999).
A commitment to resilience involves growing employee and organizational capabilities to adapt,
improvise, and learn in order to better recover from unexpected events (van Dyck et al. 2005).
Finally, deference to expertise occurs when decisions migrate to those with the greatest expertise
with the problem at hand, regardless of formal rank (Roberts et al. 1994).
Table 2 features a representative, but not exhaustive, set of definitions of collective mindfulness
culled from articles recently published by organizational and psychological scholars. The influence
of Weick and colleagues is evident, as most of the articles reviewed adopt their definition (or, in
papers that precede it, inform their definition, e.g., Schulman 1993).
Collective mindfulness was originally developed to explain how high-reliability organizations
(HROs) avoid catastrophe and perform in a nearly error-free manner under trying conditions.
Over time, the focus has expanded to include “organizations that pay close attention to what is
going on around them, refusing to function on ‘auto-pilot’” (Ray et al. 2011, p. 188; also see Fiol
& O’Connor 2003). In either case, unlike individual mindfulness, organizational mindfulness is Mindfulness in Organizations 59
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Table 2 Definitions of collective mindfulness
Source Definition of collective mindfulness
Ausserhofer et al. (2013, p. 157) To stay mindful, despite hazardous environments, frontline employees consider constantly five
principles: tracking small failures, resisting oversimplification, remaining sensitive to operations,
maintaining capabilities for resilience, and taking advantage of shifting locations of expertise
Barry & Meisiek (2010, p. 1505) The capacity of groups and individuals to be acutely aware of significant details, to notice errors in
the making, and to have the shared expertise and freedom to act on what they notice (from Weick
et al. 2000, p. 34)
Carlo et al. (2012, pp. 1081–82) A means to increase organizational reliability and mitigate the adverse potential of unexpected,
so-called black swan events (Taleb 2007), and is characterized by five mindful behaviors, including
continuous learning from failures and the willingness to consider alternative perspectives
Hales et al. (2012, p. 570) When, in an organizational context, an individual maintains a level of alertness to the activities
surrounding his/her job or task and awareness of how he/she contributes to an overall process
that produces a good or service for a customer
Hargadon & Bechky
(2006, p. 486)
Describes the amount of attention and effort that individuals allocate to a particular task or
interaction, and, through mindful interpretation by group members of an ongoing experience and
the mindful generation of appropriate actions, collective cognition connects individual ideas and
experiences, both redefining and resolving the demands of emerging situations
Hoy et al. (2006, p. 241) Preoccupation with mistakes, reluctance to simplify, sensitivity to day-to-day operations,
resilience, and deference to expertise
Knox et al. (1999, p. 26) Actively and continuously question assumptions; promote orderly challenge of operating routines
and practices so successful lessons of the past do not become routine to the point of safety
degradation; “outside view” actively solicited or created through active multidisciplinary review of
the routine and debriefing of the unusual to prevent normalization of deviance
Mu & Butler (2009, p. 29) An elevated state of awareness of expectations, a nuanced appreciation of the specific context, and
an alertness to potentially significant changes in the face of new and unprecedented situations;
takes into account the specific organizational situation rather than following bandwagon effects
Ndubisi (2012, p. 537) Systems and processes to promote individual and collective mindfulness; a way of working marked
by a focus on the present, attention to operational detail, willingness to consider alternative
perspectives, and an interest in investigating and understanding failures
Ray et al. (2011, p. 188) Referred to by some as organizational mindfulness, a construct developed initially to describe how
high-reliability organizations avoid catastrophic errors (Weick & Sutcliffe 2001), but now
increasingly used to characterize organizations that pay close attention to what is going on around
them, refusing to function on “autopilot”; “mindful” organizations “induce a rich awareness of
discriminatory detail and a capacity for action” (Weick et al. 1999, p. 88)
Valorinta (2009, p. 964) Mindfulness refers to processes that keep organizations sensitive to their environment, open and
curious to new information, and able to effectively contain and manage unexpected events in a
prompt and flexible fashion
Wilson et al. (2011, p. 808) The combination of ongoing scrutiny of existing expectations based on newer experiences,
willingness, and capacity to invent new expectations based on newer experiences, willingness and
capacity 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
to improve foresight and current functioning (from Weick & Sutcliffe 2001, p. 42)
Barrett et al. (2006), Vogus &
Sutcliffe (2007a,b), Vogus &
Welbourne (2003), Vogus
et al. (2014a), Weick (2005),
Weick & Sutcliffe (2003)
All use the categories of collective mindfulness and the definitions from Weick et al. (1999) and/or
later adaptations by Weick & Sutcliffe (2001, 2007); other studies, such as LaPorte & Consolini
(1991; preoccupation with failure, sensitivity to operations, commitment to resilience, and
deference to expertise), Roberts et al. (1994; deference to expertise), and Schulman (1993;
reluctance to simplify interpretations), constitute collective mindfulness
60 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
not viewed as an intrapsychic process or even an aggregation of intrapsychic processes. Instead,
organizational mindfulness is a function of social practices, both action (Weick & Roberts 1993)
and communication (Cooren 2004). In other words, collective mindfulness is a means of engaging
in the everyday social processes of organizing that sustains attention on detailed comprehension
of one’s context and on factors that interfere with such comprehension (Vogus & Sutcliffe 2012;
Weick et al. 1999; Weick & Sutcliffe 2001, 2006, 2007). The emergence of collective mindfulness
in the course of ongoing organizing across organizational levels (Vogus & Sutcliffe 2012) puts it in
tension with recent characterizations of organizational mindfulness as a relatively enduring, stable,
and shared property of organization (Ray et al. 2011). Recent work by Carlo et al. (2012, pp. 1102–
3) has reinforced a cross-level, emergent, and fragile definition of collective mindfulness as “a
totality with intricately connected and interdependent components, from which organizational
mindfulness emerges at the system level.”
Although closely connected to Langer’s foundational work, research in organizational be-
havior highlighting collective mental processes independently informed and shaped the initial
formulation of collective mindfulness. Sandelands & Stablein (1987, pp. 137–38) proposed that
organizations are mental entities capable of thought. As they argued, although the mind is com-
monly defined by what it is able to do, such as think, feel, perceive, or will, it is “not so much
a substance with intellective powers as it is a process of forming ideas.” Westrum (1992, 1997)
suggested that some organizations (e.g., HROs) are “generative, thinking entities, protected by a
comprehensive envelope of human thought” (1997, p. 237). Weick & Roberts (1993) showed that
the reliable operations on naval aircraft carrier flight decks resulted from the “collective mind,”
embodied in the interrelating of crewmembers’ social activities and interactions.
Weick et al.’s (1999) formulation of collective mindfulness has been subsequently refined to
make enriched organizational attention and present moment awareness more focal (Weick &
Sutcliffe 2006). This clarification of collective mindfulness has led to illustrations of “Eastern”
perspectives on collective mindfulness (e.g., Weick & Putnam 2006) and increasing research in
the domain of organizational attention (e.g., Rerup 2009). For example, building on Weick &
Sutcliffe (2006), Rerup (2009) empirically illustrated attentional triangulation as a mindfulness-
like state characterized by stability (concentration), vividness (complexity of representation of
issues), and coherence (compatibility across individuals and collectives).
The conceptual elaboration and refinement of collective mindfulness have also been met with
criticism. Fiol & O’Connor (2003) argued that two of the five processes of collective mindfulness
needed significant change. First, they noted that a sensitivity to operations is mindfulness and not
distinctive. Second, they argued that a preoccupation with failure limits the relevant contexts and,
consequently, reformulated it as preoccupation with failure or success. Levinthal & Rerup (2006)
posit that in its focus on attention and novelty, research on collective mindfulness underplays what
they see as the critical importance of routine action, as well as Weick et al.’s (1999) focus on creat-
ing, enriching, and sustaining mindfulness. Lastly, as the collective mindfulness literature began to
more formally adopt some of the language and concepts from the Buddhist tradition (e.g., Weick
& Putnam 2006), Purser & Milillo (2015) have argued that the treatment of Buddhist doctrine is
inappropriate and incomplete, stripping important context and emancipatory aims foundational
to the perspective. These critiques, however, have remained at the periphery of collective mind-
fulness research but may provide useful future conceptual and empirical refinements.
Although definitional progress and convergence may well continue, we do not view complete
definitional convergence as essential for research on individual and collective mindfulness to
proceed. That multiple perspectives on mindfulness exist is emblematic of the richness of the
mindfulness construct and the deep and wide-ranging lines of inquiry and practice that lie at the
construct’s core. Nevertheless, we do see value in cataloging and consolidating definitions, and Mindfulness in Organizations 61
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Trait State
Not meditation
Not meditation
Not meditation
Not meditation
Figure 1
Measures of mindfulness decision tree. Abbreviations: FFMQ, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; FMI, Freiburg Mindfulness
Inventory; HROP, high-reliability organization perceptions; MAAS, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; OM, organizational
mindfulness; OMP, organizational mindfulness processes; PHLMS, Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale; SMS, State Mindfulness Scale;
SOS, Safety Organizing Scale; TMS, Toronto Mindfulness Scale.
we hope this review provides an advance in this direction. We further hope that articulating the
individual-level foundations of collective mindfulness paired with the distinctive ways in which
collective mindfulness is enacted illustrates points of connection, but also opportunities for putting
these two concepts in relation to each other. (We return to the latter topic in the final section,
Future Research Directions.)
Through our review of the literature, we encountered numerous scale-based approaches—and
related techniques—for capturing individual-level mindfulness empirically. Given that many of
these scales and their respective merits and applications have been reviewed recently (see Bergomi
et al. 2013), we refrain from profiling them in depth. Instead, consistent with our focus on mind-
fulness in the workplace, we focus on the fit between specific mindfulness scales and the various
theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and contexts by which organizational scholars may opt
to study mindfulness. Bringing together the observations and prescriptions offered in this section,
Figure 1 provides researchers with a framework for selecting an individual-level mindfulness
measurement approach given their theoretical interests and empirical objectives.
As individual-level mindfulness is, by its very nature, a state of consciousness, researchers have
developed scales for assessing mindfulness at the state level, such as the Toronto Mindfulness
Scale (Lau et al. 2006) and the State Mindfulness Scale (Tanay & Bernstein 2013). Such scales ask
respondents to report how mindful they were during a task they just completed or a meditation
62 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
session they just engaged in. For an alternative, “real time” option for assessing state-level
mindfulness, researchers might consider employing experiential sampling methods. For example,
with the assistance of a smartphone app, researchers may contact research participants at random
points during a given day or week and ask them to report what they are thinking about, how they
are feeling, and whether their mind is on task (or situated in the present moment) versus off task
(or away from the present altogether) (see Killingsworth & Gilbert 2010).
As with many state-level concepts (e.g., positive and negative affect), mindfulness can be con-
ceptualized and measured not only as a state but also as a trait. Trait-level assessment is well-suited
to correlational research linking mindfulness to global indicators of health and well-being as well
as overall job performance. Researchers have their pick of several validated trait-level scales (e.g.,
Baer et al. 2008, Brown & Ryan 2003, Cardaciotto et al. 2008, Chadwick et al. 2008). If they are
interested in the degree to which people tend to be mindful at work, researchers may consider
adapting an existing trait-level measure to capture the degree to which one tends to be mindful
within a given work context (see, e.g., Dane & Brummel 2014, Reb et al. 2015).
