Buddha in pinstripes? A literature review of mindfulness and leadership

Authors: Elizabeth King and Richard Badham

Affiliation: Macquarie Graduate School of Management; Macquarie University, Australia

Emails: elizabeth@metaperformance.com.au;

Richard.Badham@mgsm.edu.au

Sub-Theme Number: 30 Fostering Change for Responsibility : Forms of reflexivity in

Engaged Scholarship

Buddha in pinstripes? A literature review of mindfulness and leadership

1. Introduction

Stressed out? Want to improve your focus and get in the zone? Boost your

productivity and profits? Improve your GRE scores? Have a better sex life? Sleep

better at night? You can bust your stress in just 25 minutes a day or even do it on the-

go. It’s ‘Buddhist-inspired’ but definitely not ‘Buddhist’, so anyone can make

use of the ‘hottest meditative tool’….

Sun, 2014: 394

Mindfulness has been widely recommended as an individual (Kegan and Lahey, 2009) and

organizational (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001) capacity to be developed and a desirable state of

being to be attained or maintained in the face of fluidity (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002),

complexity (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006), bandwagons (Fiol and O’Connor, 2003: 59) and

rhetorical performativity (McLoskey, 1994: 293; Lanham, 1995: 72). As a description and

basis for an engaged reflective leadership practice, however, the term has become “so vague

and elastic that it serves almost as a cipher into which one can read virtually anything we

want” (Bodhi, 2011: 22). The influence, range, diversity and depth of mindfulness literature

and practice does, however, warrant a serious and committed effort to help transform the

mindfulness literature from an increasingly confusing cipher into a useful guide. The purpose

of the paper will be to provide such a literature review, and the intent of this abstract is to

introduce the work-in-progress on this review by providing an introduction to its broad

1

outlines and the approach being adopted.

In the paper, we adopt a constructivist and reflexive approach to such a ‘literature review’.

We take issue with approaches that base their analysis on the assumption that there is a

‘body’ of literature to be objectively grasped and ‘reviewed’ and/or rest upon a typology of

incommensurable ‘paradigms’, ‘frames’ or ‘metaphors’ for capturing and systemizing the

‘state of the field’. In contrast, we assume that every review is itself an active construction

and intervention in the shaping of a ‘field’, and should be reflectively deployed as such, and

that part of the cognitive and social construction of alternative approaches or perspectives is

exploring both the value and limits of each, as ways of seeing and not-seeing (Burke, 1984),

as insights into paradoxical tensions (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989), and means for grappling

with anomalies (Willmott, 1993)

From the initial review that inspired this abstract we have identified approaches that focus on

the ‘Psychological-individualistic’ or ‘Sociological-collectivist’ ends of one dimension of

mindfulness, and perspectives that are oriented towards the ‘Western, de-contextualized

techniques’ and ‘Eastern-embedded practices’ ends of another dimension. Psychological-

individualistic approaches focus on the individual, the nature of his/her personality and

capabilities, and the beneficial effects of a mindfulness trait or state (Langer, 1997).

Sociological-collectivist approaches assume a socially constructed self, collective mind or

capabilities, and focus on the benefits of mindful organizing (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006).

Western, decontexualized technique perspectives focus on mindfulness as a set of

instrumental techniques for perception and cognition while Eastern-embedded practice

perspectives view mindfulness as a socially engaged practice identifying it with a wisely

directed attention rather than techniques for non-judgmental awareness. As this abstract

reflects the state of a work in progress, we have yet to fully conceptualize the nature of the

dimensions and approaches. 

