Organizational Mindfulness

Organizational Mindfulness Revisited: A Buddhist-Based Conceptualization

1

Under Review: Journal of Management Inquiry; do not quote or cite without permission

ORGANIZATIONAL MINDFULNESS REVISITED:

A BUDDHIST-BASED CONCEPTUALIZATION

Ronald E. Purser Department of Management

San Francisco State University

Joseph Milillo Harvard Divinity School

Harvard University

ABSTRACT

Recent scholarship has attempted to provide an enriched view of mindfulness informed by Buddhism, but such conceptualizations have been based on a number of misconceptions regarding the meaning, function and purpose of Buddhist mindfulness. Secularized definitions of mindfulness have emphasized attention enhancement, present moment awareness and stress reduction effects. This article provides a corrective to the theory of individual mindfulness based on authoritative Buddhist canonical sources. A triadic model of right mindfulness is used to theorize an expanded view of organizational mindfulness, which serves as an ethical extension to high reliability organizations (HROs). Five mindful organizing processes, characteristic of High Wisdom Organizations (HWOs), are delineated and proposed to be generative of organizational well-being and the alleviation of collective suffering. We argue that a denatured mindfulness divorced from it soteriological context is reduced to a self-help technique that is easily misappropriated for self-preservation, employee pacification, and maintenance of toxic cultures.

Keywords: mindfulness, Buddhism, wisdom, contemplative neuroscience

Over the last decade, the construct of mindfulness has garnered considerable theoretical interest

among organizational scholars (Dane, 2011; Fiol & O'Connor, 2003; Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Ray,

Baker, & Plowman, 2011; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012; Vogus & Welbourne, 2003; Weick & Putnam, 2006;

Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2008). Drawing mainly from Western

conceptualizations and psychological studies of mindfulness, going back to the early work of Ellen

Langer and her colleagues (Chanowitz & Langer, 1981; Langer, 1989a, 1994; Langer, 1989b; Langer,

Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978; Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000), this stream of literature has adhered mainly to


2

the “conceptual mindfulness” framework in which mindfulness is conceived as being aware of the

contents of experience—employing cognitive functions such as attention, distinction-making, and

associations (deCharms, 1997; Levinthal & Rerup, 2006; Vogus & Welbourne, 2003; Weick & Putnam,

2006; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2008). Noting this trend, Weick and

Putnam (pp 280) characterized the organizational literature as leaning heavily towards this Westernized

conceptualization, what they refer to as “mindfulness- as-content,” rather than those derived from Eastern

meditative traditions. Westernized theories of mindfulness-as-content, as Weick and Putnam (2006)

pointed out, lacks the power to develop deeper layers of the mind which are not dependent upon thoughts,

concepts and distinctions.

Recognizing the limitations of Western conceptualizations of mindfulness, Weick and Putnam

(p.286) have called for organizational theorists to draw more directly from Eastern forms of

nonconceptual mindfulness, what they describe as “mindfulness-as-process.” They went on to speculate

that mindfulness meditation could potentially improve mental skills that were generalizable across tasks

domains, be of wide organizational benefit, and also be conducive to a sustained focus on organizational

goals. Their speculations have proven to be fruitful. Slagter, Davidson and Lutz (Slagter, Davidson, &

Lutz, 2011) have proposed that systematic mental training, such as mindfulness meditation, can induce

“process-specific learning” which they characterize as “learning effects that do not only improve

performance on the trained task or tasks, but also transfer to new tasks and domains (Green & Bavelier,

2008), i.e., learning that is not specific to the trained stimuli or tasks.” Process-specific learning is the

neurological correlate to Weick and Putnam’s (2006) call for organizational theorists to place more

emphasis on mindfulness-as-process. Weick and Putnam (Weick & Putnam, 2006) recognized the need

for a more process-oriented view of mindfulness because the cognitive processes that can aid in

organizational mindfulness and in organizing for high reliability actually precede attention to content.

Organizational theorists that have attempted to incorporate Eastern forms of mindfulness have

relied primarily upon the research being conducted by psychologists, cognitive scientists and clinicians in

theorizing about mindfulness (Arch & Craske, 2006; Baer, 2003; Bishop, Lau, Shapiro, Carlson,


3

Anderson, Carmody, Segal, Abbey, Speca, Velting, & Devins, 2004; Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown, Ryan,

& Creswell, 2007; Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Lau, Bishop,

Segal, Buis, Anderson, Carlson, Shapiro, Carmody, Abbey, & Devins, 2006; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, &

Freedman, 2006; Shapiro, Oman, Thoresen, Plante, & Flinders, 2008). This stream of literature originates

most notably in the pioneering work of Jon Kabat-Zinn in behavioral medicine beginning in the late

1970’s (Kabat-Zinn, 1982), with the introduction of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)

interventions, a therapeutic and clinical application of mindfulness-based practices for the treatment of

many psychological and psychosomatic problems. Over the last twenty years, interest among scholars and

clinicians in MBSR has grown exponentially (Williams & Kabat-Zinn, 2011) and it is now the most

widely taught secular form of mindfulness practice in academic medical centers and clinics throughout

North America and Europe (Davidson & Begley, 2012). In addition, “mindfulness –based cognitive

therapy” (MBCT) (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002) was recently spawned for preventing relapses of

depression; a combination of Western cognitive science and a clinical use of Buddhist-influenced

meditative practices.

Gethin (2011) points out that although Buddhist-inspired mindfulness practices were key

influences in the development of both MBSR and MBCT, an accurate tracing of Buddhist

conceptualizations of mindfulness were quickly glossed over and are lacking in the majority of scholarly

works dealing with these approaches. This was to be expected as MBSR was developed for clinical

applications in medical settings for subjects suffering from chronic pain and other stress-related disorders.

Similarly, the few organizational theorists that have incorporated Buddhist-inspired conceptualizations

(Dane, 2011; Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2007; Weick & Putnam, 2006) have drawn mainly from popular

Buddhist texts by Western teachers of mindfulness “insight meditation.” Mindfulness has been conceived

as the exercise of “bare attention” coupled with “non-judgmental awareness of moment-to-moment

present experience” (Weick & Putnam, 2006). However, this secularized, operational definition of

mindfulness that is now commonplace differs considerably from Buddhist canonical descriptions (Bodhi,

2011; Gethin, 2001; Thanissaro, 2012).


4

In this article, we argue that secularized conceptualizations of mindfulness in the organizational

literature, which supposedly are “Buddhist-inspired,” have occluded a focus on its transformative role in

ethical, emotional and mental development leading to the cessation of suffering. This is also true of the

increasing adoption of mindfulness training in corporations, the U.S. military, and educational

institutions. Further, we contend that current theories of mindfulness as adopted by organizational

scholars and practitioners is based upon three common and misleading misconceptions: (1) mindfulness is

defined as being primarily a function of bare attention and nonjudgmental awareness of the present

moment, often associated with stress reduction; (2) mindfulness is considered as a tool for simply

enhancing attention; (3) mindfulness is a psychological trait which does not require meditative training

and/or sustained practice. Based on these misconceptions, organizational theorists have unwittingly

subscribed to a view of mindfulness which is ethically neutral. Buddhist mindfulness, however, is neither

value free nor an ethically neutral practice (Chiesa, 2012; Maex, 2011) but has a clear soteriological and

liberative purpose: to remove unwholesome or unhealthy states of mind, enhance emotional balance and

psychological well being, coupled with ethical development that results in an altruistic concern for the

welfare of all sentient beings. In Buddhism, this is referred to as “Right Mindfulness” (samma sati),

which is very different both in theory and practice when contrasted with current conceptualizations which

narrowly associate mindfulness with a heightened form of attention.

Given these misconceptions, and because research on mindfulness is a relatively recent

phenomena, it is not surprising that a careful and clear understanding of the hermeneutic meaning of

mindfulness within the context of Buddhist contemplative practice is sorely lacking in organizational

studies. We agree with Bodhi (Bodhi, 2011, p.22) that mindfulness as a concept has become, as he put it,

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

want.” Accordingly, the aims of this essay are: 1) to provide a corrective to the theory and foundation of

individual mindfulness based on authoritative canonical Buddhist sources; 2) explore how a Buddhist-

based conceptualization of right mindfulness challenges existing theories which are primarily concerned

with improving attention, and, more specifically, theorize an expanded view of organizational


5

mindfulness which serves as an ethical extension to high reliability organizations (HROs) and; 3) discuss

how the increasingly popular trend of allegedly “Buddhist-inspired” mindfulness training and

interventions in corporations runs the risk of being co-opted and exploited for maintaining the status quo,

rather than effecting transformative change.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we begin by summarizing the classical Buddhist

literature on mindfulness as a comparative basis for examining how modern and secularized definitions of

mindfulness in the organizational studies literature differ considerably. Next, we provide a critical

appraisal of current conceptions of organizational mindfulness, focusing on the key misconceptions that

have limited the theoretical discourse to viewing individual mindfulness as bare attention and as a

psychological trait. The purpose of such a critique is neither to be dogmatic or doctrinaire, but to point out

that within a Buddhist context, mindfulness is a transformative meditation practice, integrated and

contextually embedded within a systematic path of the development. Grossman and Van Dam (2011)

point out that Buddhist mindfulness is one aspect of a transitional path that is complex and multi-faceted,

embedded in affective, behavioral, cognitive, ethical, and social dimensions. Maex (2011) concurs by

emphasizing that Buddhist ethics is defined in relation to suffering and the elimination of its causes. Thus,

the aim of Buddhist mindfulness is not merely to enhance the quality of attention or the reduction of

stress, but to transform the human mind by lessening, and ultimately eliminating, toxic mental states

rooted in greed, ill will, and delusion.1 Indeed, the telos of Buddhist mindfulness has a universal and

transcendent purpose: human flourishing, virtuous behavior and an altruistic concern for the welfare of all

sentient beings (Forbes, 2012). Following our critique, we explore how right mindfulness can inform an

expanded and reformed model of organizational mindfulness that moves beyond attention-enhancement

discourse and high reliability organizations (HROs). This entails theoretical discourse focused on the

skillful mental states and behaviors that are generative of organizational well-being and alleviation of

collective suffering, both within and outside of organizations—in effect, challenging institutionalized

greed, ill will and delusion (Loy, 1997; Loy, 2002, 2008). Right mindfulness develops concentration as a 1 These are traditionally referred to in Buddhism as the “three mental poisons.”


6

prerequisite for the development of liberating wisdom and insight, which uproots the causes of mental and

emotional afflictions, giving rise to boundless compassion. As Olendzki (2011, p.64) so eloquently points

out, “Mindfulness is not just heightened attention, but it is attention that has become confident,

benevolent, balanced and fundamentally wholesome.” We discuss how the soteriological goals of

Buddhist mindfulness meditation—what could be called “wisely directed attention” (Kang &

Whittingham, 2010, p.166), leads to greater well-being for self and others—reflective of a broader, more

humanistic view of organizational mindfulness. This approach is not based merely on analogues of

mindfulness, or “meditative properties,” as Weick and Putnam (2006) have suggested, but rather upon the

direct experience and neural changes that result from actual meditative training and practice. Finally, we

examine the current mindfulness movement that is becoming increasingly popular among practitioners in

corporate and other institutional settings, bolstered by the emerging field of contemplative neuroscience.