In selecting a measurement scale or technique, researchers should also consider how they
view mindfulness conceptually. As noted above, definitions of mindfulness vary in their features
and therefore some measurement approaches match certain definitions better than others. To
illustrate, if one views mindfulness primarily in terms of attending to the present moment, one
might consider using Brown & Ryan’s (2003) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), given
that it focused on this particular feature (see Van Dam et al. 2010 for an item-level assessment of the
MAAS). Similarly, if one holds a multifaceted perspective on mindfulness, other measures, such as
the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer et al. 2008) or the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory
(Buchheld et al. 2001), are better candidates. By the same logic, researchers embracing Langer’s
(1989a,b) view of mindfulness should consider utilizing the Langer Mindfulness Scale, available
for purchase through IDS Publishing (see Haigh et al. 2011 for a psychometric examination of
this scale).
Finally, researchers should devote thought to whether meditation is germane to their re-
search question or target population. Given the historical connections between mindfulness and
meditation—and that, in some cases, researchers have used meditative training programs to
“develop” mindfulness among study participants (discussed in the next section)—some mind-
fulness scales are catered toward those who meditate (e.g., Lau et al. 2006, Walach et al. 2006). At
the same time, other scales—particularly those rooted in an individual differences perspective—
presume no experience or familiarity with meditation including the MAAS (Brown & Ryan 2003)
and the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (Cardaciotto et al. 2008). In short, depending on how one’s
study is designed (e.g., does it involve a meditative training program?) and what population(s) one
is studying, one may opt for a mindfulness scale that calls for an understanding of (or experience
with) meditation—or requires no such knowledge.
Relative to individual mindfulness, measurement of organizational mindfulness is much less
developed with few valid measures. In fact, the majority of research examining organizational
mindfulness is qualitative. Specifically, two-thirds of the works we identified as empirically inves-
tigating organizational mindfulness were qualitative, including action research (e.g., Hales et al.
2012), case studies (e.g., Bigley & Roberts 2001, Carlo et al. 2012, Madsen et al. 2006, Rerup
2009, Valorinta 2009), interview-based studies (Roth et al. 2006, Wilson et al. 2011), observa-
tional studies (Cooren 2004, 2006; Klein et al. 2006; LaPorte & Consolini 1991; Roe & Schulman
2008; Schulman 1993; Weick & Roberts 1993), and reanalyses of governmental reports (e.g.,
Weick 2005, Weick & Sutcliffe 2003) or previously published research (e.g., Barry & Meisiek
2010, McPhee et al. 2006). At its early stage of development, it is not surprising to observe a
preponderance of qualitative research. These approaches allow researchers to develop a sense of Mindfulness in Organizations 63
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
the grounded and ongoing nature of organizational mindfulness in a variety of settings extending
beyond traditional high-reliability settings (e.g., aircraft carrier flight decks; Weick & Roberts
1993) to include architectural design and construction (Carlo et al. 2012), drug rehabilitation cen-
ters (Cooren 2004), and retail organizations (Valorinta 2009). Although helpful in detailing and
representing the collective mindfulness construct across settings, several studies merely illustrate
the known dimensions of collective mindfulness in different settings (e.g., health care; Wilson et al.
2011). Qualitative studies also inherently trade off replicability and generalizability for richness.
To build on the qualitative foundations of collective mindfulness research, quantitative mea-
surement of collective mindfulness and its constituent processes have begun to proliferate. The
direct assessment of collective mindfulness has almost exclusively taken the form of survey mea-
sures. Survey measures of collective mindfulness usually take one of two forms: a unidimensional
construct such as the Safety Organizing Scale (SOS; Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007a) or a multifactor mea-
sure such as organizational mindfulness where each of the five processes (e.g., preoccupation with
failure) represents a separate construct (although it may feed into a second-level factor; Ray et al.
2011). However, most measures of collective mindfulness have been subjected to limited validity
testing. For these instruments to be valid, they need to demonstrate traditional psychometrics
by meeting traditional thresholds for reliability and validity (e.g., convergent, discriminant, and
criterion) as well as justify individual survey responses being aggregated to the collective level.
Vogus and Sutcliffe’s SOS is a nine-item, unidimensional survey measure that demonstrates
reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity (from trust in leadership and affective com-
mitment), the appropriateness of aggregating the measure, and criterion validity by linking it
to organizational (e.g., patient safety, turnover) and individual (emotional exhaustion) outcomes
across three studies of registered nurses in hospitals (Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007a,b; Vogus et al.
2014a). Ausserhofer et al. (2013) followed a similar approach in validating their versions of the
scale in French, German, and Italian. Valentine et al. (2010) developed an eight-item organiza-
tional mindfulness scale on the basis of Weick & Sutcliffe’s (2001) focus on individual assessments
of a company’s dedication to stakeholder interests, quality assurance, managing uncertainty, and
positive business practices, finding support for reliability and validity (linked to corporate eth-
ical values as an antecedent and role conflict as an outcome); however, their measure was not
aggregated to a collective measure.
Ray et al. (2011) developed and validated a measure of organizational mindfulness in a sample
of business schools. Their 42-item measure supported five distinct factors corresponding to each
of the five components of collective mindfulness described by Weick et al. (1999), but their mea-
sure was validated at the individual, rather than the collective level. Similarly, Mu & Butler (2009)
validated a five-factor, 38-item measure of organizational mindfulness processes in student and
professional service organization samples. In addition to finding support for their hypothesized
model, they also compared the levels of each of the five factors to top management preferences re-
garding how much each should exist in the organization. Commitment to resilience and deference
to expertise illustrated the largest gap from “ideal” levels in a professional service organization.
Hoy et al. (2006) validated in a sample of middle schools three similar 10-item measures, one
for faculty, one for principals, and one for schools; they found support for aggregating individual
survey responses to the collective level and linked their measures to corresponding measures of
trust. Barrett et al. (2006) developed and validated a two-factor measure of high-reliability or-
ganizations’ perceptions. They found support in a small sample of employees of a Midwestern
fire department for two factors—self-efficacy and organizational risk responsiveness—in a con-
firmatory factor analysis, but did not aggregate their measure nor demonstrate criterion validity.
Although all these measures need further refinement and validation, they are promising in their
64 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
ability to discriminate subcomponents of collective mindfulness and isolate their potential unique
antecedents and consequences.
Other research has also used a range of indirect measures of collective mindfulness as part of
quantitative studies. For example, Vogus & Welbourne (2003) undertook content coding of the
company prospectuses companies filed for their initial public offerings as a way to illustrate how a
set of specific human resource practices led to innovation and firm performance. Mindfulness has
also been indirectly examined using proxies for its absence such as workarounds (Wheeler et al.
2012); using survey measures of related concepts such as care reliability, information reliability,
and pre-emptive conflict handling as assessed by customers (Ndubisi 2012); or by inferring its
existence through a set of specific outcomes (Knox et al. 1999).
Despite the evident progress validating measures of collective mindfulness—with some ex-
ceptions (e.g., Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007a)—most existing measures of collective mindfulness lack
sufficient discriminant validation from related concepts such as psychological safety (Edmond-
son 1999), safety climate (leader and organizational attention and priority given to safety; Zohar
1980), transactive memory systems (Lewis 2003), team situation awareness (Salas et al. 1995),
and other teamwork behaviors (e.g., backup behavior; LePine et al. 2008), among others. This
represents a key gap because research on collective mindfulness is predicated upon it being a con-
ceptually and empirically distinct construct. In other words, for collective mindfulness research to
make significant inroads in mainstream organizational psychology and organizational behavior,
more construct validation (especially assuring that measures of collective mindfulness are, in fact,
collective measures) and better development of its nomological network are essential.
Much research concerned with the development of individual-level mindfulness maintains—and
seeks to demonstrate—that mindfulness can be developed through meditation (e.g., Jensen et al.
2012, Michel et al. 2014, Mrazek et al. 2013, Wolever et al. 2012). Such research takes its cue
from programs such as mindfulness-based stress reduction (Kabat-Zinn 2003) and mindfulness-
based cognitive therapy (Teasdale et al. 2000)—programs designed to help people achieve greater
well-being through systematic and somewhat lengthy (several weeks, in many cases) training con-
sisting of meditation sessions and exercises. Accordingly, in adopting or adapting such programs,
researchers have focused not only on developing mindfulness through meditation but also on
documenting specific outcomes associated with health and well-being [e.g., reduced stress and
improved sleep quality (see Wolever et al. 2012; see also Eberth & Sedlmeier 2012 for a meta-
analysis of meditative training programs and their outcomes)].
Building on the view that mindfulness is a byproduct of meditation—and condensing the
timescale significantly—experimental research has shown that state mindfulness can be activated
through brief meditation-related instructions and exercises (e.g., Hafenbrack et al. 2014, Ostafin
& Kassman 2012, Papies et al. 2012, Reb & Narayanan 2014). For example, Hafenbrack et al.
(2014) induced mindfulness through a 15-minute exercise that involved focusing attention on
one’s breath. Papies et al. (2012) induced mindfulness by displaying pictures to subjects and
instructing them to consider the content—as well as the transience—of their reactions to the
pictures they viewed. That state mindfulness can be induced in a short time frame through a
variety of approaches has likely contributed to the bourgeoning of research on mindfulness in
cognitive and social psychology (fields well-suited to experimental methods).
If one looks beyond research linking mindfulness to meditation, the body of work document-
ing antecedents to individual-level mindfulness is remarkably thin. Through our review of the Mindfulness in Organizations 65
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
literature, we identified only a handful of studies investigating factors that influence the
development of mindfulness and/or predict its occurrence. Interestingly, compared to other
fields of psychology, organizational psychology and organizational behavior have played a more
pioneering role here.
Dispositional Factors
As noted above, mindfulness can be theorized and measured as both a state and a trait. Although
the origins of trait mindfulness have received little scholarly investigation, research indicates
that trait affect is related to other dispositional characteristics. Through a meta-analysis, Giluk
(2009) found that trait mindfulness is negatively related to neuroticism and positively related to
conscientiousness and trait-level positive affect. To be sure, correlation does not imply causation,
and it is therefore possible that high trait mindfulness explains and predicts a factor such as positive
trait affect rather than the other way around. Even so, it may be the case that trait mindfulness is
not only related to but also explainable via other aspects of one’s personality—a possibility that
gains theoretical import when contrasted with the prospect that mindfulness is primarily a product
of meditation rather than dispositional or genetic influences.
Job Experience
Through a study of paramedics in Austria, researchers found that in acquiring experience,
paramedics increased their level of mindful awareness; however, past a certain level of experi-
ence, mindfulness declined (Mitmansgruber et al. 2008). This finding aligns with the observation
that, through overtraining or entrainment, a higher incidence of mind wandering (and hence, less
mindfulness) is apt to occur within the task domain (Smallwood & Schooler 2006). Nevertheless, a
decline in mindfulness at high levels of experience is perhaps not inevitable in all cases or contexts.
Indeed, from the standpoint of focusing attention widely and drawing multiple distinctions (key
features of mindfulness by varying accounts), a high level of experience may prove invaluable. In an
inductive study of how trial lawyers focus their attention in the courtroom, Dane (2013) found that,
compared to their less experienced colleagues, highly experienced trial attorneys were more adept
at focusing their attention widely across events occurring in the courtroom (e.g., reactions from
the judge, jury members, and opposing counsel) and more attuned to the ways such events could be
enlisted to strengthen their case (e.g., interpreting an unexpected event as a potential opportunity).