2. Psychological-Individual Mindfulness

The majority of the literature on mindfulness adopts a psychological-individual perspective

focusing on the nature and effects of mindfulness as a personal ‘trait or state’ i.e. as either a

given personality characteristic, disposition, skill, capacity or capability or as an enacted state

of cognition, awareness or being in context. Within the psychological-individual perspective,

for example, Langer (1997:4) argues that ‘a mindful approach to any activity has three

2

characteristics: the continuous creation of new categories; openness to new information; and

an implicit awareness of more than one perspective’

Langer’s view, variously described as ‘socio-cognitive’, ‘Western’, ‘information processing’

or ‘conceptual/cognitive’ (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000; Weick & Putnam, 2006), is

frequently contrasted to ‘meditation’ or ‘Eastern’ (Kabat-Zinn, 2005) views that focus on

mindfulness as, firstly, a capacity for, or state of, non-judgmental awareness, and, secondly, a

form of practical wisdom, incorporating a particular ethical or philosophical standpoint or

being. There are, consequently, ongoing discussions and debates over the nature and

operationalisation of psychological mindfulness with more than nine standard psychometric

questionnaires (Stanley, 2013) including, for example, the most common traditional

questionnaire being that of the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Brown &

Ryan, 2003), focusing on an ‘Eastern’ trait of non-judgemental awareness, and a

contemporary ‘Western’ questionnaire developed by Langer - the Langer

Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale (LMS), (Haigh, Moore, Kashdan, & Fresco, 2011) focusing

on a cognitive style that is open to novelty and actively constructing definitions. The form

and degree of overlap and difference in such concepts and forms of measurement will be

explored as part of the full paper review. In addition, however, there are partially related

differences in the methods adopted or recommended for developing mindfulness (e.g. socio-

cognitive attention techniques, meditation and the workarts).

The broad range of beneficial effects of mindfulness includes well-being, task performance

and ability to understand and handle oneself and others. These beneficial outcomes are

claimed to be either mediated by the purported effect of increasing mindfulness on stress

reduction and self-regulation (Lakey, Campbell, Brown, & Goodie, 2007) or directly through

the development of broad cognitive awareness and the clarity of thinking provided by non

attachment (Sauer & Kohls, 2011). In the context of work, theoretical links associate

mindfulness with factors that improve relationship quality, increase resilience and impact

cognitive processes expected to improve task performance and decision making (Glomb,

Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011). Many of these claims are, however, theoretical rather than

evidentiary (Roche, Haar, & Luthans, 2014), with established evidence largely focused on

mindfulness and its effects on stress reduction and well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003).

3. Sociological-Collective Mindfulness

3

At a basic epistemological or ontological level, sociological-collective approaches to the self

and organizations distinguish themselves from the psychological through their focus on the

social, interactive, situational, discursive, performative and group character of sensemaking

and the ‘mind’. As a perspective on mindfulness, the sociological-collective approach has

been strongly influenced by the work of Weick and Sutcliffe on high reliability organizations.

For Weick, Sutcliffe and Obsfeld (2000:34), collective mindfulness refers to ‘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’. As Weick

and Sutcliffe (2006) argue, complex and tightly coupled organizations, with high potential for

error, breakdown and disaster, are sometimes highly reliable and relatively disaster free. They

attribute the source of their success to the presence of five organizational characteristics or

what they term ‘mindful organizing’ i.e. ‘these organizations spend (a) more time examining

failure as a window on the health of the system, (b) more time resisting the urge to simplify

assumptions about the world, (c) more time observing operations and their effects, (d) more

time developing resilience to manage unexpected events, and (e) more time locating local

expertise and creating a climate of deference to those experts.’ (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006:

516).

While there is a greater degree of commonality in the collective mindfulness perspective,

possibly due to the domination of the field by Karl Weick and the influence of Ellen Langer

on his perspective, there are, however, a number of important ongoing debates. Firstly, later

work by Weick and Putnam (2006) explicitly seeks to inform their study of organizational

mindfulness through the inclusion of more ‘Eastern’ forms of individual mindfulness, going

beyond Langer’s focus on ‘information processing’ to include more of a focus on internal and

external non-judgemental awareness of the flow of events and experience. Secondly, in

contrast to Weick and Sutcliffe (2006), Levinthal and Rerup (2006) place greater emphasis on

the importance of ‘less mindful’ routines and practices as of key significance for

organisational knowledge and learning, and emphasise the challenge of blending mindfulness

with less mindful forms of thought and action. Thirdly, a contrast is drawn by Ray, Baker and