We argue that mindfulness-as-technique is leading to an unfortunate denaturing and banalization of this

ancient practice. Our concern is that in the rush to secularization, mindfulness runs the danger of

becoming co-opted and exploited as an instrumental tool for furthering self-serving interests, thereby

reinforcing and reproducing existing power structures. If this trend continues, the mindfulness movement

may turn out to be no different than the faddish and debunked human relations movement, derogatorily

branded as “cow psychology,” criticized for its manipulative use of counseling techniques as a means of

pacifying employees (Bell, 1956; Purser, 1999).2

MINDFULNESS WITHIN THE BUDDHIST TRADITION

The Buddhist literature is voluminous, dating back to the early Pali canon3 (the Pāli Tipitaka)

purportedly as early as the first century B.C. In addition, the spread of Buddhism both geographically and

2 Critics of the human relations movement labeled it as “cow psychology” because of its emphasis on making employees more happy and docile while existing conditions in the workplace remained unchanged, hence, the phrase “contented cows give more milk.” 3 The Pāli word, Tipitaka, literally means “the three baskets,” reflecting that the canon is divided into three divisions. The first part is known as the Vinaya Pitaka, and contains all the rules that the Buddha laid down for


7

temporally over the last two millennia years has produced a plethora of theories, descriptive accounts, and

commentaries for traversing a path for systematic mental training and human development. As Dunne

(Dunne, 2011) has so succinctly put it, “the Buddhist tradition is not monolithic” (p.71). Mindfulness,

even within Buddhism and its various schools, is also a contested concept, subject to varied

understandings and applications, depending on the time period and context. Further, mindfulness training

represents only a sliver of the plethora of Buddhist meditation methods (Lopez Jr., 2012). Despite the

variety of understandings both within and across the Buddhist traditions, there is a clear area of common

ground as to the ultimate purpose and function that mindfulness meditation practices play in psycho-

spiritual development: 1) a soteriological goal of Buddhist practice is the elimination of the root causes of

suffering; and 2) in-depth meditative training alleviates and ultimately eliminates suffering by inducing

significant and sustainable changes in one’s cognitive and emotional states, leading to dramatic and

irreversible changes in behavioral and psychological traits. This process of psycho-spiritual development

involves a path of meditative and contemplative inquiry aimed to identify and transform the root cause of

suffering, “a set of correctable defects that affect all the mental states of an untrained person” (Gethin,

1998; Lutz, Dunne, & Davidson, 2007).

Satipatthāna Sutta

Developing a fuller understanding of mindfulness and the role it plays in the Buddhist tradition

requires a closer examination of the Satipatthāna Sutta, a highly revered discourse of the Buddha which is

considered an exact instruction on the practice of mindfulness meditation (Anālayo, 2010 ).4 The

discourse is divided into four sections, pertaining to mindfulness of the body (kāyā), feelings (vedanā),

mind (citta), and mind-objects (also called dhammas, or phenomena). In addition, the instructions also

monks and nuns; the second part is called the Suttatta Pitaka, and contains the Discourses, which are the teachings proper of the Buddha; the third part is known as the Abhidhamma Pitaka, a scholarly reorganization of the teachings presented in the previous two works, which deals mainly with presenting and commenting on Buddhist theory of ethics and mind. The Abhidhamma texts are also referred to commonly to as Buddhist psychology. 4 The Satipatthāna sutta is arguably one of the most important suttas of the Theravāda tradition, and is found in both the Dīghanikāya and Majjhimanikāya. It outlines the Buddhist meditation of mindfulness that will lead to nirvāna


8

include contemplations directed towards observing the arising and passing away of these phenomena in

the stream of experience.5

Most Buddhist scholars agree that sati (smŗti in Sanskrit) is derived from the verb, “to

remember,” or the act of “calling to mind”. (Anālayo, 2010 ; Davids, 1881; Gethin, 1992; Nanamoli &

Bodhi, 2005; Thanissaro, 2012). A wide range of meanings have been associated with sati in the early

Abhidhamma literatures, such as: recollection (anussati), recall (patissati), remembrance (saranata),

keeping in mind (dharanata), absence of floating (apilapamata), and absence of forgetfulness

(asammussanata) (Gethin, 2011). However, in the meditative context, sati is not the equivalent of the

function of memory, but of “recollecting” and a particular way of remembering (Gethin, 2001;

Thanissaro, 2012). Since the purpose and function of sati within the context of the Buddhist path is to put

an end to suffering, canonical descriptions differentiate between two types of sati, “right” (sammā) and

“wrong” (micchā) (MN 117; MN 126; AN 10:108; Ţhānissaro, 2012:12). Right mindfulness (sammā sati)

signifies a faculty of mind that is able to remember both skillful and unskillful actions, expanding the

temporal field of vision. Thus, mindfulness is not merely a passive and nonjudgmental attentiveness to the

present moment exclusively, but an actively engaged and discerning awareness that is capable of

recollecting words and actions from the past as well. As we shall explain shortly, right mindfulness, when

properly cultivated and supported by other mental factors, can remember and know skillful as well as

unskillful phenomena, in the past and in the present—with the intended purpose of abandoning those

which lead towards suffering and stress in the future (Gethin, 2001; Ţhānissaro, 2012). Thus, right

mindfulness is not simply bare attention to the present moment, but “includes both retrospective memory

of the past and prospective memory of the present and future” (Kang & Whittingham, 2010:165).

5 Mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassanā) comprises fourteen subjects of meditation, with mindfulness of the breath (anapanasati) being the most popular. Mindfulness of feeling (vedanānupāssanā) is of three types, pleasant, painful, and neutral, referring to both material and spiritual feelings. Mindfulness of mind (cittānupassanā) is differentiated into contrasting states of mind, namely, with and without lust, hatred, delusion, a mind contracted or distracted, exalted or unexalted, surpassable or unsurpassable, concentrated or unconcentrated. Finally, mindfulness of mental objects or phenomena (dhammānupassanā) consists of five categories: the five hindrances, the six internal and external senses, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the four noble truths .


9

Another dimension of sati is that it must be established, or set up (upatthāna). What this implies

is that sati generates a particular stance or orientation towards one’s present experience, which is

characterized by observation or watchfulness (anupassanā). According to Gethin (2001:32), the faculty of

mindfulness can be conceived as “standing near” or manifests as “guarding” the mind. As Anālayo

(2010) points out, sati, or mindfulness, involves “…an enhancement of the recollective function, by way

of expanding the breadth of attention.” Another reading shows that sati is the immediacy of one’s

experience—or a presence of mind—which amounts to a close and repeated observation applied to the

four domains of contemplation. In this respect, mindfulness can be viewed as “the act of establishing

presence” (Bodhi, 2011, p.25).

The Satipaţţhāna Sutta provides a comprehensive set of contemplations that requires the

application of mental qualities as key supports for the cultivation of mindfulness. As the Sutta itself

makes clear, these are deep concentration (samādhi), clear-knowing (sampajañña), balanced and

sustained effort (atapi), and an equanimous mind free from desires and discontent. Figure 1 below

illustrates the essential features and key mental functions that are involved in satipatthana.

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

Sampajañña is usually translated from the Pāli as “clear comprehension,” or “alertness,” which

has a reflexive monitoring quality. In this sense it is fair to translate sampajañña as introspection, which

should be done with clear comprehension. Sati (mindfulness) and sampajañña (clear comprehension) are

the tools not only for training the mind, but proper investigation of it as well. Mindfulness is supported

by the mental factor of sampajañña, through the latter’s ability to be aware of whether the mind is

focused on the intended object, or whether it has lost the object (Lutz, Dunne, & Davidson, 2007).

Sampajañña can also be understood as a faculty of mind that is able to fully grasp and comprehend what

is actually taking place in one’s own mind and experience (Anālayo, 2010:40). The degree and level of

sampajañña can range from basic forms of knowing to discriminative understanding, the latter of which


10

is able to discern wholesome from unwholesome thoughts and behaviors. Highlighting some of the key

aspects of satipaţţhāna, Anālayo (2010) states:

….One of the central tasks of sati is the de-automatization of habitual reactions and perceptual evaluations. Sati thereby leads to a progressive restructuring of perceptual appraisal, and culminates in an undistorted vision of reality “as it is.” The element of non-reactive watchful receptivity in sati forms the foundation for satipaţţhāna as an ingenious middle path which neither suppresses the contents of experience nor compulsively reacts to them (p.267).

Based on the Buddhist canonical literature, four key elements are associated with sati, as Gethin

(2001:44) summarizes below:

(i) Sati remembers or does not lose what is before the mind; (ii) sati is, as it were, a natural ‘presence of mind’; it stands near and hence serves to guard the mind; (iii) sati ‘calls to mind’, that is, it remembers things in relationship to things and thus tends to know their value and widen the view; (iv) sati is thus closely related to wisdom; it naturally tends to see things as they truly are.

Right Mindfulness

It is important to clarify not only the meaning of sati as described in both the Abhidhamma and the early

sutta literatures, but also the role and function it plays in larger scheme of the Buddhist path of liberation.

Buddhist spiritual development can be categorized into three progressive and interrelated stages: (1) the

development of ethical discipline, integrity and virtues (sīla); (2) the development of concentration

(samādhi); and (3) the attainment of wisdom (paññā) leading to liberation (nirvana). These stages of

development are inextricably bound together, and cannot be separated from each other (Gethin,

2001:209). In this respect, ethical judgment is intimately tied to the practice of right mindfulness (Kang

& Whittingham, 2010). Most importantly, organizational scholars should be cognizant of the fact that

Buddhist mindfulness serves as a key function within what is known as the noble eightfold path.6

Integrated within an eight-factored path, “right mindfulness” (sammā sati) is the seventh path factor,

informed and developed in conjunction with the prior path factors, most of which require the exercise of

mental restraint and behavioral ethical disciplines (sīla). These path factors not only serve as a necessary

6 Right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.


11

support for the practice of right mindfulness (Brahm, 2006), but also underscores how the entire

soteriological system of the Buddhist path is aimed at effecting deep transformations of mind and

behavior towards greater psychological well-being, ethical behavior and social responsibility. In fact, a

key instructional guideline from the Satipatthāna sutta formula for establishing mindfulness is “subduing

greed and distress with reference to the world”, meaning that a certain degree of restraint is required in

order to set aside these obstacles (Ţhānissaro, 2012:17). Contrary to popular definitions, Buddhist

mindfulness is not necessarily devoid of discrimination, evaluation or judgment—a common

misinterpretation which obscures the role mindfulness plays as an integrated path factor, when properly

cultivated and developed, can discern wholesome/skillful (kusala) and healthy states of mind from those

which are unwholesome and harmful (akusala) to self and others (Bodhi, 2011). Noting the

misconceptions in modern and secular interpretations of mindfulness, Thanissaro (2012:21) states:

The Buddha, in including right mindfulness in the path, takes the role that mindfulness plays in any experience where memory is brought to bear on the present and points in a skillful direction. This is an important point to note. Instead of telling you to abandon past memories so as to approach the present with totally fresh eyes and bare awareness, he’s saying to be selective in calling on the appropriate memories that will keep you on the path to the end of suffering. And instead of telling you to watch passively as things arise and pass away on their own, he’s saying to keep remembering the need to complete any uncompleted tasks required by the path, and to protect any attainments that have already been attained. In other words, there are some things you have to remember to make arise and to prevent from passing away (italics in original).

Because the eight path factors are interpenetrating and mutually reinforcing, right mindfulness is

elevated to a form of ethics-based mind training. While much is made of the attentional enhancement

benefits of mindfulness in the organizational literature, the path factors of right speech, right action and

right livelihood have received little or no attention, yet they are also influential in establishing right

mindfulness. Indeed, this trio of path factors has to do with the quality of behavior enacted, or the ethical

discipline segment of the path (sila), which makes them relevant to expanding our notions of mindfulness

as applied to organizations. Unskillful behaviors—such as hurtful speech, lying, bullying, violence, and

deceptive business practices—fall under this triadic rubric. Harmful behaviors, if ignored, forgotten or

denied--creates a barrier or block in memory—which weakens the depth and strength of mindfulness.


12

These path factors are tied to conscience; thus, a “bad conscience” has the effect of weakening vigilance

and alertness, which in turn diminishes self-monitoring and self-awareness. The tendency to examine

one’s motivation and actions is likely to be suppressed, thereby making it difficult to establish right

mindfulness (Ţhānissaro, 2012).

In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN 45.8), right livelihood (sammā-ājīva) is described as livelihood

through abandoning dishonesty. The Mahacattarisaka Sutta (the sutta of the great forty) in Majjhima

Nikaya points out that right view (sammā diţţhī) is considered the forerunner of right livelihood since it

assist one in discerning right from wrong (MN 117.8). This sutta further states that right effort sustains an

individual in cultivating a wholesome lifestyle, and that it is right mindfulness that brings success to all of

the other factors, thereby establishing right livelihood. Cultivation of right mindfulness is then closely

related to wisdom, and by that, we mean a discerning mental factor that clearly comprehends “the causes,

conditions, effects, and implications of experiential process, content, behavior, in terms of the ethical

consequences (e.g., ‘does it lead to suffering or genuine happiness?’), purpose orientation (e.g., ‘does it

lead to the goal of liberation and enlightenment?’), and universalizability (e.g., ‘can this be applied to

others and across different contexts?’), resulting in a valid conclusion of how things really are” (Kang &

Whittingham, 2010:164). These acts of discernment ensure that the type of mindfulness that is developed

is “right” (sammā) mindfulness.