As experience is, by its very nature, complex in its character and multifaceted in its consequences
on cognition and behavior, considerably more research is needed to determine whether and how
experience of various forms relates to mindfulness across numerous performance contexts.
Organizational Factors
Through an online survey of working adults, Reb et al. (2015) found that supervisor support was
positively related to employee awareness (a context-specific dimension of mindfulness capturing
employees’ awareness of their experiences, actions, and feelings at work) and that organizational
constraints (e.g., conflicting job demands) were negatively related to employee awareness and
positively related to employee absentmindedness (an additional context-specific dimension of
mindfulness). As research on organizational influences on individual-level mindfulness remains
in its infancy, we perceive much potential for further research in this area. In engaging this
topic, scholars may wish to consider whether and how research on collective mindfulness and its
antecedents (which we now turn to) inform our understanding of mindfulness at an individual level.
66 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Consistent with the individual-level literature, there have been longstanding, but largely unan-
swered calls to empirically investigate the antecedents of collective mindfulness (e.g., Argote
2006). A closer read of the relevant literature on collective mindfulness, however, does provide a
suggestive set of leader and organizational antecedents of collective mindfulness.
Leader Behaviors and Practices
Madsen et al. (2006; see also Roberts et al. 2005) documented the effects of two different lead-
ership regimes on collective mindfulness in a pediatric intensive care unit. Specifically, leaders
trained in high-reliability principles implemented continuing staff education, supporting front-
line staff decisions, and postevent debriefings. In other words, a change in leadership resulted in
new practices that empowered the bedside caregiver and enhanced teamwork, resulting in more
mindful interactions among staff (Madsen et al. 2006, Roberts et al. 2005). A subsequent change
in leadership that reverted to a more “traditional” approach undermined collective mindfulness.
Rerup (2009) also used a longitudinal case study to illustrate how Novo Nordisk’s implementation
of the Novo Nordisk Way (e.g., a set of values and practices such as organizational audits and
boundary-spanning facilitators that connected units) fostered greater and sustained attention to
weak signals and overall attention quality. In a study of trauma units, Klein et al. (2006) found that
active leaders with more confidence in themselves and their subordinates more frequently and
skillfully engaged in dynamic delegation (i.e., deference to expertise) in response to the patient’s
condition. Knox et al. (1999) found that clear purpose, language, and procedures were key enablers
of collective mindfulness. A handful of quantitative studies corroborate the importance of trust
in leadership (Hoy et al. 2006, Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007b) and supportive leadership (Ausserhofer
et al. 2013) for collective mindfulness.
Organizational Practices
A wide range of organizational practices that aid collective mindfulness are observed in HROs.
The most consistently documented organizational practices that enable collective mindfulness in-
clude active socialization (e.g., through vivid stories; Weick & Roberts 1993), continuous training
and simulations of rare events (LaPorte & Consolini 1991), and empowerment (i.e., delegating
authority; Roberts et al. 1994). For example, airline flight crews trained in crew resource manage-
ment such as training in effective communication, how to work as a team (e.g., workload sharing),
error detection, and decision making are more mindful in their team communication and pro-
cesses (McKinney et al. 2005). Additional human resource practices including careful selection
practices (e.g., that minimize hubris; Schulman 1993), positive employee relations’ climate and
extensive training (Vogus & Welbourne 2003), and organizational HR effectiveness (Wheeler
et al. 2012) are associated with indicators of mindfulness (e.g., fewer workarounds). A qualitative
study of railroad operations showed that the combined use of a proactive set of interpersonal
(i.e., communication) and technology-mediated (i.e., radios) monitoring practices aided collective
mindfulness (Roth et al. 2006). Valorinta (2009) offers impressive case studies of two organizations
to illustrate how information technology both enhances and inhibits collective mindfulness. IT
enhances mindfulness by heightening attention through cultivating awareness of IT risks, careful
analysis of issues, and increased organizational collaboration, as well as by enriching action reper-
toires (i.e., providing a toolbox for innovation and mandating change). IT inhibits mindfulness
by routinizing, automating, and otherwise making work inflexible and difficult to enact. Finally,
Barry & Meisiek (2010) suggest that the physical work environment, notably arts-based initiatives, Mindfulness in Organizations 67
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
can foster mindfulness by directing attention away from immediate work concerns and toward
analogous artifacts in ways that break habitual ways of seeing and believing.
Emerging from and catalyzing the growth of research on mindfulness is the observation that
mindfulness matters: It enhances physical and mental well-being (Brown et al. 2007) and improves
performance and cognitive ability across a variety of task domains (e.g., Moore & Gardner 2014,
Schmertz et al. 2009). As noted earlier, some benefits associated with mindfulness are quite striking.
For example, mindfulness-related meditation training has been shown to increase gray matter
density in the human brain (H ¨
olzel et al. 2011a), improve working memory capacity ( Jha et al.
2010), and slow aging (Epel et al. 2009).
Consistent with the aims of this review, we focus on outcomes most pertinent to the work-
place. In doing so, we review research examining the effects of mindfulness on various reflections
of worker well-being (e.g., work-related stress), overall performance in work settings, and perfor-
mance on specific types of tasks found in organizations.
Worker Well-Being
Research has shown that trait mindfulness is positively related to worker well-being across a range
of industries and occupations (e.g., Mitmansgruber et al. 2008, Roche et al. 2014, Schultz et al.
2014). Research has also demonstrated that meditative training programs reduce work-related
stress (e.g., Bazarko et al. 2013, Wolever et al. 2012). Although decreased stress is certainly in
keeping with the intention of such training programs, that mindfulness-based stress reduction
programs have proved beneficial in studies focusing on employees in corporate settings suggests
that the uptick of such programs in industry is not misplaced (see Gelles 2015 for more on the
emergence of meditation and mindfulness in corporate settings).
Further informing our understanding of mindfulness and worker well-being, H ¨
ulsheger et al.
(2013) found through a field experiment with working professionals that mindfulness reduced
emotional exhaustion and increased job satisfaction. Along related lines, research has demon-
strated positive relationships between trait mindfulness and work engagement and its subcom-
ponents (e.g., vigor) (Leroy et al. 2013, Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy 2012). Both correlational and
meditation-based research indicates that mindfulness promotes work/life balance among workers
across multiple industries (Allen & Kiburz 2012, Michel et al. 2014). And in assessing mindful-
ness through a daily diary approach, H ¨
ulsheger et al. (2014) showed that mindfulness at work is
positively associated with sleep quality among working professionals.
There has been very limited attention to the consequences of collective mindfulness for
worker well-being. A recent study by Vogus et al. (2014a) finds a complex relationship between
collective mindfulness and emotional exhaustion in a study of nurses. Specifically, the relationship
between collective mindfulness and emotional exhaustion depended on the group’s performance
history, with collective mindfulness acting as a resource to cope with a history of adverse events
that lowers emotional exhaustion; however, collective mindfulness itself acts as an emotionally
exhausting demand when a group experiences few adverse events. This finding suggests that
collective mindfulness is demanding (Levinthal & Rerup 2006, Schulman 1993, Weick & Sutcliffe
2001), but especially helpful in the most difficult circumstances. In a qualitative study of firefighter
discourse, Scott & Trethewey (2008) found a similarly nuanced relationship with the collective
mindfulness of firefighters being associated with amplifying weak signals and engaging in swift
action for novel threats.
68 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Overall Performance
Through recent research, scholars have connected mindfulness to global measures of behavior
and performance in the workplace. In a study of nuclear power plant operations, Zhang et al.
(2013) found that trait mindfulness was positively related to job performance for operators who
held jobs high in task complexity (see also Zhang & Wu 2014, for relationships between trait
mindfulness and safety performance in the same industry). Dane & Brummel (2014) found a
positive relationship between workplace mindfulness and job performance among those working
in a dynamic performance environment (the restaurant service industry) that remained significant
when controlling for three dimensions of work engagement. Further, Reb et al. (2015) found
positive relationships between work-related mindfulness and task performance and organizational
citizenship behavior, respectively, within their survey of working adults.
Also relevant to overall performance, Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg (2015) found that em-
ployees high in trait mindfulness responded more strongly to ethical leadership in terms of the
effort and helping behaviors they put forth. This suggests that, in the presence of an ethical leader,
individuals high in trait mindfulness are more likely to perceive and embrace the values and behav-
iors they perceive in ethical leaders—and to perform accordingly. Mirroring this finding, through
a pair of cross-industry, survey-based studies, Reb et al. (2014) found that the trait mindfulness
of supervisors is positively related to the well-being and performance of their employees. This
finding suggests that the mindfulness of one person in an organization can influence the well-being
and performance of others.
Consistent with collective mindfulness’ connection to high reliability, numerous studies have
qualitatively associated it with greater organizational reliability (LaPorte & Consolini 1991,
Schulman 1993, Weick & Roberts 1993) and more effective response to disasters (Bigley & Roberts
2001), near-disasters (Rerup 2009), and traumas (Klein et al. 2006). In health care contexts, qualita-
tive studies have also linked observed changes in collective mindfulness to mortality rates (Madsen
et al. 2006, Roberts et al. 2005) and clinical outcomes (Knox et al. 1999). Other reanalyses of high
profile disasters such as the Columbia Space Shuttle (Weick 2005), “excess deaths” of pediatric
patients at the Bristol Royal infirmary (Weick & Sutcliffe 2003), and increases in mortality rates
in a pediatric intensive care unit (Madsen et al. 2006, Roberts et al. 2005) have all been used to
show the negative consequences of the absence of collective mindfulness.
A series of quantitative studies in hospital nursing units has found that collective mindfulness
is associated with fewer medication errors (Ausserhofer et al. 2013; Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007a,b)
and patient falls (Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007a). The positive effects of collective mindfulness were
found to be stronger in workgroups that trusted their leaders and most fully implemented stan-
dard operating procedures (i.e., care pathways; Vogus & Sutcliffe 2007b). In an action research
study of five intensive care units, Hales et al. (2012) investigated linkages between a 10-day col-
lective mindfulness intervention and multiple forms of costs and found evidence of a decrease
in the number of negative incidents between a nurse and a patient’s family, a 50% reduction
in the number of failed nurse supervisor inspections, and a slight improvement in patients dis-
charged alive. However, for other costs (e.g., patient length of stay, cost per patient) there were
no effects. Ndubisi (2012) found that three indicators of collective mindfulness (care reliability,
information reliability, and preemptive conflict handling) were positively associated with cus-
tomer orientation, customer satisfaction, and, in turn, customer loyalty in a hospital setting. In
a qualitative study of professional service firms, Hargadon & Bechky (2006) find that mindful
interactions trigger moments of reflective reframing where individuals demonstrate the difficulty
of their problems and share their prior experiences that can help solve them and elicit collective
creativity. Mindfulness in Organizations 69
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Task Performance
Through numerous experimental studies, researchers have examined relationships between mind-
fulness and performance on various types of tasks. Such research indicates, for example, that a
core dimension of trait mindfulness, observation of external and internal phenomena, facilitates
the generation of creative ideas (Baas et al. 2014). Similarly, scholars have found that trait mind-
fulness predicts performance on insight problem solving (Ostafin & Kassman 2012) and helps
people maintain cognitive flexibility (Moore & Malinowski 2009). Similarly, research indicates
that, through meditation training, people can overcome rigid patterns of thinking (Greenberg
et al. 2012).