Plowman (2011) between ‘organisational mindfulness’ and ‘mindful organizing’. Vogus and

Sutcliffe (2012: 724/5) have subsequently sought to create a model that combines the former

(mindfulness), which ‘(1) …results from top-down processes; (2) …creates the context for

thinking and action on the front line; and (3) … is a relatively enduring property of an

organization (like culture)’ with the latter (mindful organizing), which ‘(1) …results from

4

bottom-up processes; (2) …enacts the context for thinking and action on the front line; and

(3) …is relatively fragile and needs to be continuously re-accomplished’. Fourthly, as Vogus

and Sutcliffe (2012) also review, there has been qualitative and quantitative confirmation of

the effects of collective mindfulness on reliability and safety, but little, as yet, on the ability

to innovate, enter new markets, deal with threat related outcomes or generate affective or

normative commitment.

4. Western –Decontexualized Technique Mindfulness

Most scientific and popular accounts of mindfulness have portrayed it in terms of stress

reduction and attention enhancement (Purser and Loy, 2013). Mindfulness as taught in many

mindfulness-based, stress reduction programs is one of many ways to induce the healing,

physiological response termed “the relaxation response”, (Herbert Benson & Klipper, 1992).

This is the key underlying cause of the positive impact these programs have on wellness and

the reduction of stress-related symptoms (Herbert Benson & Allen, 1980) and as such acts as

an antidote to the pervasive stress inherent in modern western lifestyles. To reduce confusion,

this form of mindfulness training would be more appropriately coupled with the science of

the relaxation response rather than with Buddhism. In addition, however, this reduction in

stress is accompanied by a variety of information processing methods in order to increase the

creativity and problem-solving abilities (H. Benson, Proctor, & DeMunn, 2003) so

desperately needed by leaders navigating the chaos and uncertainty of modern business life in

an individualized western culture. These involve techniques for reducing mindlessness1 and

enhancing the cognitive capabilities described by Barry and Meisiek (2010) as ‘seeing more

and seeing differently’, increasing attentiveness to ‘weak signals’, refining categories,

developing new categories and creating greater awareness of multiple perspectives.

The benefit of such de-contextualizing mindfulness techniques, separated from their

traditional and embedded spiritual context, is that they can be integrated into people’s lives

and societies more easily, as well as contributing to addressing significant personal and work

life issues - people such as those struggling to navigate the relentless need to manage home

life while performing at work when performance means making critical decisions that affect

people’s lives in direct, indirect and pervasive ways. While a program based on

decontexualized mindfulness techniques (termed “Mc Mindfulness”), will never provide the

benefits that deeply embedded ‘Eastern’ mindfulness practices could offer such a person 1 As Weick and Sutcliffe (2006: 516) nicely put it “Langer is less concerned with practices that increase mindfulness than she is with practices that reduce mindlessness.”

5

(Purser and Roy, 2013), it may offer a pragmatic approach to lessen stress-related illness,

improve poor relationships, increase attentiveness and reflective capabilities and by default,

deliver to some extent on the traditional Buddhist appreciation of fluidity, impermanence and

reduction of the suffering of self and others. Removing mindfulness from a context of

spirituality can allow it to be embedded in a context of organisational culture and

performance, with personal and shared reflection providing flow-on benefits to society.

Despite such potential benefits, critics of programs such as the widespread use of

Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) (Kabat-Zinn, 1994) and the military

deployment of Mindfulness Based Mind Fitness Training (MMFT) by the military (Purser

and Milillo, 2014) condemn them as a superficial and damaging form of McMindfulness

(Purser and Roy, 2013). On the one hand, these programs are identified in traditional terms as

a form of ‘technical spirituality’ (Driscoll and Wieber, 2007), turning spiritual methods into

instrumental techniques for corporate ends, and creating isolated ‘integrity bubbles’ (Healey,