As mentioned above, the development of Buddhist mindfulness is contingent on a balanced and

integrated application of the eight path factors7. This formula shows that mindfulness is not merely a

compartmentalized tool for enhancing attention, but is informed and influenced by many other factors—

our view of reality; the nature of our thoughts, speech and actions; our way of making a living; and our

effort in avoiding unwholesome and unskillful states, while developing those that are skillful and

conducive to health and harmony.

7 We have not mentioned the last of the eight path factors, right concentration, as this will be addressed later in

the article.


13

The Triadic Mindfulness Model presented in Figure 2 illustrates the interdependent, bidirectional

interactions between right view, right effort and right mindfulness—key path factors which are especially

important in understanding how Buddhist mindfulness is a path leading towards skillful mental states and

ethical behavior. Our model of mindfulness can be viewed descriptively and prescriptively, suggesting

that when all path factors are operating in their “right” or virtuous mode of functioning, mindfulness leads

towards skillful and wholesome behaviors. When the path factors are absent or weak and right

mindfulness is not sufficiently established, unskillful states and behaviors are the outcome. As Gethin

(2001:221) explains, “how one speaks, acts and thinks at any time is dependent on one’s vision of oneself

and the world.”

INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

The first path factor, right view, figures prominently as the ethical foundation within this

theoretical framework. There are three dimensions of right view: 1) establishing the motivation for a

desire for liberation and freedom from suffering; 2) a framework for viewing experiences in terms of the

existence and causes of suffering and stress, and abandonment of such causes; and 3) discernment as to

what should be done in light of the framework (Thanissaro, 2012:17). The recollective function of right

mindfulness keeps right view in mind, remembering and applying these dimensions to the present

experience. In turn, right mindfulness directs right effort as guided and informed by right view. As right

mindfulness becomes stabilized, right effort is applied to prevent the arising of unskillful qualities,

abandoning those which have already arisen, and directing effort towards the development of skillful

mental states.

Right view serves as the foundation or support for the remaining path factors. The importance of

establishing right view is key, for without an ethical compass to discern right from wrong, as well as the

presence of suffering in all its manifestations, mindfulness becomes nothing more than an instrumental

tool: a heightened, value neutral form of concentrated attention. The model also suggests that as right

view is cultivated and maintained, it also influences all of the prior path factors. With right view


14

established, right thinking emerges; with right thought in place, right speech manifests; with right speech,

right action follows; with right action, right livelihood comes into being; with right livelihood in place,

right effort arises.

In the Buddhist canonical literature, right view is classified into two levels: the mundane and the

supramundane. Mundane right view has a clear and correct grasp of the moral efficacy of action (Bodhi,

2011:17), as we pointed above, is the capacity to clearly discern wholesome from unwholesome actions.

The Buddhist canon lists ten courses of unwholesome actions, which are classified into three categories:

bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions. Unwholesome bodily actions include destroying life,

taking what is not given (stealing), and wrong conduct in regard to sense pleasures (e.g., rape, sexual

harassment). Unwholesome verbal actions include false speech (lying), slanderous speech, harsh speech,

idle chatter. Unwholesome mental actions include covetousness, ill will, and wrong view. Within this

classification scheme, any unwholesome/unskillful actions can be traced to their underlying

motives, which have “roots” in either greed, aversion or delusion (the primary mental poisons).

Wholesome/skillful actions are rooted in their opposites (non-greed, non-aversion, non-delusion). For

example, non-greed manifests as detachment and generosity; non-aversion as loving-kindness,

compassion and gentleness; non-delusion as wisdom.

Right view not only conditions future actions, choices and goals, but it represents what Bhikku

Bodhi (2011:16) refers to as an “ontological commitment,” which has to do with what is regarded as real

and true (Bodhi, 2006). Being in accordance with what is real and true is a function of wisdom, which

involves developing mindfulness as a support for the cultivation of penetrating insight (pañña). This is a

very specific form of insight-wisdom, which is the culmination and aim of the Buddhist path.

Supramundane right view is linked to a deep understanding of Four Noble Truths, which amounts to a

diagnosis of the presence, causes, and interventions necessary to eliminate suffering. In the Digha Nikaya

(DN:22), the Buddha states, “What now is right view? It is understanding suffering (dukkha),

understanding of the origin of suffering, understanding of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.”

Right view, right effort and right mindfulness, when fully cultivated, leads to right concentration (samma


15

samādhi), or “wholesome one-pointedness.”8 The inner unification of the mind prepares the ground for

directly penetrating and experientially realizing the truth, causes, and cessation of suffering. This is what

is actually meant by the statement “seeing things as they truly are,” which manifests as wisdom-insight

into the nature of reality. Thus, right mindfulness serves as a support for right concentration; which is a

precursor to development of wisdom—a profound experiential insight into the nature of suffering,

impermanence and the lack of an enduring, independent self.

Right effort (sammā vāyāma) is a direct, complementary factor to right view. It is a key path

factor to Buddhist mental training, and functions to stabilize right mindfulness and sustain right

concentration. Further, right effort provides the necessary wholesome energy to assure mindfulness is

directed towards liberation from suffering and unskillful states. Indeed, effort is required to establish any

semblance of mindfulness, but right effort entails preventing and abandoning unskillful states, while also

arousing and maintaining skillful states. Right effort amplifies and develops positive mental states and

skillful qualities. In the language of positive psychology, right effort functions to encourage positive

deviance (Bright, Stansbury, Alzola, & Stavros, 2011; Cameron, 2003). The application of effort in the

service of mindfulness is also not value neutral. Mindfulness can be used for good or ill, and effort can

just as easily be fueled by aggression, violence and ambition (Bodhi, 1994:62).

8 Much is made of the connection between mindfulness and concentration, though this connection is murky at best. Again, the Pali Canon goes to great lengths to clarify this connection. In the Dvedhavitakka Sutta (Two kinds of thinking) (MN 19), it states that when mindfulness is established the mind becomes concentrated. Mindfulness, in tandem with effort and correct views, leads to concentration, but it is also an integral part of concentration itself (Thanissaro, 2012). In the Angutarra Nikaya (8. 63), establishing mindfulness is actually described as a type of concentration. Nonetheless, right concentration (sammā-samādhi) in the Pāli Canon is always regarding the jhānas8. The jhānas are only developed in meditation and are meant to lead to nirvāna. While this is an important matter for one on the path to liberation according to Buddhism, in organizations sammā-samādhi8 does not play a role. Instead, the practices of mindfulness, both in meditation and daily activities, does increase the power of attention (manasikāra), which, as this paper will show, has been mistaken for mindfulness itself, as well as its main benefit, within neuroscience, psychology and organizational studies.


16

THE CONCEPT OF MINDFULNESS WITHIN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

Organizational scholars, like their counterparts in psychology, have fallen prey to what is

characterized as “a highly restricted interpretation of mindfulness, narrowing in on the cognitive

capacities of attention and awareness”(Hayes & Plumb, 2007). Relying primarily upon a highly selective

and confusing admixture of Buddhist sources (drawn from a few popular books), together with Western

conceptions inherited from Langer and other clinical psychologists (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Langer &

Moldoveanu, 2000; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006), organizational scholars (Dane,

2011(Dane, 2011; Hede, 2010; Hunter & McCormick, 2008; Weick & Putnam, 2006; Weick & Sutcliffe,

2006; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2008) have gravitated to the frequently cited operational definition

used in MBSR and as put forth by Kabat-Zinn (1994): “Mindfulness means paying attention in a

particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” (p.4). The emphasis on

attending to the present moment figures prominently in MBSR and clinical definitions (Brown & Ryan,

2003), and also explains why many organizational theorists and practitioners have imported a focus on

present moment awareness into their theoretical formulations (Dane, 2011; Tan, 2012). However, this

now well-accepted definition of mindfulness, while appropriate and useful within a clinical context, lacks

richness and technical accuracy for theoretical conceptions of mindfulness, particularly its lack of ethical

foundations (Dreyfus, 2011). A number of clinicians have attempted to develop an operational definition

of mindfulness, proposing a two component model: 1) the self regulation of attention focused on

immediate experience; and 2) an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness and acceptance

(Bishop et al., 2004). These clinical operational definitions, which have informed and dominated the

organizational literature, differ considerably from Buddhist treatises on mindfulness which we described

above. Thanissaro (2012:59) concurs, stating quite eloquently:

One of the most striking features of mindfulness as taught in the modern world is how far it differs from the Canon’s teachings on right mindfulness. Instead of being a function of memory, it’s depicted primarily—in some cases, purely—as a function of attention to the present moment. Instead of being purposeful, it is without an agenda. Instead of making choices, it is choiceless and without preferences.


17

Preserving the integrity and ethical efficacy of Buddhist mindfulness requires respect, humility

and sensitivity among organizational scholars, as well as a willingness to engage with the Buddhist canon

and its associated teachings on mindfulness on its own terms, rather than as a means to appropriate select

concepts for instrumental purposes. This orientation towards Buddhist teachings is aligned with what

Dyck and Wiebe (2012, p.320) have characterized as a “theological turn,” allowing scholars to draw

respectfully from the great religious traditions for revitalizing an emancipative management theory.

Mindfulness Is Not Bare Attention

Current constructs of mindfulness in the organizational literature have selectively focused on the

role of attention as the key component of mindfulness (Dane, 2011; Weick & Putnam, 2006). Dane’s

recent article (Dane, 2011), which purportedly is meant to define “what mindfulness is and is not,” is a

prime example (p 998). Dane (2011) relies heavily upon Brown and Ryan’s (2003:822) conception of

mindfulness as “being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present”. He goes on to

summarize mindfulness as “a state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment

phenomena occurring both externally and internally” (p 997). Similarly, Weick and Putnam (2006) have

erroneously equated mindfulness with preconceptual awareness, what is often referred in the popular

meditation literature as “bare attention” (Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Thera, 1962). To support their claims, Weick

and Putnam make use of extensive passages from the influential book, The Heart of Buddhist Meditation

by Nyanaponika Thera (Nyanaponika, T., 1962) along with the popular book Mindfulness in Plain

English by Gunaratana (Gunaratana, 2002). For example, Weick and Putnam select these quotations:

In its elementary manifestation, known under the term ‘attention,’ it [mindfulness] is one of the cardinal functions of consciousness without which there cannot be any perception of object at all. (Thera, 1962). When you first become aware of something, there is a fleeting instant of pure awareness just before you conceptualize the thing, before you identify it. That is a state of awareness. …That flowing, soft-focused moment of pure awareness is mindfulness…(Gunaratana, 2002, p.138).

While the experiential flavor of mindfulness is often communicated by comparing it to “bare

attention” (Bodhi, 2011), equating mindfulness as preconceptual awareness is not only misleading but


18

inconsistent with classical Buddhist sources. In order to correct this misconception, we turn to the

mapping of mental states as elucidated in the Abhidhamma. These canonical texts are key to

understanding mindfulness as they contain a detailed theoretical model to what occurs in both the

untrained mind, as well as to what accomplished meditators experience in the highest stages of mental

development. In their essay, Weick and Putnam (2006) are confusing mindfulness (sati), a deliberately

developed wholesome mental factor, with the mental factor of directed attention (manasikāra) (Anālayo,

2010 ). Attention, or manasikāra, is considered one of the universal mental factors that is present in all

moments of consciousness (Anālayo, 2010; Bodhi, 2011; Olendzki, 2011). Manasikāra can also be

understood as “bringing to mind” or as simply “paying attention” – but this form of awareness is

omnipresent—except of course during the stages of deep sleep or comatose states. Attention functions to

allow all mental states to arise (Thanissaro, 2012). In other words, manasikara occurs automatically

through the simple act of being conscious, and it represents the preconceptual apprehension of any object

of perception. Thus the role of manasikara is that of an automatic mental function; it is the turning of

attention to the object (āvajjana) as perceived by the senses.

Modern operational definitions also equate mindfulness with a supposedly purely receptive,

passive, unbiased, nonjudgmental form of awareness (Thanissaro, 2012:60). For example, Weick and

Putnam (2006:277) draw heavily from Jon Kabat-Zinn’s formal definition of mindfulness:

Formally, “Mindfulness is moment-to-moment, nonreactive, nonjudgmental awareness. . . . You don’t seek such an experience or turn it into a concept. You just sit, not pursuing anything, and insights come up on their own timetable, out of stillness and out of spacious open attention without any agenda other than to be awake” (Kabat-Zinn, 2002, p. 69).