Experimentally induced mindfulness has also been shown to help people avoid falling victim to
the sunk-cost bias (Hafenbrack et al. 2014) and to reduce people’s tendency to emphasize negative
information over positive information (Kiken & Shook 2011)—notable findings given how difficult
it can be to resist or overcome cognitive biases. Equally remarkable, researchers demonstrated that
individuals who participated in a two-week mindfulness-training course improved their Graduate
Record Exam reading comprehension scores significantly (Mrazek et al. 2013).
Additionally, research indicates that mindfulness can improve performance in negotiations.
Specifically, Reb & Narayanan (2014) found that individuals assigned to perform a short exercise
designed to foster mindfulness claimed more value than others on a distributive negotiation task.
Although this result points to a competitive benefit of mindfulness, research suggests as well
that mindfulness can foster cohesiveness and thereby increase the performance of work groups. In
particular, Cleirigh & Greaney (2015) found that groups composed of people who participated in a
brief mindfulness intervention outperformed control condition groups on a decision-making task.
Research has also linked mindfulness to the moral domain. Here, researchers have observed
that trait mindfulness is negatively related to unethical behavior on tasks susceptible to cheating
or misreporting (Ruedy & Schweitzer 2010) and that mindfulness-related training is positively
related to compassionate behavior (Lim et al. 2015). Along related lines, research indicates that
both experimentally induced mindfulness and trait mindfulness are negatively related to retaliatory
behavior in the face of injustice (Long & Christian 2015).
Although, generally, research paints a favorable portrait of the consequences of mindfulness for
well-being, overall performance, and task performance, a few studies have exposed performance-
related risks and limitations of mindfulness. In particular, experimental research has demonstrated
that trait mindfulness is negatively related to both implicit learning (Stillman et al. 2014) and
performance on judgments of semantic coherence (Remmers et al. 2015). Such findings serve
notice that mindfulness is not categorically beneficial—a point worth considering as research
trumpeting the merits of mindfulness continues to blossom.
How Does Mindfulness Work? Unpacking the Mechanisms
As research documenting the consequences of mindfulness (especially its benefits) has grown,
scholars have devoted thought to how and why mindfulness contributes to the outcomes reviewed
above. Echoing historical perspectives on the benefits of mindfulness, scholars have made the
argument that, in a mindful state, individuals tend to be less likely to internalize the phenomena and
events that surround or befall them. That is, by focusing on the here-and-now and remaining open
to and accepting of unfolding events, individuals defray the tendency to take things personally—a
tendency that can leave people vulnerable to interpreting events as a reflection or indictment of
who they are (Ryan & Brown 2003). In reperceiving (Shapiro et al. 2006) the world in a manner
that promotes the decoupling of self (Glomb et al. 2011), individuals are less prone to provocation
70 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
or indignation and more open, curious, and content—qualities promoting self-insight and mental
and physical well-being (Carlson 2013).
Linking mindfulness to a concept popular in the psychological sciences, researchers have also
argued that mindfulness facilitates self-regulation (e.g., Glomb et al. 2011, H¨
olzel et al. 2011b,
Shapiro et al. 2006) and have suggested that, through meditative training, people can develop
their self-regulatory capacities (Masicampo & Baumeister 2007). By its nature, self-regulation
enables people to assume greater control over their actions and thus reduces their dependence
on automatic mental processes (Glomb et al. 2011). Consistent with the view that mindfulness
improves self-regulation and thereby reduces automatic responding, experimental research, for
example, has demonstrated that individuals induced toward a mindful state are less impulsive
in their reactions to attractive food than others (Papies et al. 2012). Experimental research also
indicates that mindfulness reduces people’s vulnerability to implicit biases concerning age and
race (Lueke & Gibson 2015).
Complementing these observations, research indicates that mindfulness can improve a sub-
component of self-regulation—emotion regulation—which in turn helps workers resist engaging
in surface acting, an approach associated with emotional exhaustion (H ¨
ulsheger et al. 2013). As
self-regulation is associated with a wide range of salutary and performance-related outcomes (see
Tangney et al. 2004), the self-regulatory benefits of mindfulness may help account for the effects
of mindfulness on both well-being and performance.
Individual and collective mindfulness may also produce favorable outcomes in the workplace
through the interplay with perception and interpretation. In many work contexts, it is critical
for individuals to attend closely to their surroundings, as the events and phenomena occurring
around them may contain key information and, at times, signal potential threats (Bazerman 2014,
Ocasio 2011). Mindfulness should prove pivotal in this regard given its wide attentional breadth
(Dane 2011). Furthermore, mindfulness may increase the vividness with which people interpret
their surroundings (Valentine et al. 2010, Weick & Sutcliffe 2006), especially searching for (and
finding) weak signals of impending danger (Rerup 2009). By its nature, attentional vividness enables
people to see more nuances and complexities in the events they observe. Thus, attentional vividness
should enable workers to identify opportunities associated with their present circumstances and
help them perform effectively (Dane 2013, Rerup 2009).
The five processes comprising collective mindfulness are seen to operate through social pro-
cesses such as conversations. The content and form of conversations constitute important mecha-
nisms through which collective mindfulness influences outcomes including coproduction and co-
completion of utterances (Cooren 2004, 2006), reflective reframing (Hargadon & Bechky 2006),
questioning working hypotheses and rigorously discussing errors and the possibility that some-
thing was missed (Madsen et al. 2006, Roberts et al. 2005), and portraying hazards in uncertain and
novel terms (Scott & Trethewey 2008). The larger system of interaction surrounding conversa-
tion, including shared shorthands (McKinney et al. 2005), shared mental models (Roth et al. 2006),
common beliefs regarding organizing practices (McPhee et al. 2006), and how one’s interactions
fit into and support the system (Weick & Roberts 1993), also importantly shapes the specific
content of conversations. Collective mindfulness also cultivates feelings of efficacy, empowerment
(Klein et al. 2006), and a learning orientation (G¨
artner 2013).
The mechanisms reviewed here are not mutually exclusive and, indeed, may coincide in some
cases. For example, as some researchers have suggested, decoupling of self may either give rise to
(Shapiro et al. 2006) or follow from (Glomb et al. 2011) self-regulation. Similarly, for collective
mindfulness, discourse and norms or systems of interaction are reciprocally and tightly linked.
Nevertheless, some mechanisms may be more pertinent to some outcomes than others. In the
realm of well-being, for example, decoupling of self and self-regulation may prove paramount Mindfulness in Organizations 71
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
whereas, when it comes to job performance, self-regulation, attentional vividness, or conversational
practice may be more relevant.
Our review illustrates the significant theoretical and empirical progress in the mindfulness litera-
tures. Reflecting its comparative maturity, the individual mindfulness literature exhibits consider-
able measurement sophistication (multiple, validated measures), well-established antecedents and
interventions, and linkages with a range of outcomes. Work on its mechanisms, as described above,
merits further conceptual development and empirical study. Collective mindfulness research ex-
hibits impressive conceptual coherence and a growing body of qualitative and quantitative work,
but at the same time more needs to be done to expand its reach beyond HROs to organizational
psychology and organizational behavior more broadly (e.g., Carlo et al. 2012; Fiol & O’Connor
2003; Levinthal & Rerup 2006; Weick & Sutcliffe 2001, chapter 1; Weick & Sutcliffe 2007, pp. 18–
21) perhaps by exploring more prosaic contexts (e.g., Ndubisi 2012) or a wider range of outcomes
(e.g., the search for and construction of entrepreneurial opportunities; Barton 2010, Rerup 2005,
Vogus & Welbourne 2003). Despite these significant strides, opportunities remain for further
research at the individual and collective levels, as we have suggested throughout the review. In
our discussion we focus on future research that capitalizes on what we see as the unique strength
of organizational researchers—cross-level studies of mindfulness (see Table 3 for a summary of
questions for future research). We include both conceptual and empirical approaches to better
integrating individual and collective mindfulness.
Evidence is building that is suggestive of a multilevel and reciprocal relationship between individ-
ual and collective mindfulness. For example, leaders who initiate more mindful social processes
such as appreciative inquiry and scenario planning, engage diverse stakeholders, and fuel efforts
to be in the present by considering new perspectives, categories, and new information may fuel
individual mindfulness (Fiol & O’Connor 2003, Ritchie-Dunham 2014). Alternatively, research
by Cleirigh & Greaney (2015) suggests that individual mindfulness influences group interactions
and group/organizational performance. Schultz et al. (2014) find that individual mindfulness re-
duces defensive responses to some situations. Naturally we can speculate the salutary mechanisms
through which lower defensiveness may influence collective interactions. However, given that
research is limited, we might simply conclude that individual mindfulness may matter to col-
lective mindfulness. More research is needed to create a generalizable multimethod model for
mindfulness, which combines top-down and bottom-up mechanisms. We offer numerous possi-
bilities for future research starting with the interplay of individual and collective mindfulness and
moving to top-down cultural and organizational enablers of mindfulness, bottom-up mechanisms
through which mindfulness imprints culture, and close with the potential importance of affective
Individual and Collective Mindfulness
One of the most important unanswered questions relates to the form of the relationship between
individual and collective mindfulness. Is there a relationship? If so, to what extent are individual
and organizational mindfulness linked? Although the early conception of collective mindfulness
grew out of Langer’s (1989a) research on individual mindfulness, collective mindfulness was not
72 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Table 3 Areas for future research
Research need Potential research questions
The relationship between individual and
collective mindfulness
Is there a relationship between individual and collective mindfulness?
What level of individual mindfulness is necessary for a group to be collectively mindful?
Can a single mindful individual induce collective mindfulness?
Does the mean level or spread in individual mindfulness matter more for collective
Do the effects of individual mindfulness on collective mindfulness depend on supportive
leaders or organizational processes (e.g., group norms)?
Does collective mindfulness influence individual mindfulness? If so, does it require
sustained exposure to collective mindfulness?
National culture and mindfulness Do cultures characterized by a focus on the present observe higher levels of individual
and collective mindfulness?
Are collectivistic cultures and their attendant levels of interdependent selves, dialectical
thinking, and duality associated with higher levels of individual and collective
Organizational culture and practice
antecedents of mindfulness
What are nonmeditative means by which organizations can foster individual mindfulness?
Are leader inclusiveness and a climate of psychological safety associated with higher levels
of collective mindfulness?
How does collective mindfulness shape organizational culture over time?
Contextual boundary conditions on
mindfulness–performance relationship
Do the positive performance effects of individual and collective mindfulness only hold for
complex or dynamic work environments and jobs?
Are the performance benefits of individual and collective mindfulness greater than the
costs of inducing mindfulness (e.g., mindfulness training)?
Affective underpinnings of mindfulness Does emotion regulation in the form of feeling rules reduce arousal and foster greater
individual and collective mindfulness?
Do affective forecasting accuracy and emotional intelligence result in higher levels of
individual and collective mindfulness?