2013) that are paradoxically often introduced by companies renowned for expert consumer

and corporate manipulation! On the other hand, through their particular focus on self-

enhancement they are also condemned for actively undermining the traditional aims, ethics

and benefits of Buddhist mindfulness, by drawing attention to the content rather than

processes of the mind (Weick and Putnam, 2006), enhancing self-centredness rather than

reducing it through its focus on self-development (Sun, 2014), and potentially supporting

narcissistic leaders to dominate and armies to harm (Turnbull & Dawson, 2006). Arguably,

given the confusion over different constructs of the quality of attention (Elliot, 2011) it is

possible that programs enhancing mental capacity to concentrate on tasks (for the military,

killing!) is more concerned with the high performance skill termed “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi

& Csikzentmihaly, 1991) than the broader awareness of attention to both internal and external

stimuli described by some as the distinguishing factors of mindfulness. (Dane & Brummel,

2013).

5. Eastern-Embedded Practice

A key source of diversity in approaches to mindfulness is immediately apparent when

comparing the discourse of proponents of instrumental and decontexualized ‘Western’

approaches to stress relief and awareness training (a discourse of body scans, teeth brushing

and raisin-eating (Kabat-Zinn, 2005) to the discourse of insight, compassion and wisdom

6

(Gunaratana, 2001; Nyanaponika & Bodhi, 1949) from those within a spiritual tradition

oriented towards socially engaged practices of ‘right mindfulness’ (Purser, 2015)

Mindfulness as an embedded practice in ancient western and eastern spiritual traditions

(Schmidt, 2011) is one aspect of a broader spiritual path intended to lead to the form of

personal transformation that facilitates compassion for all beings and liberation (Goldstein,

2013; Sun, 2014). In a traditional Buddhist context the cultivation of mindfulness is

embedded in a wider context of other meditative practices. A core Buddhist teaching is that

of the four noble truths, the last of which states that human suffering can be ended by

following the eight fold path. Mindfulness is one of these paths (Schmidt, 2011; Sun, 2014)

and cannot be separated from the rest as it is intended to ensure the correct practice of the

other aspects of the paths (Bodhi, 2011). In the embedded practice within Buddhism,

mindfulness meditation is practiced alongside other meditations intended to develop wisdom,

compassion and loving kindness, all of which are focused on self and others. Practitioners of

this form of mindfulness would argue that it cannot be fully understood without experience

and is not a solitary practice (Schmidt, 2011).

In his exposition of and argument for ‘right mindfulness’, Purser and Milillo (2015) put

forward a ‘triadic’ model of mindfulness, integrating ‘right view’ and ‘right effort’ with ‘right

mindfulness’. This move towards extending the definition of mindfulness from an isolated

technique to a more embedded practice, linked to or incorporating action in context, does,

however, extend beyond the advocacy of Buddhist mindfulness. In Resonant Leadership,

Boyatzis and McKee (2005) argue for the essential integration of mindfulness with hope and

compassion as a basis for leadership development. In their argument for collective

mindfulness, Weick, Sutcliffe and Obsfeld (2000: 34) identify it with ‘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’ (emphasis added). In

their reflections on ‘organisational mindfulness’ and ‘mindful organizing’, Vogus and

Sutcliffe (2012) explore what such an integrative practice involves in the collective

mindfulness domain. In sum, it is clear that within this perspective, mindfulness goes beyond

stress-relieving or attention-enhancing awareness, or a set of techniques for their attainment,

to incorporate ideas of quality attention and practical wisdom.

7

6. Conclusion

‘The problem is not with the content of concepts. The problem instead lies with

the meta-issue of conceptualizing and the ways in which conceptualizing can be

modified toward greater mindfulness.’

(Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006: 522-3)

As a means for developing reflective practice of leaders in a world of process, practice and

complexity, the mindfulness debate has opened up a set of concepts, issues and tensions that

is extremely useful. The purpose of this literature review is to go beyond the precious defense

of particular forms of mindfulness, avoid a relapse into confusion and withdrawal in the face

of the ambiguities, contradictions and alternative and shifting definitions in the literature,

transcend simple-minded optimism and pessimism about mindfulness programs as either the

flowering of spirituality or a mere form of instrumental incorporation, and provide a basis for

using the literature to inform debates about the nature and desirability of leadership as a

reflective practice.