This modern variant of mindfulness apparently relies upon a non-interfering, passive,

nonjudgmental receptive awareness which makes no mention of discerning skillful from unskillful

actions, nor any type of striving or effort to either abandon unwholesome states or cultivate wholesome

ones. Rather, this form of mindfulness presumably involves a passive observation of present moment

experience and an “acceptance of what is.” A neutral, nonreactive stance suggests that mindfulness

produces a nonconceptual, unfabricated experience—or clear awareness, free of any judgment. The issue


19

here is not merely semantic. If mindfulness is simply equated with passive, nonjudgmental awareness of

present experience, the original meaning of mindfulness—sati, as remembrance and recollection--as

clearly defined in the Buddhist canon, is lost and forgotten. Moreover, if mindfulness simply means

“paying attention to the present,” the motivation, purpose and ultimate goal of such a practice are of no

concern, and neither are the past nor future.

Erroneously equating mindfulness with attention also explains why Dane’s (2011) concept of

mindfulness does not involve nor require meditative training. If mindfulness is simply conceived as

preconceptual awareness, or “bare attention,” then no systematic and disciplined training is required.

According to the Abhidhamma, no mental training or deliberate effort is required for such preconceptual

attention to manifest. As Olendzki (Olendzki, 2011) notes, “The fact that these dharmas (mental factors)

are always present means that they must describe even the most unreflective states of mind. We are thus

always paying attention, for example, even if we are not aware of doing so or even paying attention to an

object different than the one to which we would like to be attending. Similarly, the mind is always

focused upon a single object, even in entirely untrained mind moments, though the object upon which it is

unified may change moment to moment. If we were not capable of such baseline focus of attention,

coherent mental experience would presumably not be possible” (p.58).

Bhikkhu Bodhi, a long-time student of Nyañaponika Thera (whom Weick and Putnam rely upon

for many of their descriptions), notes that Nyañaponika never intended for mindfulness (sati) to be

translated as “bare attention”. He (2011) also points out that “bare attention” is basically “ethically

indeterminate,” and can be operating in “…the thief or the saint, the toddler and the thinker, the sensualist

and the yogi” (p.28). In a similar vein, Anālayo (2010) takes issue with Western Buddhist meditation

authors which have also conflated concentration with mindfulness.9 But according to the Abhidhamma,

9 Gethin (1992, pp.38-40) notes that modern scholars have misread or misinterpreted the meaning of the Pali term apilapeti—which should not be read as “plunging into the object” but as “calling to mind” or “reminding one of something.”


20

even a person committing a premeditated and heinous crime can be exercising bare attention and single-

minded concentration (e.g., a sniper assassin, terrorist, white collar criminal). There is no doubt that

development of concentration enables practitioners to sustain their attention--a useful skill that can be

applied to a variety of tasks—whether flying navy fighter jets, fighting forest fires, or driving taxi cabs.

Right mindfulness, in contrast, trains attention to reduce and ultimately abandon unwholesome states of

mind, and as a result reorients individual goals to include optimal well being for oneself and others.

Contrary to popular belief, the exercise of bare attention and concentration alone do not constitute

right mindfulness, nor even meditation (Olendzki, 2010). This may come as a surprise to most

organizational theorists who have become enamored with concepts of Buddhist mindfulness. But the fact

is one can be highly attentive without meditating (a thesis which Dane has subscribed to), and one can

even be practicing meditation without necessarily cultivating mindfulness (Olendzki, 2010). Indeed, there

is a profound difference between preconceptual awareness, or “bare attention,” and that of deliberately

cultivated mindfulness, or sati. Further, right mindfulness emerges only when supported by the path

factors as described in our model. Given these clarifications, we can see that mindfulness is not merely

sustained attention, neutral in tone, but its arising is conjoined with a particular attitude or emotional

stance toward the object of awareness. According to the Abhidhamma, every moment of consciousness

has a mental object and an associated emotional attitude and intention by which an object is cognized

(Olendzki, 2010). This is because, in any particular moment of consciousness, there are either wholesome

or unwholesome mental factors present in awareness; these mental states are mutually exclusive and

cannot co-arise together. For example, one cannot feel loving-kindness and hatred towards the same

object in any given moment of consciousness. And, as one might suspect, both wholesome and

unwholesome states of mind are correlated to the way we respond and react to phenomena.

As should be obvious by now, Buddhist mindfulness practice involves much more than simply

neutrally training the mind to focus on an object of attention. Rather, mindfulness is a distinct quality of

attention that is not automatically present in all moments of conscious experience. This is why the

development of mindfulness (sati) requires meditative practice. Dane (2011, p.998), however, claims that


21

meditation and mindfulness “have become somewhat conflated such as that they are often used

interchangeably.” He goes on to argue that mindfulness does not require any form of cultivation or

meditative practice, since it merely involves paying attention to events. This claim can be considered

patently false by the standards of any Buddhist text, scholar or teacher, as mindfulness is not considered a

trait or inherent psychological state, but as a practice. Buddhists have always spoken either in terms of the

“practice of meditation” or the “practice of mindfulness,” which involves an active and disciplined

engagement over a prolonged period of time (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Buddhist psychology maintains that the

untrained mind is plagued with mental and emotional afflictions, which can only be rooted out through an

integrated path of psycho-spiritual development. Moreover, the recent neurological findings on

mindfulness meditation (Davidson, Kabat-Zinn, Schumacher, Rosenkranz, Muller, Santorelli,

Urbanowski, Harrington, Bonus, & Sheridan, 2003; Epel, Daubenmier, Moskowitz, Folkman, &

Blackburn, 2009; Hölzel, Carmody, Evans, Hoge, Dusek, Morgan, Pitman, & Lazar, 2010; Hölzel, Ott,

Gard, Hempel, Weygandt, Morgen, & Vaitl, 2008; Jha, Krompinger, & Baime, 2007; Jha, Stanley,

Kiyonaga, Wong, & Gelfand, 2010; Moyer, Donnelly, Anderson, Valek, Huckaby, Wiederholt, Doty,

Rehlinger, & Rice, 2011) show that significant alterations of the psychological functions of attention and

emotion regulation in the brain requires some form of systematic mental training, such as meditation

(Lutz, Dunne, & Davidson, 2007). In other words, meditation and mindfulness have always been joined

together; separating them decontextualizes both.

Mindfulness Is Not a Psychological Trait

According to Dane (2011), the outpouring of empirical work by Western scholars is leading to a

convergent and collective understanding of mindfulness (p.998). However, we argue that this is a

premature and false sense of convergence for a number of reasons. First, the majority of such empirical

work which Dane is referring to is based on psychological questionnaires which purport to measure

mindfulness (Baer, 2011; Baer, Samuel, & Lykins, 2011; Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004; Brown & Ryan,

2003; Lau, Bishop, Segal, Buis, Anderson, Carlson, Shapiro, Carmody, Abbey, & Devins, 2006; Walach,


22

Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006). Psychometric approaches operationalize

mindfulness as a stable trait rather than as a mental function that requires systematic training, deliberate

practice and development over a sustained period of time (Grossman & Van Dam, 2011).

The notion that mindfulness can emerge without having to engage in a long-term and sustained

practice of meditation can only be entertained if mindfulness is conceptualized as a psychological trait.

This is exactly what Dane (2011) contends, and like other Western researchers (Brown & Ryan, 2003;

Langer, 1989b), Dane inherits this idea of equating mindfulness with attention from academic

psychology, where clinicians have relied upon self-descriptive psychometric scales as discrete measures

of mindfulness. However, the psychometric approach to defining and measuring mindfulness is not based

on any concrete evidence that subjects are actually engaged in mindfulness. Rather, clinical psychologists

have assumed, a priori, that mindfulness is an inherent psychological state and stable trait; what is defined

and measured as mindfulness has come to be defined by the subject’s descriptions and responses on brief

questionnaires (Grossman & Van Dam, 2011).

In addition to the numerous problems of reliability, construct validity and self-reporting biases

associated with various mindfulness questionnaires, there is a basic underlying assumption that discrete

psychological characteristics which can be measured and quantified are equivalent to mindfulness

(Grossman & Van Dam, 2011). In their insightful critique, Grossman and Van Dam (2011) summarize

some of the major weaknesses of this empirical stream of work:

There exists no gold standard of reference that can be used to evaluate questionnaires purporting to measure mindfulness. Thus we cannot know whether a questionnaire reliably measures some aspect of mindfulness…The situation opens the door for definitions of mindfulness that are in danger of losing any relationship to the practices and teachings that gave rise to MBSR and MBCT. It may sometimes result in hybrid definitions and operationalizations of mindfulness possibly far afield from the original Dharmic roots of this way of being (p.231).

Contrary to Dane’s claim, there is actually a high degree of divergence in how mindfulness is

conceptualized, defined and operationalized between various questionnaires (Grossman, 2008). For

example, Brown and Ryan’s (2011) Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), relies heavily

upon the notion that mindfulness can be measured by how individuals think they experience lapses of


23

attention—what Dane has termed “mind-wandering” (Dane, 2011; Grossman & Van Dam, 2011).

Another widely used scale, the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), includes such sub-scales

as “describing” which measures the extent to which individuals believe they can express themselves in

words, self-criticism, and moderation of emotions (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006).

Only one of the factors, close observation of experience, correlated negatively for nonmeditators (Baer et

al., 2006). In addition, most of these instruments also rely heavily on self-attributions and self-reporting

of a range of traits and behaviors.

In their excellent critique of this current trend in psychological research on mindfulness,

Grossman and Van Dam (2011) make a very strong point, which we believe organizational scholars

should take heed of:

One viable option for preserving the integrity and richness of the Buddhist understanding of mindfulness might be to call those various qualities now purporting to be mindfulness by names much closer to what they actually represent (‘experienced lapses of attention’ in the case of Brown & Ryan, 2003). (p17).

Rosch (2007) goes so far to say that these mindfulness scales are not “measuring either mindfulness in the

narrow Buddhist sense or enlightened awareness in the broadest sense (p.262).” Even Kabat-Zinn (2013),

concurs, contending that he does not believe mindfulness can be faithfully measured using survey-based

instruments.

Such a formulation of mindfulness as an inherent psychological state is in stark contrast to the

practice and developmentally oriented Buddhist conceptualizations, which, as we alluded to above, have

influenced Western clinical applications (MBSR, MBCT). Indeed, Dane fails to mention that the

qualities of attention and range of cognitive abilities derived from simple a conscious injunction to focus

attention—what amounts to an informal and idiosyncratic process that lacks systematic meditative

training--will be narrowly limited to content-specific learning. Paying attention in specific contexts

through deliberate practice and repeated experience results in neural changes in the brain. However, such

learning and neural changes associated with training on a particular task or domain are not transferable,

nor equate to improved performance on novel tasks, even in other related contexts. A classic example is


24

the study of London taxi drivers who possess expertise in navigating the maze of London streets. Neuro-

images of these taxi drivers’ brains showed that they had larger than normal posterior hippocampi--the

brain structure that plays a major role in spatial representation of the environment (Maguire, Woollett, &

Spiers, 2006). These taxi drivers exhibited a high degree of “content-specific learning”; the ability to

remember and recollect the spatial locations of various London streets. However, follow up research with

London taxi drivers demonstrated that their spatial memory skills were not transferable to other tasks

involving memory (Woollett & Maguire, 2009). In other words, the benefits derived from training in

expertise—whether it be learning a musical instrument, driving a taxi, or playing chess—is not typically

generalizable to domains outside of a specific domain of expertise or context.

EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF MINDFULNESS IN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

Our paper thus far has drawn from classic Buddhist texts and contemporary Buddhist scholars in

order to clarify what mindfulness actually is and how it is situated and embedded within a Buddhist

context where it operates in unison with other essential path factors for freeing the mind of unskillful

mental states and behaviors. We have also shown that recent scholarship that has attempted to import

Buddhist notions of mindfulness into organizational theory have done so by isolating and extracting the

essence of mindfulness from these integrated path factors and its original religio-cultural roots, in effect,

distorting and limiting the emancipatory purpose of mindfulness (sati) (Christopher, Christopher, &

Charoensuk, 2009). As we pointed earlier, theorizing on organizational mindfulness among

organizational scholars has been based on a particular interpretation and operationalization of individual-

level mindfulness, drawing from a synthesis of Langer’s content-oriented, novel distinction making

definition (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000), Brown and Ryan’s (2003) clinical skills concept, and more

recently, Jon Kabat-Zinn’s (1994) standard operational definition used in MBSR which emphasizes “bare

attention.” While there is considerable variance in descriptions of mindfulness in the organizational

theory literature, Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld’s (1999, p.90) characterization of Western mindfulness

has long been the mainstay: an “enriched awareness…[through] active differentiation and refinement of


25

existing categories and distinctions…creation of new discontinuous categories out of the continuous

stream of events…and a more nuanced appreciation of context and alternative ways to deal with it.”

(Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999) Such theorizing has been limited to the attention-enhancement

component of mindfulness, as exemplified by Weick and Sutcliffe’s conceptualization that mindfulness

induces “…a rich awareness of discriminatory of discriminatory detail and a capacity for action” (Weick

and Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 88). Similarly, recent attempts to draw from Buddhist mindfulness (Dane, 2011;

Weick & Putnam, 2006) have, as we pointed out, selectively highlighted the role of bare attention and

receptive awareness. Weick and Sutcliffe extended their understanding of individual-level mindfulness to

organizational processes, yielding their now widely cited five patterns of mindful processes

(preoccupation with failures, reluctance to simplify, sensitivity to operations, commitment to resilience,

and a deference to expertise) associated with High Reliability Organizations (HROs) (Weick & Sutcliffe,

2007; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2008).

Importing Buddhist mindfulness into organizational theory, however, requires an accurate

understanding of how mindfulness is just one strand of an interdependent and complex whole (Rosch,

2007). Right view, right effort and right mindfulness are dynamic, interdependent processes, when fully

developed and deployed, constitute Buddhist mindfulness, reflecting a broader and more humanistic view

of organizational mindfulness. This means that a Buddhist-inspired theory of organizational mindfulness

entails much more than simply enhancing the quality of organizational attention. First, Buddhist

mindfulness entails establishing right view, a key factor, which provides a vision for a path that leads

away from unwholesome motivations, unskillful mental and emotional states, and harmful behaviors--

towards those that promote a sense of well being for oneself and other sentient beings (this includes the

natural environment). In other words, right mindfulness is a purposeful process, guided by the agenda of

right view (Thanissaro, 2012). Indeed, the cultivation of moral reasoning and ethical decision making is a

prerequisite for the development of right Mindfulness. Right effort also has a monitoring function,

making continual adjustments to ensure that right mindfulness is established. This can be thought of as

“wisely directed attention” (Kang & Whittingham, 2010, p.166).


26

The theory and practice of Buddhist mindfulness is grounded in a particular view of the causes of

well-being and flourishing, namely, that such states arise from mental balance and insight into the nature

of reality (Ekman, Davidson, Ricard, & Alan Wallace, 2005). This form of insight (vipassanā) is very

specific, and has to do with seeing directly the fundamental impermanence (annica), egolessness (annata)

and dissatisfactoriness (dukkha) of reality.10 These insights are considered the universal nature of all

phenomena. Again, the nature and scope this insight differs considerably from mainstream therapeutic

notions, such as those of Brown et al. (2007) which vaguely characterize it as “how things really are”

(Ireland, 2013; Rosch, 2007). In contrast, Buddhist insight is linked to the development of wisdom which

first requires training in meditative concentration in order to penetrate deeply into the very root causes of

distress and suffering. Wisdom, or pañña, provides direct knowledge of the causes, conditions, mental

states, and behaviors that lead towards or away from well-being. This is why the Buddhist canon

differentiates “right” (sammā) view, effort and mindfulness from “wrong” (miccha) – not in a moralistic

sense, but in terms of the quality of mindfulness and the presence or absence of ethical path factors -- and

whether or not mental states and behaviors are conducive to ending the causes of distress.11 Right

mindfulness is socially engaged, highly purposeful and aimed directly at ending the causes of stress and

suffering for both oneself and others.

High Wisdom Organizations

We propose that Buddhist-inspired mindful processes are associated with organizing for “high

wisdom organizations” (HWOs). This is not necessarily a negation of Weick’s HROs theory, but rather an

ethical expansion of the concept. In addition, HWOs are not limited to cases where reliability is crucial

for continuous operation. Mindfulness in HWOs is focused on clear comprehension of the sources of

10 These are also referred to in Buddhist texts as the “three marks of existence.” 11 Maex (2011, pp.168-169) notes that the Sanskrit term for right (sammā) was originally derived from music theory and denoted a harmonious relationship in the sense that the path factors were attuned to each other as in chordal harmonies.


27

collective distress and suffering, or, in Buddhist terms, social dukkha (Loy, 2002; 2003; 2008). Whereas

Buddhist mindfulness traditionally focuses on individual dukkha, Loy has proposed a Buddhist social

theory of engagement which focuses “…on the ways in which dukkha can be the result of social forces

beyond individual control” (Loy, 2013). Loy (2002) refers to this form of systemic dukkha as

institutionalized greed, institutionalized aggression and institutionalized delusion.

Expanding the scope of organizational mindfulness requires widening the field of awareness to

include mindful processes for detecting and correcting institutionalized forms of distress and suffering.

We propose five complementary mindful processes which serve as a corrective to the lack of ethically-

based mindfulness theorizing: 1) preoccupation with moral hazards; 2) reluctance to engage in delusional

activity; 3) sensitivity to conative imbalances; 4) commitment to reperceiving; and 5) deference to skillful

means. Table 1 summarizes the conceptual differences between Buddhist mindfulness and HWOs

compared to Western mindfulness and HROs.

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

There are principles of anticipation at work in Buddhist mindfulness, but the preoccupation is not

with catastrophic failures, but with the prevention and reduction of destructive emotions, negative

attitudes, and unethical behaviors. Right view functions as a means of error detection, but very different

in nature from Weick and Sutcliffe’s (2006) principles of anticipation which focus on detecting small

cues and preventing errors in HROs. Rather, right view vividly enhances mental clarity by detecting

fundamental cognitive errors and basic misperceptions that cause unhealthy mental states, suffering and

distress. The establishment of right view also develops a discriminative process of distinction making,

but quite unlike the sort of distinction making as understood by Weick and his colleagues. Rather, right

view works in conjunction with right effort and right mindfulness to train the mind to both distinguish and

restrain states and behaviors that are motivated by greed, ill will/aversion and delusion. This aspect of

mindfulness may aptly be called “mindful wise restraint.” In other words, distinction making is not

limited to detecting novelty, errors, signals or existing categories (which is the primary focus of Weick’s

theories of organizational mindfulness and high reliability organizations (HROs))—but is expanded to


28

include awareness of mental states, emotional reactions, and behaviors which do harm to self and others.

This aspect of Buddhist mindfulness, extended to organizational processes, enhances vigilance of

unethical behaviors, leading to a preoccupation with moral hazards.

The second principle, reluctance towards delusional activity, is achieved through the expanded

awareness developed through right view as it is applied through right effort to either prevent or abandon

harmful mental states and unskillful behaviors. The reluctance towards delusional activity is directly

linked to preventing habitual intentions and actions that cause a greater sense of separateness, or duality,

between self and others. Because Buddhist mindfulness is aimed at developing insights into the causes of

suffering and distress, this entails dispelling a fundamental delusion that one’s self is separate from the

world. Such dualistic thinking is a direct cause of suffering. Mindful organizing processes which prevent,

or call attention to, delusional activity expose how unwholesome motivations have become

institutionalized, contributing to collective dukkha. Rather than rationalizing and normalizing such

unwholesome motivations, mindful organizing processes apply right mindfulness to heighten awareness

of, and deautomize, habitual routines which serve to perpetuate a socially constructed form of

institutionalized delusion. This requires the establishment of right view, which cultivates moral

sensitivity that depends on a clear awareness for discerning the presence and causes of suffering, as well

as fostering a commitment and motivation to liberate oneself (and others) from these causes(Rest, 1983).

Preliminary empirical research supports the link between sustained mindfulness training and moral

reasoning and ethical decision making (Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010; Shapiro, Jazaieri, & Goldin, 2012).

We have described how Buddhist mindfulness is grounded and informed by an intention and

effort to direct attention to move towards greater well-being, genuine and lasting happiness by

understanding and eradicating the causes of distress, suffering and harm. Western conceptualizations of

mindfulness have paid little attention to the role of discernment, conation, ethical judgment and volitional

factors (Shapiro, Jazaieri & Goldin, 2012). Wallace and Shapiro (2006) refer to the ethical intention

component of mindfulness as conative balance. Conation has to do with the nature of our desires and

volition. Conative balance is linked to the wisdom which can discern which intentions and volitions are


29

conducive to the genuine well-being, both for oneself and others (Wallace, 2006). Whereas Western

notions of well-being are hedonic, contingent upon stimulus-driven pleasures, Buddhist well-being, or

sukha, is considered an enduring trait that is not dependent or contingent upon fleeting emotions, moods,

intellectual stimuli, sensory pleasures or other transitory experiences. The function of Buddhist

mindfulness is toward the development of exceptional states of well-being, but this conception of

mindfulness is always conjoined with factors of ethical discernment and wisdom (Kang & Whittingham,

2010). As Wallace and Shapiro (2006, p.691) note, “Buddhism promotes an ideal state of well-being that

results from freeing the mind of its afflictive tendencies and obscurations and from realizing one’s fullest

potential in terms of wisdom, compassion and creativity.” Sukha is realized through the cultivation of

mental balance; and an ethics-based mindfulness practice is a means to this achieving this end.

Organizational actors need to be sensitive to conative imbalances in the organization if they are to

ward off moral hazards by noticing habitual routines which condone amoral acts though collusion and

denial of collective responsibility for harm, deception and wrong-doing. Wallace describes conative

imbalances as “ways in which our desires and intentions lead us away from psychological flourishing and

into psychological distress.” (Wallace, 2007) A key issue is that conative imbalances are habitual,

obscuring them from scrutiny as such imbalances are rationalized as simply the normal state of affairs. It

is also important to note that Wallace maintains that individual flourishing cannot occur privately in

isolation or without any relation to others. Mindfulness is not merely a technique for personal self-

fulfillment at the expense of ignoring the pain and suffering of others in the larger social environment.

Ironically, conative imbalances can actually occur as a result of applying mindfulness as if it were merely

a technocratic tool for enhancing attention and stress reduction. For example, mindfulness training might

be applied to help employees reduce stress and regulate emotional reactivity, thereby helping them to

focus on tasks and subsequently improving the quality of organizational attention. While such

applications of mindfulness may help employees focus and cope better in high stress environments, it

does not address the source of conative imbalances nor the institutionalized cultures and practices of the


30

organization itself. As Forbes (2012, p.4) points out, “the focus is instead is on how to cope with

pressures rather than to question why the pressures are there and how they can be changed.”

Conative imbalances can manifest as deficits, hyperactivity or as dysfunctions (Wallace, 2010).

Conative deficits are apparent when there is an “apathetic loss of desire for happiness and its causes”

(Wallace, 2010). This condition depicts a failure of imagination and general unwillingness to change the

conditions to enhance social and environmental well being. Conative hyperactivity is an imbalance

characterized by an obsessive focus on unfulfilled desires which fuels greed—one of the root mental

toxins. Moreover, conative hyperactivity is so focused on attainment of future goals and desires that one’s

own needs, as well as the needs of others, are often ignored or overlooked. Sensitivity to conative

imbalances calls into question the normalization of institutionalized greed, as well as other fixations

which perpetuate a collective sense of lack (Loy, 2008). Conative dysfunction amounts to a confusion and

misguidedness with regards to the objects of desire. When desire is directed towards “things that are

destructive to our own and others well being,” and not to things that lead towards greater well being for

both ourselves and others’, conation becomes dysfunctional (Wallace, 2010, p.21). Conative dysfunction

can be seen when organizational actors are indifferent to attitudes or actions which would improve their

own and others’ well being (Wallace & Shapiro, 2006).

The fourth feature of HWOs, a commitment to reperceiving, refers to mindful processes that

provide organizational actors the ability to take a detached or objective stance on the narratives and

stories that are being enacted (Shapiro et al., 2006). Reperceiving (Shapiro et al. 2006) can be considered

a cognitive mediator, similar in function to metacognitive awareness (Teasdale, Moore, Hayhurst, Pope,

Williams, & Segal, 2002), decentering (Fresco, Segal, Buis, & Kennedy, 2007), defusion (Fletcher,

Schoendorff, & Hayes, 2010),reperceiving (Shapiro et al. 2006), and decreased rumination (Deyo et al.