Does emotional ambivalence (e.g., simultaneous doubt and hope) sustain collective
mindfulness over time?
grounded in an assumption that individual mindfulness is a necessary precondition for it. It is
possible, however, that the thought processes of individual mindfulness are an antecedent. If
individual mindfulness does augur collective mindfulness, what is the composition of the group
necessary to produce collective mindfulness? Does the average level of individual mindfulness
matter more or the dispersion of levels? Alternatively, can a single highly mindful individual
through processes resembling minority influence (e.g., Nemeth & Staw 1989) foster higher
levels of collective mindfulness? Are factors such as group norms or leader behaviors necessary
for translating individual mindfulness into collective mindfulness? It is also possible, and worth
exploring, that sustained engagement with a group exhibiting the rich patterns of acting and
interacting of mindful organizing correspondingly influences individual mindfulness.
National Culture
Along related lines, scholars could explore whether the degree to which employees tend to be
mindful varies from one culture to another (across the same types of positions and organizations).
This possibility finds support in research suggesting that national cultures differ in the degree to
which they are oriented toward the past, present, and future, respectively (e.g., Guo et al. 2012, Mindfulness in Organizations 73
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998). It is perhaps the case, for example, that mindfulness
tends be high in nations characterized by a high focus on the present. At the same time, it may
be the case that, as with individuals, cultures can rank high (or low) across all three temporal
targets (see Shipp et al. 2009)—and that certain combinations (e.g., focusing highly not only on
the present but also the past and/or the future) may be well-suited to mindfulness. Through
empirical investigation, researchers could assess these possibilities and, more generally, explore
how the routing of attention within and across time at the individual level is shaped by the broader
cultural environments (both organizational and national) in which individuals work. Similarly,
collective mindfulness may be more likely to emerge and be sustained in collectivistic cultures
frequently characterized by a strong interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama 1991), dialectical
thinking (Peng & Nisbett 1999), or organizational capabilities for duality (Farjoun 2010), all of
which merit exploration.
Organizational Culture and Practices
Research is also underdeveloped with regard to where, when, and how mindfulness arises in
work settings. Although some prominent corporations, including Google and General Mills, have
adopted meditation training designed to foster mindfulness among their employees (see Gelles
2015), it is perhaps safe to assume that, at least in corporate America, such practices remain
the exception to the rule. Nevertheless, various aspects of organizations, such as their level of
supportiveness (Reb et al. 2015), may shape the degree to which an organization’s members are
individually mindful, regardless of whether the organization has instituted programs specifically
designed to develop employee mindfulness. By pursuing this observation further, scholars could
deepen our understanding of the interplay between organizational factors and individual-level
mindfulness and gain insight into how mindfulness in organizations can be fostered or “managed”
through nonmeditative means. Similar organizational practices can also fuel collective mindfulness
as they instill and shape the social practice. Factors such as psychological safety (Edmondson 1999),
where members of a workgroup feel safe to take an interpersonal risk, or leader inclusiveness
(Nembhard & Edmondson 2006), whereby leaders solicit divergent opinions from workgroup
members, might be especially promising for fostering collective mindfulness. In addition, mindful
organizing may have a reciprocal relationship with the content of an organization’s culture. That is,
the interactions occurring through processes of mindful organizing (e.g., questioning assumptions,
attempting to learn from small discrepancies and deviations) may reinforce, or even amplify,
cultural values such as psychological safety, learning orientation, reflection, and learning. The
top-down effects of culture and organizational practices on both forms of mindfulness as well as
the bottom-up process through which mindful processes shape culture merit further exploration.
Contextual Boundary Conditions
Although research points to the performance benefits of mindfulness in the workplace, our review
suggests that these benefits may be amplified within (or perhaps limited to) specific contexts
(e.g., dynamic work environments or complex jobs). Further work is therefore needed to better
understand the circumstances under which mindfulness is conducive to performance and, as noted
above, the forms of performance to which it is conducive, especially at the organizational level.
Another contextual boundary condition that has received little attention in existing research is the
cost of mindfulness. In collective mindfulness research, this question has received little attention
because for HROs the costs of a disaster (e.g., nuclear meltdown) outweigh virtually any investment
to avoid it. However, making individual and collective mindfulness applicable to a wider array of
74 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
contexts depends on a more careful measurement of the costs of developing it and the benefits
achieved relative to those costs (e.g., the cost of individual mindfulness training relative to its
benefits on productivity, turnover, etc.). It would also be useful to understand when and why
mainstream organizations pursue these processes of mindful organizing in the absence of obvious
threats (Sutcliffe & Vogus 2014).
Affective Mechanisms
Emotion regulation (i.e., reducing arousal) is a mechanism that seems to underlie individual mind-
fulness and could help bridge individual and collective forms of mindfulness. Individual mindful-
ness research finds that mindfulness fosters emotion regulation that reduces emotional exhaustion
(H ¨
ulsheger et al. 2013). The salutary effects of emotion regulation might help collectives sustain
the demanding processes of mindful organizing (Schulman 1993), especially in trying conditions.
Thus, emotion regulation may be a promising mechanism by which individual mindfulness fosters
collective mindfulness. In addition, group or organizational feeling rules (Hochschild 1979) may
help regulate emotion and guide interpretations in ways that foster individual and/or collective
mindfulness. Other affective mechanisms also seem promising for future research, including emo-
tional intelligence and affective forecasting accuracy in accounting for the benefits of mindfulness
(see Emanuel et al. 2010, Schutte & Malouff 2011). Vogus et al. (2014b) have previously outlined
how emotional ambivalence, the simultaneous experience of two emotions, in the form of simul-
taneous doubt and hope may help sustain collective mindfulness in HROs. The role of emotional
ambivalence for individual and collective mindfulness also merits empirical investigation.
Although operating differently, mindfulness in individuals and collectives has far-reaching benefits
for health and well-being, work meaningfulness, and individual and organizational performance.
Thus, two courses of action seem merited: (a) Leaders and their organizations should think about
individual and collective forms of mindfulness as targets for intervention, and (b) careful con-
sideration should be paid to the range of interventions documented to elicit mindfulness (e.g.,
mindfulness training, careful selection and staffing, and leader behaviors). In other words, we en-
dorse a holistic approach to assessing an organization’s mindfulness needs and one that chooses
the focus based on where mindfulness is most critical to the organization (e.g., for individual,
independent task performance or team-based work) and the employee.
Mindful engagement with one’s life and work has been of enduring interest to philosophers,
practitioners, and scholars alike. We have moved beyond more general treatments of mindfulness
as a cognitive phenomenon to illustrate how, in organizations, individual mindfulness is contex-
tually embedded and processes of collective mindfulness are socially enabled and enacted with
both forms of mindfulness significantly benefitting individuals and their organizations in multiple
ways. We argue that an organizational perspective on mindfulness holds promise for developing an
integrated multilevel theory of mindfulness by fully depicting the varied ways in which individual
mindfulness, collective mindfulness, and organizational context are mutually constitutive.
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review. Mindfulness in Organizations 75
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
We would like to thank Sue Ashford and Fred Morgeson for constructive and insightful feedback,
which improved greatly the coherence of our contribution. We also thank Samuel Hughes for his
help early on with the literature.
Allen TD, Kiburz KM. 2012. Trait mindfulness and work-family balance among working parents: the medi-
ating effects of vitality and sleep quality. J. Vocat. Behav. 80:372–79
Argote L. 2006. CROSSROADS—Introduction to mindfulness. Organ. Sci. 17:501
Ausserhofer D, Schubert M, Desmedt M, Blegen MA, De Geest S, Schwendimann R. 2013. The association
of patient safety climate and nurse-related organizational factors with selected patient outcomes: a cross-
sectional survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 50:240–52
Baas M, Nevicka B, Ten Velden FS. 2014. Specific mindfulness skills differentially predict creative perfor-
mance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40:1092–106
Baer RA, Smith GT, Lykins E, Button D, Krietemeyer J, et al. 2008. Construct validity of the five facet
mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment 15:329–42
Barrett MS, Novak JM, Venette SJ, Shumate M. 2006. Validating the high reliability organization perception
scale. Commun. Res. Rep. 23:111–18
Barry D, Meisiek S. 2010. Seeing more and seeing differently: sensemaking, mindfulness, and the workarts.
Organ. Stud. 31:1505–30
Barton MA. 2010. Sharing entrepreneurial opportunities: Managing uncertainty and equivocality in the en-
trepreneurial process. PhD Thesis, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor
Bazarko D, Cate RA, Azocar F, Kreizer MJ. 2013. The impact of an innovative mindfulness-based stress
reduction program on the health and well-being of nurses employed in a corporate setting. J. Workplace
Behav. Health 28:107–33
Bazerman MH. 2014. The Power of Noticing. New York: Simon & Schuster
Bergomi C, Tschacher W, Kupper Z. 2013. The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: existing
scales and open issues. Mindfulness 4:191–202
Bigley GA, Roberts KH. 2001. The incident command system: high-reliability organizing for complex and
volatile task environments. Acad. Manag. J. 44:1281–300
Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, Carlson L, Anderson ND, et al. 2004. Mindfulness: a proposed operational
definition. Clin. Psychol.: Sci. Pract. 11:230–41
Brown KW, Ryan RM. 2003. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-
being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:822–48
Brown KW, Ryan RM, Creswell JD. 2007. Mindfulness: theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary
effects. Psychol. Inq. 18:211–37
Buchheld N, Grossman P, Walach H. 2001. Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and
meditation-based psychotherapy: the development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). J. Med-
itation Meditation Res. 1:11–34
Cardaciotto L, Herbert JD, Forman EM, Moitra E, Farrow V. 2008. The assessment of present-moment
awareness and acceptance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment 15:204–23
Carlo JL, Lyytinen K, Boland RJ Jr. 2012. Dialectics of collective minding: Contradictory appropriations of
information technology in a high-risk project. MIS Q. 36:1081–108
Carlson EN. 2013. Overcoming the barriers to self-knowledge mindfulness as a path to seeing yourself as you
really are. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8:173–86
Chadwick P, Hember M, Symes J, Peters E, Kuipers E, Dagnan D. 2008. Responding mindfully to unpleasant
thoughts and images: reliability and validity of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). Br.
J. Clin. Psychol. 47:451–55
Cleirigh DO, Greaney J. 2015. Mindfulness and group performance: an exploratory investigation into the
effects of brief mindfulness intervention on group task performance. Mindfulness 6:601–9
76 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Cooren F. 2004. The communicative achievement of collective minding analysis of board meeting excerpts.
Manag. Commun. Q. 17:517–51
Cooren F. 2006. Arguments for the in-depth study of organizational interactions: a rejoinder to McPhee,
Myers, and Trethewey. Manag. Commun. Q. 19:327–40
Coyne JC. 2014. Re-examining Ellen Langer’s classic study of giving plants to nursing home residents.
PLOS Blogs: Mind Brain: Link. Neurosci. Res., Psychol. Disord., Health Well-Being. http://blogs.plos.
Creswell JD, Lindsay EK. 2014. How does mindfulness training affect health? A mindfulness stress buffering
account. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23:401–7
Csikszentmihalyi M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.NewYork:Harper&Row
Dane E. 2011. Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. J. Manag.
Dane E. 2013. Things seen and unseen: investigating experience-based qualities of attention in a dynamic
work setting. Organ. Stud. 34:45–78
Dane E, Brummel BJ. 2014. Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and
turnover intention. Hum. Relat. 67:105–28
Eberth J, Sedlmeier P. 2012. The effects of mindfulness meditation: a meta-analysis. Mindfulness 3:174–89
Edmondson AC. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:350–83
Ehrenreich B. 2009. Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America.