As a form of reflective practice for leaders, the review will focus on the ways of seeing and

not seeing built into competing views of mindfulness as individual or collective, an

instrumental technique or an embedded practice. Rather than viewing these as alternative

frames or paradigms, the focus of the review will be on not only identifying the strengths and

weaknesses but also how to productively address the tensions between them. In this manner

the review of mindfulness and its implications for leadership will situate, rather than

denigrate or reproduce, the treatments of mindfulness in ‘HBR style’ leadership texts (e.g.

Boyatzis and McKee, 2005; Carroll, 2008; Scouller, 2011; Gonzalez, 2012).

Sociologists of science and cultural studies have found it useful to distinguish between

incremental ‘weak’ and radical ‘strong’ programs in their area (Alexander and Smith, 2006).

In accordance with a ‘weak’ program of mindfulness, the review will address issues such as

the varied historical and cultural origins of the terminology, contested use of different

questionnaires to capture individual (psychometric-psychological) and collective

(sociological) mindfulness, the theoretical claims and empirical evidence for different forms

and degrees of impact. In line with a ‘strong’ program of mindfulness, however, the review

will go further to address issues such as the treatment of the challenges of breaking free from

8

the psychological and institutional pressures for mindlessness (e.g. Langer), the resources the

mindfulness literature provides for addressing the ‘meta-issue’ of ‘conceptualizing’ in the

face of the inherent impermanence and fluidity of events (e.g. Weick) and the insights that

the literature provides into the epistemological, ethical and practical issues of achieving

practical wisdom through its focus on ‘right mindfulness’.

Finally, the review will discuss the strategic issue of how to mindfully approach the

bandwagon of mindfulness, given the important issues that it raises about how to stimulate a

reflective leadership practice that addresses the issues raised by process, practice and

complexity scholars, yet its predictable entrapment within the rhetoric and rituals of high

modern rationality and corporate power. How is it best to grapple with all the cultural

ambiguities and tensions of a Buddha in pinstripes?

References

Adler, P. and Borys, B., Two Types of Bureaucracy, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 1,

61-89

Alexander, J. and Smith, P., The Strong Program in Cultural Theory: Elements of a Structural

Hermeneutics, in J.Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory, Springer, Berlin

Barry, D. and Meisiek, S., 2010, Seeing More and Seeing Differently: Sensemaking,

Mindfulness, and the Workarts, Organization Studies, 31, 12, 1-26

Benson, H., & Allen, R. L. (1980). How much stress is too much? [Article]. Harvard

Business Review, 58(5), 86-92. Bodhi, B., 2011, What does Mindfulness Really Mean? A

Canonical Perspective, Contemporary Buddhism, 12, 1, 19-39

Benson, H., Proctor, W., & DeMunn, J. (2003). The break-out principle: Simon & Schuster

Audio.Boyatzis, R and McKee, A., 2005, Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and

Connecting with Others Through Mindfulness, Hope and Compassion, Harvard Business

Review Press, Boston

Bodhi, B. (2011). What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical perspective.

Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01), 19-39.Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits

of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 84(4), 822.

9

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role

in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(4), 822.Burke,

K., 1984, Permanence and Change, An Anatomy of Purpose, University of California Press,

San Francisco

Carroll, M., 2008, The Mindful Leader: Awakening Your Natural Management Skills

Through Mindfulness Meditation Trumpeter Press, New York

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal

experience (Vol. 41): HarperPerennial New York.

Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job

performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 0018726713487753Driscoll, C., &

Wiebe, E. (2007), Technical spirituality at work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 333-

348.

Elliot, M. L. (2011). Being mindful about mindfulness: An invitation to extend occupational

engagement into the growing mindfulness discourse. Journal of Occupational Science, 18(4),

366-376.

Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons.

The Academy of Management Review, 28, 54-70.

Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Research

in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 30, 115-157.Gonzalez, M., 2012, Mindful

Leadership: The 9 Ways to Self-Awareness, Transforming Yourself, and Inspiring Others ,

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Goldstein, J. (2013). Mindfulness: A practical guide to awakening: Sounds True.