2009) (see Grabovec et al. 2011 for review). Rather than identifying automatically with the content of

organizational narratives (which act as carriers of collective thoughts and emotions), mindful processes

act to decenter stories, thus deautomatizing habitual reactions and appraisals. Normally, events and stories

are interpreted through conceptual modes of information processing and “habitually filtered through


31

cognitive appraisals, evaluations, memories, beliefs, and other forms of cognitive manipulation” (Shapiro

et al, p.7). Commitment to reperceiving provides a greater clarity and objectivity, allowing members to

gain a sense of detachment and wider perspective on the unfolding of events. Such distance and

detachment, however, is not to be confused with apathy or indifference. As Shapiro (et al. 2006, p.7)

points out, reperceiving “engenders a deep knowing and intimacy with whatever arises moment by

moment,” what Peters (2004) refers to as an “intimate detachment.” For organizations, a commitment to

reperceiving works to counteract conative imbalances. With the application of right mindfulness, people

are able to discern with greater objectivity values and desires that are conducive to well being, and

choose to act in accordance with those values. Reperceiving reduces cognitive dissonance and increases

value clarification, allowing people to volitionally choose a just course of action based for all those

involved. In this respect, HWOs foster a capacity for collective reflection on goals and actions which

cause harm and suffering, which were previously denied, rationalized as normal, or reflexively accepted

due to habitual routines.

Deference to skillful means (upāya) is the process of yielding to decisions and actions which are

aimed at dissolving and uprooting the institutionalized causes of distress, harm and suffering. This entails

skillful insight into how conditions have been institutionally mediated, informed by a caring response to

the needs of the situation (Hershock, 2006). Skillful means is amounts to what Herschock calls a

“virtuosic responsiveness”--an ongoing, improvisational activity that rests upon exceptional levels of

behavioral-cognitive-affective flexibility. Mindfulness undermines rigidity and habit formations that

normally constrain the organizational capacity for situationally appropriate responses. The moral clarity

that is engendered by the application of right mindfulness heightens perception of the inseparability of our

values-intentions-actions (Herschock, 2006). Skillful means deploys this clarity as a way of correcting

misperceptions and distortions that are based on clinging to interpretation of events that are inherently

impermanent and have no essential, abiding nature. This principle is based on the premise that no single

method or technique can address the range and diversity of suffering in its various manifestations.


32

Deference to skillful means empowering mindful processes which cultivate liberating relationships,

recovering the values of interdependence, mutuality and community.

As might be apparent by now, Buddhist mindfulness, when extended as a construct into

organizational processes, expands the scope of organizational mindfulness. And, as our model of Buddhist

right mindfulness suggests, the eradication of unwholesome motivations that result in unskillful mental

states and behavior are rooted in three mental poisons: greed (craving), ill will (malevolence) and delusion

(self-grasping). Derivatives of these mental toxins are considered to be afflictive and disruptive of conative

balance. Buddhist psychology traditionally considers these mental toxins the source of individual suffering,

or dukkha, which arise as a result of a misapprehension of the true nature of reality (impermanence,

egolessness, and the suffering resulting from clinging to phenomena which are inherently impermanent and

lacking an abiding essence). This is what Buddhism considers as a fundamental ignorance. Suffering then

refers not merely to gross physical or emotional pain, but an ongoing and underlying sense of dissatisfaction

and basic vulnerability to change and pain (Ekman et al., 2005, p.60). Craving, malevolence and self-

grasping all share in a common mental process that reifies personal identity as being real, concrete and

absolutely separate from others and the world. Wisely directed attention, supported by mindful wise

restraint, aims at transforming and uprooting these mental toxins. This results in a less egocentric frame of

reference, developing the capacity for extending one’s sense of liberation and existential freedom to the

social environment. Indeed, the effects of mindfulness practice presents a challenge to Western conceptions

of personal identity, self-concept and the primacy of the ego, which has been the bastion for understanding

human behavior (Brown, Ryan & Creswell, 2007). Buddhist mindfulness lays the foundation for

transforming the three root toxins into their counterparts: craving and greed into generosity, ill will and

malevolence into compassion and loving-kindness, and delusion into wisdom (Loy, 1997). Moreover,

because Buddhist mindfulness is ultimately aimed at the development of insight and wisdom into the

egolessness or selflessness of all phenomena (also referred to as “emptiness” or śūnyatā), the result is a

profound sense of nonduality between ourselves and the world. As Loy (2003, p.17) states, “…the emphasis


33

on nonduality between ourselves and the world encourages identification with ‘others’: hence com-passion,

suffering with, because we are not separate from them.”

CONCLUSION

We have described the purpose and function of mindfulness within the Buddhist tradition,

stressing how its emancipatory and ethical efficacy is derived from being integrated holistically with other

complementary path factors, particularly right view and right effort. As we pointed out earlier, Jon Kabat-

Zinn’s pioneering work extracted mindfulness from its Buddhist context, revising and simplifying its

operational mode of application for the purpose of stress reduction and pain management. This was

necessary in order to make MBSR both accessible and acceptable to the medical and therapeutic

community. Clearly, MBSR along with other recent variants, have helped countless people in suffering

from chronic pain, stress and depression in clinical settings. Our concern lies with the booming popularity

of mindfulness training as it moves into corporate and other institutional settings (Carroll, 2007; Cloke &

Goldsmith, 2003; Tan, 2012; Timm, April 26th 2010; Yeganeh, 2012), particularly with how it is being

defined, presented and utilized in ways that are increasingly suspect. David Forbes, in his eloquent essay,

“Occupy Mindfulness,” puts the matter this way:

My concern is that mindfulness may fall victim to its own success. Mindfulness is not about stress reduction, maintaining a steady state of bliss, helping an individual act with more control or an organization run more smoothly and efficiently. Even after we're de-stressed and feeling great, we still need to ask: how do we live now? We're in control and are more efficient, but toward what end? (Forbes, 2012).

Buddhist mindfulness is not merely a technique for reducing stress, improving the quality of

attention, mental focus or concentration—yet these tangible human performance benefits are heralded as

the sine qua non of mindfulness and major reasons for adoption by modern corporations. In their branding

efforts, proponents of mindfulness training usually preface their program offerings as being “Buddhist-

inspired,” but are quick to dismiss any ties or allegiances to Buddhism itself. For example, in a widely

read news article, “The Mind Business,” (Gelles, 2012) Janice Marturano who leads one of most


34

extensive corporate training programs in mindfulness at General Mills is not shy in acknowledging her

Buddhist training, “I’ve learned a great deal from studying with some wonderful Buddhist teachers over

the years.” This full disclosure, however, is qualified by the standard disclaimer, “Nor are General Mills,

Google, Aetna or Target trying to convert their employees to some new religion. Instead, it seems that

eastern wisdom – stripped of its religiosity and backed by scientific research – is becoming an accepted

part of the corporate mainstream” (Gelles, 2012).

Unfortunately, the stripping away of mindfulness from its ethical and soteriological context

comes at a cost. Uncoupling mindfulness from the ethical path factors is myopic, limiting its scope and

emancipatory breadth. Further, the rush towards secularization of mindfulness without giving due

consideration to the ethical dimensions of this concept and method leads to an overemphasis on

technique. Driscoll and Weibe (2007) have aptly termed this trend as “technical spirituality,” where

spiritual practices are extracted from their soteriological context, instrumentalized, and applied as tools

for improving efficiency, productivity and gaining tangible results (Driscoll & Wiebe, 2007).

Rather than quickly dismissing what Buddhist ethics has to offer, secularized offerings of

mindfulness training in institutional settings should reconsider what is being left out in their attempts to

sell their goods. Presenting mindfulness as a neutral technology which can be used a tool for helping

employees and managers better cope with the stresses and strains of the workplace, to become calmer and

more task focused, or even to improve emotional intelligence—compartmentalizes the practice, reducing

it to yet another commodified, faddish, self-help technique. Indeed, the compartmentalization of

mindfulness as a neutral technology ensures that the benefits are limited and confined to that of stress

reduction and improvements in attention. This is also due to the fact that mindfulness practice is still

being defined by variants of Kabat-Zinn’s “bare attention” coupled with “non-judgmental awareness of

moment-to-moment present experience.”

Because the aim of mindfulness training applications is primarily on helping individuals destress

and become more focused as a means of coping and adapting to existing conditions, the result is a socially

disengaged and self-preservation oriented form of mindfulness. Thus, mindfulness is not seen nor


35

envisioned as a transformative organizational process that can address the root causes of suffering and

distress in the wider organizational culture and environment. In fact, the decontextualization and

denaturing of mindfulness ensures that the larger context and environment are hidden from view.

For the majority of mindfulness training proponents, mindfulness meditation is viewed as largely a

private, internal affair. This view is problematic not only in terms of its compartmentalizing effect, but

also because it creates a disconnect between one’s own personal transformation (which is limited to stress

reduction and perhaps greater self-awareness) and the social and organizational transformation that takes

into account the interconnectedness of personal motives, as well as the causes and conditions of suffering

in the broader environment.

A more extreme example of the effects of denaturing and cooptation of mindfulness for

instrumental purposes can be found in U.S. Marines “Mindfulness-Based Mind Fitness Training

(MMFT)”12. The “MMFT for Warriors” program is tailored for developing stress response regulation

skills that “are relevant to the contemporary battlespace, including the counterinsurgency environment”.

The program even “examines how mindfulness supports interpersonal effectiveness as a mission-critical

skill for population-centric operations”. We want to be clear that this application of mindfulness training

is not for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD), which MBSR and other mindfulness-based clinical

treatments have offered military personnel much benefit after returning from tours of duty in Iraq and

Afghanistan. Rather, this program was based on a field experiment in which 160 Marines were taught

mindfulness stress reduction techniques and practiced the calming methods while “being immersed in a

mock Afghan village with screaming actors and controlled blasts to expose them to combat stress”

(Watson, 2013). And, of course, the standard disclaimer is used to justify this misappropriation of

mindfulness: "Some people might say these are Eastern-based religious practices but this goes way

beyond that," said Jeffery Bearor, the executive deputy of the Marine Corps training and education

command at its headquarters in Quantico, Va.. "This is not tied to any religious practice. This is about

mental preparation to better handle stress" (Watson, 2013). 12 http://www.mind-fitness-training.org/training.html (2012). Accessed 03/19/2013.

http://www.mind-fitness-training.org/training.html


36

In another similar study, cognitive neuroscientist Amishi Jha of the Department of Psychology

and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Penn and Elizabeth A. Stanley of Georgetown University

provided mindfulness training for the first time to a select group of U.S. Marines before deployment in

Iraq (Nauert, 2010). The study found mindfulness training was effective in cultivating greater

psychological resilience or “mental armor”, improvements in mood and working memory (Jha, Stanley,

Kiyonaga, Wong, & Gelfand, 2010; Stanley & Jha, 2009).

This technocratic framing of mindfulness, which ignores the larger ethical and social context of

mindfulness, is well captured by Forbes’ (2013) observation:

This supposed neutrality allows the context--fighting an immoral war--which frames the intent of employing mindfulness to remain hidden in the background and escape scrutiny. To those who think such questions are out of bounds, that the only focus should be on helping the soldiers, mindfulness should remind us of our interdependence: everything is connected, including means and ends.

Of course, advocates of the corporate mindfulness movement do claim that engaging in mindfulness

training will lead greater awareness of interdependence and a kinder, gentler and more compassionate

organization. According to George (2010),”Mindful leadership will help the new generation of authentic

leaders to restore trust in their leadership and to build sustainable organizations known for their harmony.

Its ultimate goal is to create a more harmonious and peaceful world for all to live in.” Maturano echoes

something similar, “It’s about training our minds to be more focused, to see with clarity, to have

spaciousness for creativity and to feel connected,” and “That compassion to ourselves, to everyone around

us – our colleagues, customers – that’s what the training of mindfulness is really about” (Gelles, 2012).

Even lawyers and investment managers on Wall Street are now supposedly gaining an appreciation for

interdependence and the laws of cause and effect through mindfulness training, according to Robert

Chender, who has been offering training attorneys for the New York Bar Association (Hunter, 2013).