New York: Macmillan
Eisenbeiss SA, van Knippenberg D. 2015. On ethical leadership impact: the role of follower mindfulness and
moral emotions. J. Organ. Behav. 36:182–95
Emanuel AS, Updegraff JA, Kalmbach DA, Ciesla JA. 2010. The role of mindfulness facets in affective fore-
casting. Personal. Individ. Differ. 49:815–18
Epel E, Daubenmier J, Moskowitz JT, Folkman S, Blackburn E. 2009. Can meditation slow rate of cellular
aging? Cognitive stress, mindfulness, and telomeres. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1172:34–53
Farjoun M. 2010. Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35:202–25
Fiol M, O’Connor EJ. 2003. Waking Up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28:54–70
artner C. 2013. Enhancing readiness for change by enhancing mindfulness. J. Change Manag. 13:52–68
Gelles D. 2015. Mindful Work: How Meditation is Changing Business from the Inside Out. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt
Giluk TL. 2009. Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: a meta-analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 47:805–
Glomb TM, Duffy MK, Bono JE, Yang T. 2011. Mindfulness at work. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 30:115–
Greenberg J, Reiner K, Meiran N. 2012. “Mind the trap”: Mindfulness practice reduces cognitive rigidity.
PLOS ONE 7:e36206
Guo T, Ji L-J, Spina R, Zhang Z. 2012. Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:1030–40
Hafenbrack AC, Kinias Z, Barsade SG. 2014. Debiasing the mind through meditation: mindfulness and the
sunk-cost bias. Psychol. Sci. 25:369–76
Haigh EAP, Moore MT, Kashdan TB, Fresco DM. 2011. Examination of the factor structure and concurrent
validity of the Langer Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale. Assessment 18:11–26
Hales DN, Kroes J, Chen Y, Kang KW. 2012. The cost of mindfulness: a case study. J. Bus. Res. 65:570–78
Hanc J. 2015. 25 minutes of silence in the City of Angels. The New York Times, March 20, F2
Hargadon AB, Bechky BA. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: a field study of
problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17:484–500
Hochschild AR. 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. Am. J. Sociol. 85:551–75
olzel BK, Carmody J, Vangel M, Congleton C, Yerramsetti SM, et al. 2011a. Mindfulness practice leads to
increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Res.: Neuroimaging 191:36–43 Mindfulness in Organizations 77
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
olzel BK, Lazar SW, Gard T, Schuman-Olivier Z, Vago DR, Ott U. 2011b. How does mindfulness medi-
tation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspect. Psychol.
Sci. 6:537–59
Hoy WK, Gage CQ, Tarter CJ. 2006. School mindfulness and faculty trust: necessary conditions for each
other? Educ. Adm. Q. 42:236–55
ulsheger UR, Alberts HJ, Feinholdt A, Lang JW. 2013. Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mind-
fulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:310–25
ulsheger UR, Lang JWB, Depenbrock F, Fehrmann C, Zijlstra FRH, Alberts HJEM. 2014. The power
of presence: the role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological
detachment and sleep quality. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:1113–28
Ie A, Ngoumen CT, Langer EJ, eds. 2014. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness. Chichester, UK:
Jensen CG, Vangkilde S, Frokjaer V, Hasselbalch SG. 2012. Mindfulness training affects attention—Or is it
attentional effort? J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 141:106–23
Jha AP, Stanley EA, Kiyonaga A, Wong L, Gelfand L. 2010. Examining the protective effects of mindfulness
training on working memory capacity and affective experience. Emotion 10:54–64
Kabat-Zinn J. 1994. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. White Plains,
NY: Hyperion
Kabat-Zinn J. 2003. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clin. Psychol.: Sci.
Pract. 10:144–56
Kiken LG, Shook NJ. 2011. Looking up: mindfulness increases positive judgments and reduces negativity
bias. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2:425–31
Killingsworth MA, Gilbert DT. 2010. A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science 330:932
Klein KJ, Ziegert JC, Knight AP, Xiao Y. 2006. Dynamic delegation: shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized
leadership in extreme action teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 51:590–621
Knox GE, Simpson KR, Garite TJ. 1999. High reliability perinatal units: an approach to the prevention of
patient injury and medical malpractice claims. J. Healthc. Risk Manag. 19:24–31
Langer EJ. 1989a. Mindfulness. Boston: Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman
Langer EJ. 1989b. Minding matters: the consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
Langer EJ. 2014. Mindfulness forward and back. See Ie et al. 2014, pp. 7–20
LaPorte TR, Consolini PM. 1991. Working in practice but not in theory: theoretical challenges of “high-
reliability organizations.” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 1:19–47
Lau MA, Bishop SR, Segal ZV, Buis T, Anderson ND, et al. 2006. The Toronto mindfulness scale: develop-
ment and validation. J. Clin. Psychol. 62:1445–67
LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, Saul JR. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests
of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers. Psychol. 61:273–307
Leroy H, Anseel F, Dimitrova NG, Sels L. 2013. Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement:
a growth modeling approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 82:238–47
Levinthal DA, Rerup C. 2006. Crossing an apparent chasm: bridging mindful and less mindful perspectives
on organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 17:502–13
Lewis K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. J. Appl.
Psychol. 88:587–604
Lim D, Condon P, DeSteno D. 2015. Mindfulness and compassion: an examination of mechanism and stability.
PLOS ONE 10:e0118221
Long EC, Christian MS. 2015. Mindfulness buffers retaliatory responses to injustice: a regulatory approach.
J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1409–22
Lueke A, Gibson B. 2015. Mindfulness meditation reduces implicit age and bias: the role of reduced auto-
maticity of responding. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6:284–91
Madsen PM, Desai VM, Roberts KH, Wong D. 2006. Mitigating hazards through continuing design: the
birth and evolution of a pediatric intensive care unit. Organ. Sci. 17:239–48
Markus HR, Kitayama S. 1991. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion and motivation.
Psychol. Rev. 98:224–53
78 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Marzuq N, Drach-Zahavy A. 2012. Recovery during a short period of respite: the interactive roles of mind-
fulness and respite experiences. Work Stress 26:175–94
Masicampo EJ, Baumeister RF. 2007. Relating mindfulness and self-regulatory processes. Psychol. Inq. 18:255–
McKinney EH, Barker JR, Davis KJ, Smith D. 2005. How swift starting action teams get off the ground: what
United Flight 232 and airline flight crews can tell us about team communication. Manag. Commun. Q.
McPhee RD, Myers KK, Trethewey A. 2006. On collective mind and conversational analysis: response to
Cooren. Manag. Commun. Q. 19:311–26
Michel A, Bosch C, Rexroth M. 2014. Mindfulness as a cognitive-emotional segmentation strategy: an inter-
vention promoting work-life balance. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87:733–54
Mikulas WL. 2011. Mindfulness: significant common confusions. Mindfulness 2:1–7
Mitmansgruber H, Beck TN, Sch¨
ußler G. 2008. “Mindful helpers”: experiential avoidance, meta-emotions,
and emotion regulation in paramedics. J. Res. Personal. 42:1358–63
Moore A, Malinowski P. 2009. Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility. Conscious. Cogn. 18:176–86
Moore ZE, Gardner FL. 2014. Mindfulness and performance. See Ie et al. 2014, pp. 986–1003
Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for
multilevel research and theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:249–65
Mrazek MD, Franklin MS, Phillips DT, Baird B, Schooler JW. 2013. Mindfulness training improves working
memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychol. Sci. 24:776–81
Mrazek MD, Smallwood J, Schooler JW. 2012. Mindfulness and mind-wandering: finding convergence
through opposing constructs. Emotion 12:442–48
Mu E, Butler BS. 2009. The assessment of organizational mindfulness processes for the effective assimilation
of IT innovations. J. Decis. Syst. 18:27–51
Ndubisi NO. 2012. Mindfulness, reliability, pre-emptive conflict handling, customer orientation and outcomes
in Malaysia’s healthcare sector. J. Bus. Res. 65:537–46
Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. 2006. Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status
on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J. Organ. Behav. 27:941–66
Nemeth CJ, Staw BM. 1989. The tradeoff of social control and innovation in groups and organizations.
Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22:175–210
Niemiec CP, Brown KW, Kashdan TB, Cozzolino PJ, Breen WE, et al. 2010. Being present in the face
of existential threat: the role of trait mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to mortality salience.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99:344–65
Ocasio W. 2011. Attention to attention. Organ. Sci. 22:1286–96
Ostafin BD, Kassman KT. 2012. Stepping out of history: mindfulness improves insight problem solving.
Conscious. Cogn. 21:1031–36
Papies EK, Barsalou LW, Custers R. 2012. Mindful attention prevents mindless impulses. Soc. Psychol. Personal.
Sci. 3:291–99
Peng K, Nisbett RE. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. Am. Psychol. 54:741–54
Purser RE, Loy D. 2013. Beyond McMindfulness. Huffington Post: Religion. http://www.huffingtonpost.
Purser RE, Milillo J. 2015. Mindfulness revisited a Buddhist-based conceptualization. J. Manag. Inq. 24:3–24
Ray JL, Baker LT, Plowman DA. 2011. Organizational mindfulness in business schools. Acad. Manag. Learn.
Educ. 10:188–203
Reb J, Narayanan J. 2014. The influence of mindful attention on value claiming in distributive negotiations:
evidence from four laboratory experiments. Mindfulness 5:756–66
Reb J, Narayanan J, Chaturvedi S. 2014. Leading mindfully: two studies on the influence of supervisor trait
mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness 5:36–45
Reb J, Narayanan J, Ho ZW. 2015. Mindfulness at work: antecedents and consequences of employee awareness
and absent-mindedness. Mindfulness 6:111–22
Remmers C, Topolinski S, Michalak J. 2015. Mindful (I) intuition: Does mindfulness influence the access to
intuitive processes? J. Positive Psychol. 10:282–92 Mindfulness in Organizations 79
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Rerup C. 2005. Learning from past experience: footnotes on mindfulness and habitual entrepreneurship.
Scand. J. Manag. 21:451–72
Rerup C. 2009. Attentional triangulation: learning from unexpected rare crises. Organ. Sci. 20:876–93
Ritchie-Dunham JL. 2014. Mindful leadership. See Ie et al. 2014, pp. 443–57
Roberts KH, Madsen PM, Desai VM, Van Stralen D. 2005. A case of the birth and death of a high reliability
healthcare organization. Qual. Saf. Health Care 14:216–20
Roberts KH, Stout SK, Halpern JJ. 1994. Decision dynamics in two high reliability organizations. Manag. Sci.
Roche M, Haar JM, Luthans F. 2014. The role of mindfulness and psychological capital on the well-being of
leaders. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 19:476–89
Roe E, Schulman PR. 2008. High Reliability Management: Operating on the Edge. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ.
Roth EM, Multer J, Raslear T. 2006. Shared situation awareness as a contributor to high reliability performance
in railroad operations. Organ. Stud. 27:967–87
Rothbard NP. 2001. Enriching or depleting: the dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Adm. Sci.
Q. 46:655–84
Ruedy NE, Schweitzer ME. 2010. In the moment: the effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making.
