Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning
Abstract
An important new stream of organizational research has emerged in recent years that draws on the notion of mindfulness. At the same time, there is a long-standing body of work in the organizations literature that emphasizes the role of routine-driven, or less-mindful, behavior. We attempt to connect these two seemingly disparate literatures arguing that, at a performative level, important elements of less-mindful processes are necessary elements underlying mindfulness. In particular, we note the role of established action repertories that facilitate the response to novel stimuli and how routines and established role structures enable mindfulness to be sustained across time and the span of the organization. Similarly, we note important elements of mindfulness that underlie less-mindful behavior, highlighting in particular the role of mindfulness in interpreting one’s context so as to identify what constitutes appropriate action in a given circumstance and in interpreting outcomes that form the basis for processes of reinforcement learning. Although we emphasize the complementarity between the two perspectives, we also note points of tension regarding the opportunity costs of mindfulness and the theories’ implied normative claims.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Given the absence of relevant stimulus knowledge, an out-of-family state may either be ignored or become normalized, and potentially inappropriate organizational responses may be matched to these normalized situations.
“Given the absence of relevant stimulus knowledge, an out-of-family state may either be ignored or become normalized-that is, treated as if it were a familiar event already encountered and understood in the past-, and potentially inappropriate organizational responses may in turn be matched to these normalized situations (Levinthal and Rerup, 2006;Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006).”
From On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism (2014) · cites this paper as Levinthal and Rerup, 2006
Routine-based, history-dependent organizational change may prove problematic when previously unknown forces continuously alter the basis of competitive success, as in highly dynamic environments.
“research on experiential learning argues that this type of organizational change may prove problematic when previously unknown forces continuously alter the basis of competitive success (Levinthal and Rerup, 2006;March and Levinthal, 1993), as is the case in highly dynamic environments.”
From On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism (2014) · cites this paper as Levinthal and Rerup, 2006
Dynamic capabilities can be strategically valuable even in high velocity environments, possibly because an inventory of established change repertories can indirectly facilitate novel action by providing the fodder for new recombinations.
“It suggests a less extreme position in that these capabilities can be strategically valuable even in high velocity environments, possibly because an inventory of established change repertories can indirectly facilitate novel action by providing the fodder for new recombinations (Levinthal and Rerup, 2006;Wirtz, Mathieu, and Schilke, 2007).”
From On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism (2014) · cites this paper as Levinthal and Rerup, 2006
Cites
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · cited 7× · see citing works
“However, Feldman and Pentland (2003) argue that the ostensive is not a scripted set of behaviors and that performative activity inevitably involves an element of unique enactment of these ostensive understandings, suggesting that routinized action (e.g., iteration between the ostensive and…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe unbearable automaticity of being
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.462 · Cited by 3,699 · see citing works
Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094828 · Cited by 1,729 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schilke, O. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2099 · Cited by 1,264 · see citing works
Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316679252 · Cited by 1,099 · see citing works
Closing the Marketing Capabilities Gap
Day, G. S. (2011) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.183 · Cited by 1,079 · see citing works
Mindfulness in organizations: a cross-level review
Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Ramaci, T., Bellini, D., Presti, G., & Santisi, G. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01302 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
The Role of Individual and Collective Mindfulness in Promoting Occupational Safety in Health Care
Dierynck, B., Leroy, H., Savage, G. T., & Choi, E. (2017) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558716629040 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Safety organizing, emotional exhaustion, and turnover in hospital nursing units
Vogus, T. J., Cooil, B., Sitterding, M., & Everett, L. Q. (2014) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000169 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Toniolo-Barrios, M., & ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2023) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112392 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Western University (CA)
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 502-513
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2107828769
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 57
- FWCI
- 38.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Michigan
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Keywords
- mindfulness, routines, organizational learning, role structure, reinforcement learning, normative claims
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review