Even if the ultimate goal is not world peace and boundless compassion, the basic premise among

mindfulness training advocates is, as Gelles (2012) explains, “The idea is that calmer workers will be less

stressed, more productive and even become better leaders, thereby benefiting the entire organization”


37

(Gelles, 2012). But what exactly is meant by such benefit? More docile workers who are enabled to fully

participate, as Zizek (2001; quoted in Loy, 2013) argues, “in capitalist dynamics while retaining the

appearance of mental sanity”? While this may sound like an overly pessimistic and harsh criticism, the

basic premise of the corporate mindfulness movement in its current manifestation is to avoid questioning

the causes of suffering and distress in the larger corporate and socio-economic contexts. Instead, an

ethically neutral, stripped down version of mindfulness stress reduction training is seen as sufficient in

order to enable employees to function more effectively and calmly within such toxic environments. A

more inclusive view of organizational mindfulness is seen by many mindfulness practitioners as a

tangential concern, or as a unnecessary politicizing of what is viewed as a personal journey of self-

transformation.13 As Bikkhu Bodhi warns, “… absent a sharp social critique, Buddhist practices could

easily be used to justify and stabilize the status quo, becoming a reinforcement of consumer capitalism.”

Advocates also claim that they offer a more modernist adaptation of mindfulness for a corporate

context—that such stripping away is a necessary means of extracting the essence of Buddhist mindfulness

from its outdated historical and cultural trappings. Rather than embedding and grounding mindfulness

practice within a sound soteriological context, ethical concerns are supposedly mitigated by deferring to

the experience and intentions of mindfulness trainers (Hunter, 2013, p.59). Reflecting on questions of

ethics as it concerns MBSR, Kabat-Zinn (2011, p.294) states: “Are we ignoring that fundamental aspect

of the Dharma in favour of just a few highly selected meditation techniques, again, decontextualizing

elements of a coherent whole? My view is that we are not. First, it is inevitably the personal responsibility

of each person engaging in this work to attend with care and intentionality to how we are actually living

our lives, both personally and professionally, in terms of ethical behavior.” The criteria for becoming a

13 One of the authors of this article attempted to start a dialogue on a Facebook mindfulness group regarding these controversial appropriations of mindfulness and was admonished by the moderator. The moderator stated, “I think I'd like to curb the political conversations about how mindfulness is applied and whether it is bad or good. ….Such posts risk distracting us away from mindfulness and toward social identities...” Shortly thereafter the links to the Forbes’ “Occupy Mindfulness” blog post were deleted by the moderator.


38

competent mindfulness trainer usually involves having engaged in a Buddhist mindfulness retreat for an

extended period of time (7-10 days), as well as maintenance of a daily meditation practice (Kabat-Zinn,

2003, 2011; Santorelli, 2001; SIYLI, 2012). We have no doubt that there are very well intentioned and

seasoned mindfulness trainers, such as those facilitating the “Search Inside Yourself” program that was

developed at Google (Tan, 2012), and which is now being offered through their non-profit Search Inside

Yourself Leadership Institute (SIYLI, 2013). While the original founders of MBSR and SIYLI may have

had the good fortune of being trained themselves by competent Buddhist teachers, there is no guarantee

that newer generations of trainers will have such exposure. Given that mindfulness training is becoming a

very profitable industry with relatively few certification programs, and is being aggressively marketed as

a universal panacea for assuaging employee discontent and tuning up executive brains, caveat emptor.

Mindfulness training proponents also often use the “Trojan Horse” argument to justify their value

neutral stance when offering programs for use in companies that have questionable reputations in terms of

corporate social responsibility. The argument is that as mindfulness-based training is diffused, it will

slowly foster greater awareness of interconnectedness, infiltrating the organization to a degree that

corporate values and decision making will be transformed. James Hunter, for example, claims that

mindfulness training can act as a “disruptive technology” as more people within the organization become

“more open and inquisitive,” and by searching inside themselves, become instruments for large-scale

change (Hunter, 2013). Hunter (2013, p.59) even suggests that Monsanto—widely criticized and globally

despised for its patenting of seed stock and agribusiness domination of the world food supply—is,

because of its adoption of individual-oriented mindfulness training, is on its way to becoming a more

compassionate and sustainable organization. The corollary to this argument is that transformational

change starts with oneself; if one can change one’s mind to be more calm, peaceful, focused and

equanimous—social and organizational transformation will naturally follow. The problem with this

formulation is that the three unwholesome roots—greed, ill will/aversion, and delusion--as we pointed out

earlier, are no longer confined to individual minds but have been amplified by socio-technical forces of

neoliberalism and globalization. An individualistic and consumer orientation to the practice of


39

mindfulness in corporations may be effective for self-preservation, but is essentially impotent for

mitigating the causes of collective and organizational distress. Mindfulness, as it is defined, presented,

and practiced needs to be expanded to include a keen diagnosis of the causes of distress and harm at

multiple levels, including organizational processes as we have outlined in terms of principles of HWOs.

It is clear that the boom in mindfulness training industry, like MBSR, is linked to ensuring its

corporate sponsors that it relinquished all ties and affiliations to its Buddhist origins. Instead, the basis for

its appeal and legitimacy is that it is now “science-based,” grounded in the latest research in

contemplative neuroscience and clinical psychology. The Western scientific community has taken

mindfulness-based interventions seriously, not only in terms of actual clinical applications in the field, but

also in the growing amount of empirical studies aimed at determining the clinical efficacy and neural

correlates of mindfulness-based mental training (Baer, 2003; Dimidjian & Linehan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn,

2003; Kabat-Zinn & Davidson, 2011). The bulk of the studies in contemplative neuroscience have

focused on the neuro-enhancement effects of mindfulness training, such as self regulation (Hölzel,

Carmody, Evans, Hoge, Dusek, Morgan, Pitman, & Lazar, 2010), selective attention (Lutz, Slagter,

Rawlings, Francis, Greischar, & Davidson, 2009; Slagter, Lutz, Greischar, Nieuwenhuis, & Davidson,

2009), and working memory (Hölzel, Ott, Gard, Hempel, Weygandt, Morgen, & Vaitl, 2008; Jha,

Krompinger, & Baime, 2007; Jha, Stanley, Kiyonaga, Wong, & Gelfand, 2010). Our purpose here is not

to assess these laboratory findings, but to draw attention to deeper implications of this turn towards

scientific legimitation by the mindfulness movement. Corporate mindfulness advocates are using these

studies to claim that “meditation works” (Lopez, 2012, p.105). But “works” for what end and what

purpose? Chade-Meng Tan (2012, p.232), the founder of Google’s “Search Inside Yourself” mindfulness

meditation program envisions mindfulness becoming just as widely accessible and practiced as physical

exercise, once scientific studies have proven and legitimized its benefits. Neuroscientific findings on

mindfulness training, whether it be self regulation, stress reduction, or focused attention---while both

interesting and important in terms of understanding the neural corrleates and underlying mental


40

processes—may inadvertently contribute to a view of mindfulness meditation as simply a technique for

neuro-enhancement. Faure (2012) raises similar concerns regarding the long-term motives and purpose of

such neuro-enhancements, even speculating that once the underlying neural mechanisms of attention

enhancement and stress reduction are fully understood, they might be reproduced “technologically,

perhaps artificially, even chemically?” In this respect, the legitimation of both the contemplative

neuroscientific community and secular mindfulness movement assumes Buddhist mindfulness can be

extracted from its soteriological context. Of course, it can be; and, indeed, it has been. But this Faustian

bargain involves a major trade off in terms of aims and goals. Rather than applying mindfulness as a

means to liberate individuals and organizations from the unwholesome roots of greed, ill will and

delusion, mindfulness is reduced to a therapeutic self-help technique for stress reduction.

Expanding the scope of mindfulness entails reclaiming its emancipatory purpose. This requires a

major shift in focus, from that of seeing mindfulness as simply a means for gaining relief from anxiety,

stress and for improving attention, to a socially engaged and contemplative process aimed at uprooting

fundamental forms of suffering, at multiple levels of organization. Dyck and Wiebe (2012) have warned

that when the locus of ethical activity is on individuals and their self-interests (rather than on

communities), the project of emancipation is undermined. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhist

mindfulness, as Lopez (2012, p.108) astutely points out, is not to settle for quiescence or stress reduction,

but to instigate a state of “stress induction” (Lopez, 2012, p.108). Rather than viewing mindfulness as a

means for retreating into a safe cocoon of inner peace in order to cope and adapt, or as a tool for being a

more focused leader to justify and stabilize the status quo, Buddhist mindfulness, properly applied,

induces a radical turnabout in consciousness. Indeed, Buddhist mindfulness is inherently provocative,

activist, and a transformative practice that is based on deep insights into the dramatic interdependence of

personal, social, organizational, economic and political institutions.

The rush to dissociate mindfulness from its Buddhist roots and context is not necessary in order to

be palpable and acceptable to our modern sensibilities. We believe that a truly “Buddhist-inspired” form

of mindfulness is possible without denaturing it to such a degree that it loses its transformative power to


41

uproot the causes of suffering in both individuals and organizations. However, for this to be possible,

theorists and practitioners need to take heed that a mindfulness that is “Buddhist-inspired” cannot be

divorced from its ethical components and emancipative purpose. We want to conclude by emphasizing

that right mindfulness and high wisdom organizations (HWOs) are not based on any requirement to

become a Buddhist, or follow any sort of creed or dogma. What we have offered is a corrective, as both a

theory and practice, to the value free variants of mindfulness that are currently in vogue. Right

mindfulness and HWOs are grounded in a secular, universal ethics, which can be of great benefit to

business and society.


42

REFERENCES

Anālayo. (2010 ). Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization. Birmingham: Windhorse Publications.

Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(12), 1849-1858.

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness Training as a Clinical Intervention: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125-143.

Baer, R. A. (2011). Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 241-261. Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. B. (2011). Differential Item Functioning on the Five

Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Is Minimal in Demographically Matched Meditators and Nonmeditators. Assessment, 18(1), 3-10.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of Mindfulness by Self-Report. Assessment, 11(3), 191-206.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.

Bell, D. (1956). Work and its Discontents: The Cult of Efficiency in America (2 ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241.

Bodhi, B. (2006). The noble eightfold path: Way to the end of suffering. Onalaska, WA: Pariyatti Publishing.

Bodhi, B. (2011). What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical perspective. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 19-39.

Brahm, A. (2006). Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, Inc.

Bright, D. S., Stansbury, J., Alzola, M., & Stavros, J. M. (2011). Virtue ethics in positive organizational scholarship: An integrative perspective. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration.

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), 822-848.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations and Evidence for its Salutary Effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211-237.

Cameron, K. S. (2003). Organizational virtuousness and performance. In K. S. Cameron, Dutton, J.E., & Quinn, R.E. (Ed.), Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 48-65). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Carroll, M. (2007). The Mindful Leader: Ten Principles for Bringing Out the Best in Ourselves and Others. Boston, MA: Trumpeter Books.

Chanowitz, B., & Langer, E. J. (1981). Premature cognitive commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(6), 1051-1063.

Chiesa, A. (2012). The Difficulty of Defining Mindfulness: Current Thought and Critical Issues. Mindfulness, 1-14.

Christopher, M. S., Christopher, V., & Charoensuk, S. (2009). Assessing “Western” Mindfulness Among Thai Theravāda Buddhist Monks. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 12(3), 303-314.


43

Cloke, K., & Goldsmith, J. (2003). The Art of Waking People Up: Cultivating Awareness and Authenticity at Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dane, E. (2011). Paying Attention to Mindfulness and Its Effects on Task Performance in the Workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4), 997-1018.

Davids, T. W. R. (1881). Trans. Buddhist suttas. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Davidson, R. J., & Begley, S. (2012). The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique

Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press.

Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F., Urbanowski, F., Harrington, A., Bonus, K., & Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 564-570.

deCharms, R. C. (1997). Two Views of Mind: Abhidharma and Brain Science. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.

Dimidjian, S., & Linehan, M. M. (2003). Defining an Agenda for Future Research on the Clinical Application of Mindfulness Practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 166-171.

Dreyfus, G. (2011). Is mindfulness present-centred and non-judgmental? A discussion of the cognitive dimensions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 41-54.

Driscoll, C., & Wiebe, E. (2007). Technical Spirituality at Work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(4), 333-348.

Dunne, J. (2011). Toward an understanding of non-dual mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 71-88.

Dyck, B., & Wiebe, E. (2012). Salvation, theology, and organizational practices across the centuries. Organization, 19(3), 299-324.

Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., Ricard, M., & Alan Wallace, B. (2005). Buddhist and Psychological Perspectives on Emotions and Well-Being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 59-63.

Epel, E., Daubenmier, J., Moskowitz, J. T., Folkman, S., & Blackburn, E. (2009). Can Meditation Slow Rate of Cellular Aging? Cognitive Stress, Mindfulness, and Telomeres. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1172(1), 34-53.

Faure, B. (2012). A Gray Matter: Another Look at the Convergence of Buddhism and Science Tricycle, 22, 1-4.

Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 54-70.

Fletcher, L. B., Schoendorff, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2010). Searching for mindfulness in the brain: A process-oriented approach to examining the neural correlates of mindfulness. Mindfulness, 1(1), 41-63.

Forbes, D. (2012). Occupy Mindfulness, from http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/982-occupy-mindfulness

Fresco, D. M., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., & Kennedy, S. (2007). Relationship of posttreatment decentering and cognitive reactivity to relapse in major depression. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 75(3), 447-455.

Gelles, D. (2012). The mind business, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d9cb7940-ebea-11e1-985a-00144feab49a.html#axzz2MuOcUpfA

http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/982-occupy-mindfulness

http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/982-occupy-mindfulness

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d9cb7940-ebea-11e1-985a-00144feab49a.html#axzz2MuOcUpfA

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d9cb7940-ebea-11e1-985a-00144feab49a.html#axzz2MuOcUpfA


44

George, B. (2010). Mindful Leadership: Compassion, contemplation and meditation develop effective leaders, from http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=1855

Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Gethin, R. (2001). The Buddhist Path to Awakening: A Study of the Bodhi-Pakkhiya Dhamma.

Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Gethin, R. (2011). On some definitions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 263-

279. Gethin, R. M. L. (1992). The Buddhist path to Awakening. A study of the Bodhi-Pakkhiyā

Dhammā. (1 ed.). Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Exercising your brain: A review of human brain plasticity

and training-induced learning. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 692-701. Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research.

Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(4), 405-408. Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress

reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35-43.

Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other name…: trials and tribulations of sati in western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 219-239.

Gunaratana, B. H. (2002). Mindfulness in Plain English. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Hayes, S. C., & Plumb, J. C. (2007). Mindfulness from the Bottom Up: Providing an Inductive

Framework for Understanding Mindfulness Processes and their Application to Human Suffering. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 242-248.

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

Hershock, P. (2006). Buddhism in the Public Sphere: Reorienting global interdependence. New York: Routledge.

Hölzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Evans, K. C., Hoge, E. A., Dusek, J. A., Morgan, L., Pitman, R. K., & Lazar, S. W. (2010). Stress reduction correlates with structural changes in the amygdala. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(1), 11-17.

Hölzel, B. K., Ott, U., Gard, T., Hempel, H., Weygandt, M., Morgen, K., & Vaitl, D. (2008). Investigation of mindfulness meditation practitioners with voxel-based morphometry. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(1), 55-61.

Hunter, J. (2013). Is Mindfulness Good for Buisness. Mindfulness, April 2013, 52-59. Hunter, J., & McCormick, D. W. (2008). Mindfulness in the Workplace: An Exploratory Study.

Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA. Ireland, M. J. (2013). Meditative insight: conceptual and measurement development. Mental

Health, Religion & Culture, 16(1), 79-99. Jha, A., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of

attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(2), 109-119. Jha, A. P., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010). Examining the

protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective experience. Emotion, 10(1), 54-64.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33-47.

http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=1855


45

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. New York, NY: Delta.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144-156.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2011). Some reflections on the origins of MBSR, skillful means, and the trouble with maps. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01), 281-306.

Kabat-Zinn, J., & Davidson, R. (2011). The Mind's Own Physician: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the Healing Power of Meditation. Oakland, CA: Mind and Life Institute, New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Mindfulness, mediation and health: Transformation and healing at the confluence of science and Dharma. Plenary keynote at the First International Conference on Mindfulness, Sapienza University, Rome May 7-12.

Kang, C., & Whittingham, K. (2010). Mindfulness: A dialogue between Buddhism and clinical psychology. Mindfulness, 1(3), 161-173.

Langer, E. (1989a). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137-173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Langer, E. (1994). The illusion of calculated decisions. In R. C. Schank & E. Langer (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abelson (pp. 33-53). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Langer, E. J. (1989b). Mindfulness. Boston, MA: De Capo Press. Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful

action: The role of "placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). Mindfulness Research and the Future. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 129-139.

Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., Shapiro, S., Carmody, J., Abbey, S., & Devins, G. (2006). The toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445-1467.

Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502-513.

Lopez Jr., D. S. (2012). The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Loy, D. (1997). The great awakening: A Buddhist social theory. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Loy, D. (2013). Can mindfulness change a corporation? , from http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/can-mindfulness-change-a-corporation/

Loy, D. R. (2002). A Buddhist History ofthe West: Studies in Lack: Albany: State University of New York Press.

Loy, D. R. (2008). Money, sex, war, karma: Notes for a Buddhist revolution. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Lutz, A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2007). Meditation and the neuroscience of consciousness: An introduction. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness (pp. 497-549). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/can-mindfulness-change-a-corporation/


46

Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Rawlings, N. B., Francis, A. D., Greischar, L. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2009). Mental Training Enhances Attentional Stability: Neural and Behavioral Evidence. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(42), 13418-13427.

Maex, E. (2011). The Buddhist roots of mindfulness training: a practitioners view. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01), 165-175.

Maguire, E. A., Woollett, K., & Spiers, H. J. (2006). London taxi drivers and bus drivers: A structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Hippocampus, 16(12), 1091-1101.

Moyer, C. A., Donnelly, M. P. W., Anderson, J. C., Valek, K. C., Huckaby, S. J., Wiederholt, D. A., Doty, R. L., Rehlinger, A. S., & Rice, B. L. (2011). Frontal Electroencephalographic Asymmetry Associated With Positive Emotion Is Produced by Very Brief Meditation Training. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1277-1279.

Nanamoli, B., & Bodhi, B. (2005). The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya (3 ed.). Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Nauert, R. (2010). Mindfulness Training Helpful for the Military, from http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/02/18/mindfulness-training-helpful-for-the-military/11562.html

Olendzki, A. (2010). Unlimiting Mind: The Radically Experiential Psychology of Buddhism. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Olendzki, A. (2011). The construction of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 55-70. Purser, R. E. (1999). The human relations myth unveiled: Deconstructing the history and origins

of work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Work Teams: Past, Present and Future (pp. 59-84). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

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

Rest, J. R. (1983). Morality. In J. Flavell, E. M. Markman & P. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Cognitive development (volume 3) (pp. 556-628). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Rosch, E. (2007). More than mindfulness: When you have a tiger by the tail, let it eat you. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 258-264.

Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of business ethics, 95, 73-87.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Shefy, E. (2007). Developing Intuitive Awareness in Management Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 186-205.

Santorelli, S. (2001). Mindfulness-based stress reduction: Qualifications and recommended guidelines for providers. In S. Santorelli & J. Kabat-Zinn (Eds.), Mindfulness-based stress reduction professional training manual. Worcester, MA: Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society. Worcester, MA: Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society.

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression: A New Approach to Preventing Relapse. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373-386.

Shapiro, S. L., Jazaieri, H., & Goldin, P. R. (2012). Mindfulness-based stress reduction effects on moral reasoning and decision making. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(6), 504-515.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/02/18/mindfulness-training-helpful-for-the-military/11562.html

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/02/18/mindfulness-training-helpful-for-the-military/11562.html


47

Shapiro, S. L., Oman, D., Thoresen, C. E., Plante, T. G., & Flinders, T. (2008). Cultivating mindfulness: effects on well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(7), 840-862.

SIYLI. (2012), from http://www.siyli.org/about-siyli/become-a-facilitator/ Slagter, H. A., Davidson, R. J., & Lutz, A. (2011). Mental training as a tool in the neuroscientific

study of brain and cognitive plasticity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5. Slagter, H. A., Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Nieuwenhuis, S., & Davidson, R. J. (2009). Theta

Phase Synchrony and Conscious Target Perception: Impact of Intensive Mental Training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(8), 1536-1549.

Stanley, E. A., & Jha, A. P. (2009). Mind fitness and mental armor: enhancing performance and building warrior resilience. Joint Force Quarterly, 55, 144-151.

Tan, C.-M. (2012). Search Inside Yourself: The Unexpected Path to Achieving Success, Happiness (and World Peace). New York, NY: HarperOne.

Teasdale, J. D., Moore, R. G., Hayhurst, H., Pope, M., Williams, S., & Segal, Z. V. (2002). Metacognitive awareness and prevention of relapse in depression: empirical evidence. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 70(2), 275-282.

Thanissaro, B. (2012). Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path Retrieved from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/rightmindfulness.pdf

Thera, N. (1962). The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: a handbook of mental training based on the Buddha's way of mindfulness. London, UK: Rider & Company.

Timm, J. (April 26th 2010). Why meditation has a place in business, Canadian Business. Vogus, T., & Sutcliffe, K. (2012). Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing: A

Reconciliation and Path Forward. Academy of Management Learning & Education, in press.

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

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

Wallace, B. A. (2006). The attention revolution: Unlocking the power of the focused mind. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Wallace, B. A. (2007). Contemplative science: Where Buddhism and neuroscience converge. New York: Columbia University Press.

Watson, J. (2013). Meditating Marines: Military tries mindfulness to lower stress, from http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/20/16612244-meditating-marines-military-tries-mindfulness-to-lower-stress?lite

Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for Mindfulness: Eastern Wisdom and Western Knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 275-287.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the Quality of Organizational Attention. Organization Science, 17(4), 514-524.

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

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 81-123). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

http://www.siyli.org/about-siyli/become-a-facilitator/

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/rightmindfulness.pdf

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/20/16612244-meditating-marines-military-tries-mindfulness-to-lower-stress?lite

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/20/16612244-meditating-marines-military-tries-mindfulness-to-lower-stress?lite


48

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2008). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. In A. Boin (Ed.), Crisis Management (Vol. 3, pp. 31-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Williams, J. M. G., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2011). Mindfulness: diverse perspectives on its meaning, origins, and multiple applications at the intersection of science and dharma. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 1-18.

Woollett, K., & Maguire, E. A. (2009). Navigational expertise may compromise anterograde associative memory. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1088-1095.

Yeganeh, B. (2012). The mindful leader: Tree tips to become one. Leadership Excellance, 29.


49

Figure 1. Central features and characteristics of satipaţţhānna; adapted from Anālayo 2010, p.268


50

Figure 2. The Triadic Model of Buddhist Mindfulness

Right View • Framework for discerning the

presence and causes of suffering • Motivation for adopting the

framework towards liberation • Knowledge to eradicate causes

of suffering

Right Effort • Prevention of unskillful qualities • Abandonment of unskillful qualities • Development of skillful qualities • Keeping mindfulness established

Right Mindfulness • Remembers framework for discerning

skillful from unskillful qualities • Remembers motivation provided by

Right View • Remembers the object and purpose of

concentration

Outcomes • Skillful mental and emotional states • Skillful verbal behaviors • Skillful physical behaviors (Roots in non-greed, non-aversion, non-

delusion)


51

Type Western Mindfulness Buddhist Mindfulness Defining characteristics

Untrained mind (Dane, 2011) Bare attention (manasikara), non-judgmental, present moment awareness

Systematic mind training Sati combined with sampajjna Right mindfulness, supported by right view and right effort

Mental Factors Ethically neutral – wholesome or unwholesome

Increasingly wholesome and skillful

Mode Mindfulness-as-content (Langer, 1989b) Content-specific learning

Mindfulness-as-process (Weick & Putnam, 2006) Process-specific learning

Goals Skill development Attention enhancement Cognitive control (self regulation) Stress reduction

Ethical development and maturation of wisdom Liberation from the causes of suffering and distress (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion)

Application High Reliability Organizations (HROs) -preoccupation with failure -reluctance to simplify -sensitivity to operations -a commitment to resilience -deference to expertise

High Wisdom Organizations (HWOs) -preoccupation with moral hazards -reluctance towards delusional activity -sensitivity to conative imbalances -a commitment to reperceiving -deference to skillful means

Table 1. Comparison of Buddhist mindfulness, HWOs with Western mindfulness and HROs


52

Documents

Organizational Mindfulness