J. Bus. Ethics 95:73–87
Ryan RM, Brown KW. 2003. Why we don’t need self-esteem: on fundamental needs, contingent love, and
mindfulness. Psychol. Inq. 14:71–76
Salas E, Prince C, Baker DP, Shrestha L. 1995. Situation awareness in team performance: implications for
measurement and training. Human Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37:123–36
Sandelands LE, Stablein RE. 1987. The concept of organization mind. In Research in the Sociology of Organi-
zations, ed. S Bachrach, N DiTomaso, pp. 135–61. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Schmertz SK, Anderson PL, Robins DL. 2009. The relation between self-report mindfulness and performance
on tasks of sustained attention. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 31:60–66
Schulman PR. 1993. The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Adm. Soc. 25:353–72
Schultz PP, Ryan RM, Niemiec CP, Legate N, Williams GC. 2014. Mindfulness, work climate, and psycho-
logical need satisfaction in employee well-being. Mindfulness 6:971–85
Schutte NS, Malouff JM. 2011. Emotional intelligence mediates the relationship between mindfulness and
subjective well-being. Personal. Individ. Differ. 50:1116–19
Scott CW, Trethewey A. 2008. Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards: interpretive
repertoires, heedful interrelating, and identity at work. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 36:298–317
Shapiro SL, Carlson LE, Astin JA, Freedman B. 2006. Mechanisms of mindfulness. J. Clin. Psychol. 62:373–86
Sheldon KM, Prentice M, Halusic M. 2015. The experiential incompatibility of mindfulness and flow absorp-
tion. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6:276–83
Shipp AJ, Edwards JR, Lambert LS. 2009. Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: the sub-
jective experience of the past, present, and future. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 110:1–22
Smallwood J, Schooler JW. 2006. The restless mind. Psychol. Bull. 132:946–58
Stillman CM, Feldman H, Wambach CG, Howard JH, Howard DV. 2014. Dispositional mindfulness is
associated with reduced implicit learning. Conscious. Cogn. 28:141–50
Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ. 2014. Organizing for mindfulness. See Ie et al. 2014, pp. 407–23
Taleb NN. 2007. Black swans and the domains of statistics. Am. Stat. 61:198–200
Tanay G, Bernstein A. 2013. State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): development and initial validation. Psychol. Assess.
Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. 2004. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology,
better grades, and interpersonal success. J. Pers. 72:271–324
Teasdale JD, Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Ridgeway VA, Soulsby JM, Lau MA. 2000. Prevention of re-
lapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.
Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner C. 1998. Riding the Waves of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill
Valentine S, Godkin L, Varca PE. 2010. Role conflict, mindfulness, and organizational ethics in an education-
based healthcare institution. J. Bus. Ethics 94:455–69
80 Sutcliffe ·Vogus ·Dane
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03CH03-Sutcliffe ARI 19 February 2016 7:23
Valorinta M. 2009. Information technology and mindfulness in organizations. Individ. Corp. Change 18:963–97
Van Dam NT, Earleywine M, Borders A. 2010. Measuring mindfulness? An item response theory analysis of
the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Personal. Indiv. Differ. 49:805–10
van Dyck C, Frese M, Baer M, Sonnentag S. 2005. Organizational error management culture and its impact
on performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1228–40
Vogus TJ, Cooil B, Sitterding M, Everett LQ. 2014a. Safety organizing, emotional exhaustion, and turnover
in hospital nursing units. Med. Care 52:870–76
Vogus TJ, Rothman NB, Sutcliffe KM, Weick KE. 2014b. The affective foundations of high-reliability orga-
nizing. J. Organ. Behav. 35:592–96
Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM. 2007a. The impact of safety organizing, trusted leadership, and care pathways on
reported medication errors in hospital nursing units. Med. Care 45:997–1002
Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM. 2007b. The Safety Organizing Scale: development and validation of a behavioral
measure of safety culture in hospital nursing units. Med. Care 45:46–54
Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM. 2012. Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: a reconciliation and path
forward. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 11:722–35
Vogus TJ, Welbourne TM. 2003. Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in
reliability-seeking organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 24:877–903
Walach H, Buchheld N, Buttenm ¨
uller V, Kleinknecht N, Schmidt S. 2006. Measuring mindfulness—the
Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personal. Individ. Differ. 40:1543–55
Weick KE. 2005. Making sense of blurred images: mindful organizing in Mission STS-107. In Organization
at the Limit: Lessons from the Columbia Disaster, ed. WH Starbuck, M Farjoun, pp. 159–77. Malden, MA:
Weick KE, Putnam T. 2006. Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern wisdom and Western knowledge. J. Manag.
Inq. 15:275–87
Weick KE, Roberts KH. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm.
Sci. Q. 38:357–81
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. 2001. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. 2003. Hospitals as cultures of entrapment: a reanalysis of the Bristol Royal Infirmary.
Calif. Manag. Rev. 45:73–84
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. 2006. Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organ. Sci. 16:409–21
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty.San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2nd ed.
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. 1999. Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness.
In Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. BM Staw, LL Cummings, pp. 81–123. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. 2000. High reliability: the power of mindfulness. Lead. Lead. 17:33–38
Westrum R. 1992. Cultures with requisite imagination. In Verification and Validation of Complex Systems: Human
Factors Issues, ed. JA Wise, D Hopkin, P Stager, pp. 401–16. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Westrum R. 1997. Social factors in safety-critical systems. In Human Factors in Safety Critical Systems,ed.F
Redmill, J Rajan, pp. 233–56. London: Butterworth-Heinemann
Wheeler AR, Halbesleben JRB, Harris KJ. 2012. How job-level HRM effectiveness influences employee intent
to turnover and workarounds in hospitals. J. Bus. Res. 65:847626
Wilson D, Talsma A, Martyn K. 2011. Mindfulness: a qualitative description of the behaviors charge nurses
enact to safely staff patient care units. West. J. Nurs. Res. 33:805–524
Wolever RQ, Bobinet KJ, McCabe K, Mackenzie ER, Fekete E, et al. 2012. Effective and viable mind-body
stress reduction in the workplace: a randomized controlled trial. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17:246–58
Zhang J, Ding W, Li Y, Wu C. 2013. Task complexity matters: the influence of trait mindfulness on task and
safety performance of nuclear power plant operators. Personal. Individ. Differ. 55:433–39
Zhang J, Wu C. 2014. The influence of dispositional mindfulness on safety behaviors: a dual process perspec-
tive. Accid. Anal. Prev. 70:24–32
Zohar D. 1980. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. J. Appl. Psychol.
65:96–102 Mindfulness in Organizations 81
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Volume 3, 2016
Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An
Autobiographical Look at the Direction of Organizational Research
Barry M. Staw ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1
Team-Centric Leadership: An Integrative Review
Steve W.J. Kozlowski, Stanton Mak, and Georgia T. Chao pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp21
Mindfulness in Organizations: A Cross-Level Review
Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Timothy J. Vogus, and Erik Dane pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp55
Themes in Expatriate and Repatriate Research over Four Decades:
What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need to Learn?
Maria Kraimer, Mark Bolino, and Brandon Mead ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp83
Identity Under Construction: How Individuals Come to Define
Themselves in Organizations
Blake E. Ashforth and Beth S. Schinoff pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp111
Dyadic Relationships
Robert C. Liden, Smriti Anand, and Prajya Vidyarthi ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp139
Genetics and Organizational Behavior
Richard D. Arvey, Wen-Dong Li, and Nan Wang ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp167
Safety Climate in Organizations
Mark A. Griffin and Matteo Curcuruto ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp191
To Seek or Not to Seek: Is That the Only Question? Recent
Developments in Feedback-Seeking Literature
Susan J. Ashford, Katleen De Stobbeleir, and Mrudula Nujella ppppppppppppppppppppppppp213
Dynamic Modeling
Mo Wang, Le Zhou, and Zhen Zhang ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp241
Learner Control and e-Learning: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Kenneth G. Brown, Garett Howardson, and Sandra L. Fisher ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp267
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift
John Antonakis, Nicolas Bastardoz, Philippe Jacquart, and Boas Shamir ppppppppppppppp293
The Nonconscious at Work
Michael G. Pratt and Eliana Crosina pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp321
How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations
Wayne F. Cascio and Ramiro Montealegre pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp349
Impression Management in Organizations: Critical Questions,
Answers, and Areas for Future Research
Mark Bolino, David Long, and William Turnley ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp377
Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What
We Need to Know
Filip Lievens and Jerel E. Slaughter ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp407
The Social Context of Decisions
Richard P. Larrick ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp441
Adaptive Measurement and Assessment
Matt Barney and William P. Fisher Jr. ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp469
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior articles may be found at
viii Contents
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:55-81. Downloaded from
Access provided by Vanderbilt University on 03/25/16. For personal use only.
... Examples of such organizations are nuclear power plants and air traffic control centres. Although there are some well-known classical models that describe what these organizations do to be reliable (Bierly III & Spender, 1995;LaPorte & Consolini, 1991;Roberts, 1993Roberts, , 1990Roberts & Bea, 2001;Roberts & Rousseau, 1989), during the last two decades, the HRO literature has focused on mindful organizing as being responsible for almost error-free operations (Sutcliffe et al., 2016;Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012;Weick et al., 1999;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Mindful organizing refers to a team's capability to discern discriminatory details about emerging risks and threats and act swiftly in response to these details (Weick et al., 1999). ...
... Mindful organizing refers to a team's capability to discern discriminatory details about emerging risks and threats and act swiftly in response to these details (Weick et al., 1999). In its essence, mindful organising is seen in the actions and interactions of teams, where team members collectively anticipate potential threats and work together to quickly recover from these threats (Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Studies conducted in other HROs argue that the absence of appropriate levels of mindful organizing can be associated with severe negative consequences for organizations and their stakeholders, such as death as a consequence of medical errors (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2003) or high-profile disasters in the aerospace industry (Weick, 2005). ...
... Particularly, empirical evidence exists about the mediator role of mindful organizing in the relationship between team safety climate and safety behaviours (Renecle et al., 2021), and in the relationship between team empowering leadership and safety behaviours . All together these studies are contributing to extend the nomological network of mindful organizing, providing quantitative empirical evidence that was absent only a few years ago (Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Team safety climate and team empowering leadership are predictors of mindful organizing, and mindful organizing contributes to individual safety behaviours and, eventually to safety outcomes. ...
Mindful organizing is a team-level capability that allows teams in high-risk environments to anticipate when something can potentially go wrong and adapt their operations just in time to protect the organizational system from negative consequences. This study aimed to extend our understanding of how mindful organizing affects employees’ propensity to engage in a broad range of safety citizenship behaviours through the mediation of participative safety self-efficacy. Participative safety self-efficacy is a psychological state that enables individuals to have confidence in their capability to engage in constructive behaviours that go beyond the formal requirements of their job description. A multilevel mediation model was tested using data collected from a large sample of chemical workers (N = 443) operating in fifty work teams. The findings showed that mindful organizing on a team level fosters both individual safety citizenship (helping; voice; initiative) and prescribed safety compliance through enhancing individual participative self-efficacy. This mediation relationship is significantly stronger for safety citizenship than for safety compliance.
... Also, developing a culture of support among managers and coworkers, emphasizing the team's psychological safety, may boost the morale and productivity of the workforce. Originality/value -This research has identified and empirically tested new antecedents, psychological safety and leadership for mindful organizing in the adventure tourism context and has addressed a significant research gap (Sutcliffe et al., 2016) by broadening the scope of mindful organizing research to encompass contexts beyond those exclusively considered HROs. ...