Haigh, E. A., Moore, M. T., Kashdan, T. B., & Fresco, D. M. (2011). Examination of the

factor structure and concurrent validity of the Langer Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale.

Assessment, 18(1), 11-26.

Healey, K. (2013). Searching for integrity: The politics of mindfulness in the digital age.

Nomos Journal. Retrieved from http://nomosjournal.org/2013/08/searching-for-integrity/

Herbert Benson, M., & Klipper, M. Z. (1992). The relaxation response: Harper Collins, New

York.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are. New York, NY: Hiperion

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Coming to our senses: Healing ourselves and the world through

mindfulness: Hachette UK.

Kegan, R and Lahey, L., 2009 Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock the

Potential in Yourself and Your Organization Harvard Business Review Press, Boston

10

Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Brown, K. W., & Goodie, A. S. (2007). Dispositional

mindfulness as a predictor of the severity of gambling outcomes. Personality and Individual

Differences, 43(7), 1698-1710.

Langer, E., 1997, The Power of Mindful Learning, Addison Wesley, Reading MA

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The Construct of Mindfulness. [Article]. Journal of

Social Issues, 56(1), 1.Lanham, R., 1995, The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and

the Arts, University of Chicago Press 

Levinthal, D. and Rerup, C. 2006. Crossing and apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-

mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science. 17, 4, 503–514.

Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-

Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning. Organization science, 17(4), 502-513.

McLoskey, D., 1994, Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics Cambridge University Press

Monteiro, L. M., Musten, R. F., & Compton, J. (2015). Traditional and concerns.

contemporary mindfulness: Finding the middle path in the tangle of concerns, Mindfulness, 6,

1–13

Poole, M., & Ven, A. V. d. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization

Theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.

Purser, R. E., & Loy, D. (2013, July 1). Beyond McMindfulness.

The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-purser/beyond-

mcmindfulness_b_3519289.html

Ray, J. L., Baker, L. T., & Plowman, D. A. 2011. Organizational mindfulness in business

schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10: 188–203.

Roche, M., Haar, J. M., & Luthans, F. (2014). The role of mindfulness and psychological

capital on the well-being of leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(4), 476.

Sauer, S., & Kohls, N. (2011). Mindfulness in Leadership: Does Being Mindful Enhance

Leaders’ Business Success? In S. Han & E. Pöppel (Eds.), Culture and Neural Frames of

Cognition and Communication (pp. 287-307): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Scouller, J. (2011).

The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and

Skill. Cirencester: Management Books, New York.

Schmidt, S. (2011). Mindfulness in east and west–is it the same? Neuroscience,

consciousness and spirituality (pp. 23-38): Springer.

Stanley, S., 2013, “Things said or done long ago are recalled and remembered”: The ethics of

mindfulness in early Buddhism, psychotherapy and clinical psychology. European Journal of

Psychotherapy & Counseling, 15, 151-162.

11

Sun, J. (2014). Mindfulness in Context: A Historical Discourse Analysis. Contemporary

Buddhism(ahead-of-print), 1-22.Tsoukas, H,_and_Chia, R.,_2002 On Organizational

Becoming: Rethinking organizational change, Organization Science 13, 5: 567–582

Turnbull, L., & Dawson, G. (2006). Is mindfulness the new opiate of the masses? Critical

reflections from a Buddhist perspective. Psychotherapy in Australia, 12(4), 60.Vogus, T. and

Sutcliffe, K., 2012, Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing: A Reconciliation

and Path Forward, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 4, 722-735

Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for mindfulness Eastern wisdom and Western

knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 275-287

Weick, K. and Sutcliffe, K, and Obstfeld, D., 2000, High Reliability: The Power of

Mindfulness, Leader to Leader, 1, 7, 33-38

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., 2006, Mindfulness and the quality of organizational

attention. Organization Science, 17,514-524.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2001. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high

performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Willmott, H., 1993, Breaking the Paradigm Mentality, Organization Studies, 14, 5, 681-719

.

12