... MO is gaining popularity as professionals use mindfulness to improve personal and group outcomes (Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2012;Weick et al., 1999). MO-task performance relationships are intriguing, where MO could foster workplace creativity, collaboration and innovation, improving individual job performance (Sutcliffe et al., 2016). The adventure tourism sector may benefit from studying mindful organization and task performance. ...
... The adventure tourism sector may benefit from studying mindful organization and task performance. The literature recommends a holistic approach to collective mindfulness to increase task performance and teamwork (Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Considering the risk factor of adventure tourism (Awan et al., 2021), it is crucial to determine if the teams working in adventure tourism services can develop, deepen, and update a shared understanding of their local context and vulnerabilities. ...
Purpose The study investigated the predictive role of supportive leadership and psychological safety for mindful organizing and the subsequent impact of mindful organizing on individual task performance. Mindful organizing, a concept from high-reliability organizations (HROs), can improve performance in various industrial settings. The limited availability of novel predictors for mindful organizing necessitates exploring this concept in the context of adventure tourism. Design/methodology/approach Through a cross-sectional research approach, 394 respondents were selected from the adventure tourism industry in Malaysia. The proposed causal research model was evaluated through structural equation modeling (SEM), aggregation and bootstrapping. Findings Psychological safety and supportive leadership significantly impacted mindful organizing. Mindful organizing, in turn, was positively associated with individual task performance. The mediating role of mindful organizing between psychological safety and task performance was statistically significant. However, the mediating role of mindful organizing between supportive leadership and task performance was not statistically significant. Practical implications Managers in the adventure tourism industry should consider applying mindful organizing to increase employee productivity and develop collective sensemaking. Also, developing a culture of support among managers and coworkers, emphasizing the team's psychological safety, may boost the morale and productivity of the workforce. Originality/value This research has identified and empirically tested new antecedents, psychological safety and leadership for mindful organizing in the adventure tourism context and has addressed a significant research gap (Sutcliffe et al. , 2016) by broadening the scope of mindful organizing research to encompass contexts beyond those exclusively considered HROs.
... There is undoubtedly value in qualitative studies, especially when exploring such an abstract and complex concept. However, as Sutcliffe et al. (2016) highlighted, quantitative studies are needed to allow the replication and accumulation of knowledge (Denison et al., 2014). Nevertheless, in a recent special issue about mindful organizing for safety (Martínez-Córcoles & Vogus, 2020), only one out of a total of six papers was quantitative. ...
... Although the concept of mindful organizing was proposed and developed based on the theory and principles of high-reliability organizations, it has not been a part of the mainstream (Renecle et al., 2021). Until recently, most mindful organizing studies have been qualitative (Martínez-Córcoles & Vogus, 2020;Sutcliffe et al., 2016). In mindful organizing research in the ATC context, to our knowledge, only two qualitative case studies exist McDonald et al., 2019). ...
... In the present study, we investigated the role of leadership as a predictor of mindful organizing. We focused on this predictor because mindful organizing is an emergent collective phenomenon created and sustained at the team level (Renecle et al., 2021;Sutcliffe et al., 2016;Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012). Formal leaders directly influence team processes associated with mindful organizing, such as creating shared expectations, sensemaking, organizing, and managing (Gracia, Tomás, et al., 2020;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). ...
Full-text available
Mindful organizing is the collective capability of teams to anticipate, detect, and contain early signs of emerging problems, act proactively, and recover quickly if unexpected events and errors occur. The present study aimed to add to our currently limited understanding of antecedents of mindful organizing: empowering leadership, safety culture, and team safety climate. To do so, we tested a moderated mediation model using a sample of 73 Air Traffic Management company employees. The model evaluated whether safety climate mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and mindful organizing, and whether safety culture understanding as enacted value of safety moderates the effect of empowering leadership on team safety climate. The results showed that a strong safety climate was a significant predictor of mindful organizing. Moreover, empowering leadership influenced mindful organizing indirectly through its positive effect on the safety climate in a work unit. However, the moderating role of safety culture was not confirmed.
... Although many scholars have called for research on mindfulness at different organizational levels, most previous studies have continued to focus on mindfulness at the individual level (Good et al., 2016;Liu et al., 2021;Ni et al., 2021). In addition, while mindful leaders' positive impacts on employee physical and mental health and work performance are well known, no study has specifically tested this effect in the context of stress (Enkema et al., 2020;Sutcliffe et al., 2016). By compensating for this lack of attention to the field of stress, our efforts surpass those of previous studies. ...
... Dust et al., 2022;Grover et al., 2017;Ni et al., 2021). Overall, our findings may encourage future studies to be cautious and critical of leader mindfulness, as this factor may not be all-powerful with regard to influencing subordinate outcomes; thus, researchers should avoid identifying it as a panacea for all stressful tasks (Ni et al., 2021;Sutcliffe et al., 2016). ...
Purpose This study aims to illustrate the mechanisms underlying the effect of stress on flow states in the context of a multilevel organization, in which case employees' perseverative cognition and reactions to challenge–hindrance stressors are affected by leader mindfulness. Design/methodology/approach Study 1 employed a three-wave time-lag survey, and study 2 conducted a diary study across 10 workdays to replicate the results of study 1. Multilevel structural equation modeling and Monte Carlo simulation were performed using Mplus 8.0 software to test all hypotheses. Findings Problem-solving pondering transmits the nonlinear effect of challenge stressors on flow, and affective rumination mediates the negative effect of hindrance stressors on flow. Leader mindfulness amplifies the tendency of followers to ruminate on the positive aspects of challenge stressors, consequently increasing their positive reactions and flow. Although leader mindfulness fails to influence followers to ruminate less on hindrance stressors, it negates the harmful effect of affective rumination on the flow experience. Originality/value This study is one of the first to examine the associations between stressor types and flow in the workplace. The authors also develop a new theory that highlights the ability of leader mindfulness to shape subordinates' stress, cognitions and reactions through social modeling and the authors identify the boundaries of its beneficial effects.
... Vooral de oefening met 'peer-mentoring' rond moeilijke gesprekken werd als zeer waardevol ervaren door deelnemende leidinggevenden. (Arkes & Blumer, 1985;Baas et al., 2014;Carson & Langer, 2006;Hafenbrack et al., 2014;Hülsheger et al., 2013;Karelaia & Reb, 2015;Kiken & Shook, 2011;Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010;Sutcliffe et al., 2016;Weick & Putnam, 2006). c. ...
Full-text available
Deze studie heeft als doel om de effectiviteit van een nieuwe training voor leidinggevenden m.b.t. aandachtige leidercommunicatie te testen. Aandachtige leidercommunicatie verwijst naar "een open, aandachtige houding tijdens een gesprek met een werknemer". De potentiële werkings-mechanismen van de training werden getest door de integratie van de Zelf-Determinatie Theorie en Kahn's psychologische voorwaarden voor bevlogenheid. De training werd longitudinaal getest met twee groepen leidinggevenden (N T1 = 18) uit publieke organisaties en hun medewerkers (N T1 = 129). Doordat de datavergaring tijdens een lockdown met verplicht thuiswerken plaatsvond, werd ook communicatie in de digitale om-geving onderzocht. Data van medewerkers lieten positieve resultaten zien betreffende (tevredenheid met aandachtige) communicatie van leiders, dienend leiderschap, vertrouwen in de leider, en mindfulness in communicatie, hoewel niet bij beide trainingsgroepen. Psycholo-gische behoeftebevrediging medieerde de relatie tussen aandachtige leidercommunicatie en burnout. Kahn's psychologische voorwaarden voor persoonlijke bevlogenheid (beschikbaarheid, betekenisvolheid en veiligheid) medieerden de relatie tussen aandachtige leidercommunicatie en zowel bevlogenheid als burnout. Uit open vragen over de lockdown bleek dat de ervaring van werknemers met betrekking tot thuiswerken varieerde van zeer positief tot extreem negatief. Zij rapporteerden over het algemeen geen effect op het leiderschap van hun leidinggevende, terwijl leiders aangaven dat thuiswerken hun communicatie met werknemers drastisch beïnvloedde.
Ecosystems across the world are facing catastrophic effects due to high degree of environmental pressures coupled with lack of ecological consciousness among a large section of the society. This is partly attributed to the fact that people tend to equate their well-being with enhanced consumption, and material accumulation, and are reluctant to adopt lifestyle changes toward sustainable consumption. However, a number of recent studies demonstrate that human well-being is rooted in a complex array of psychological factors and sociological influences, rather than material wealth alone. In this chapter we contribute to these existing debates by analyzing how mindfulness can be used as a tool to promote ecological sensitivity and ethical behaviors among practitioners. Based on empirical research among Buddhist and Sikh mindfulness practitioners in India and Vietnam, the study demonstrates how ethical dimensions of mindfulness can help to motivate an orientation toward sustainability and other centeredness. These in turn pay a “double dividend” in terms of contribution to a sustainable way of life as well as a greater sense of well-being.
For a ski guide, updating on the ever-changing natural conditions and group dynamics is essential to stay safe and provide a good experience for clients. In this paper, we explore how guides update their understanding in the mountains. Our data arise out of a one-season participant ethnography of ski guiding in Norway.
Drawing from existing theory and empirical evidence on mindfulness, we posit that trait mindfulness is associated with less accurate memories of immoral conduct. We report three studies that provide evidence of this argument. One significant implication of this finding is that it provides a more balanced and complete view of mindfulness. Specifically, while mindfulness is widely promoted for its positive effects for employee well‐being, mindfulness may inadvertently promote a biased moral self‐perception based on inaccurate memories of one's past immoral conduct. In a fourth study, we explore this implication and demonstrate that memory mediates the negative relationship between trait mindfulness and self‐reported immoral conduct. This research contributes to literatures on mindfulness, memory, morality, and to the growing body of work assessing the importance of mindfulness.
Full-text available
The assumption that mindfulness facilitates the access to intuitive processes has been theoretically formulated but not investigated yet. Therefore, the present study explored whether the intuitive performance in a judgment of semantic coherence task of N = 94 participants was related to trait mindfulness. In contrast to our hypothesis, self-reported mindful-ness and the mindfulness facet, acting without judgment in specific, were negatively associated with intuitive performance. In an exploratory part of the study, we induced mindfulness, rumination, and distraction. We expected that participants in the mindfulness condition would outperform participants in the other two conditions in the intuition task. Even though we used a well-established paradigm to induce mindfulness, there were no differences between groups in intuition. We propose that future studies investigating the impact of mindfulness on processes such as intuition, should use more intensive manipulations of mindfulness. Possible explanations for the current findings and limitations are discussed.
Full-text available
In this chapter, we argue that state and trait mindfulness and mindfulness-based practices in the workplace should enhance employee outcomes. First, we review the existing literature on mindfulness, provide a brief history and definition of the construct, and discuss its beneficial effects on physical and psychological health. Second, we delineate a model of the mental and neurobiological processes by which mindfulness and mindfulness-based practices improve self-regulation of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, linking them to both performance and employee well-being in the workplace. We especially focus on the power of mindfulness, via improved self-regulation, to enhance social relationships in the workplace, make employees more resilient in the face of challenges, and increase task performance. Third, we outline controversies, questions, and challenges that surround the study of mindfulness, paying special attention to the implications of unresolved issues for understanding the effects of mindfulness at work. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our propositions for organizations and employees and offer some recommendations for future research on mindfulness in the workplace.