Broadening Management Bandwidth Through Organizational Mindfulness Essay Example

effectively acquire and retain information in an environment with high levels of information overload. I analyze these cognitive processes within the context of strategy formation, which involves the scanning and interpreting of information.

The text emphasizes the importance of scanning and sensemaking while excluding decision making. It acknowledges the strong interdependency between scanning and sensemaking and highlights the fact that scanning and sensemaking precede decision making. Fiol and O'Connor (2003) argue that mindfulness enhances scanning and sensemaking, which in turn affects the organization's decision making process.

This paper aims to connect the emerging field of organizational mindfulness with the existing studies on strategy formation and organizational cognition. It also seeks to integrate the processes of mindful organizing with organizational scanning and sensemaking. Additionally, the paper presents propositions that can be further explored in research to understand and apply organizational mindfulness in organization theory. The main focus is on addressing the challenges posed by information overload during strategy formation.

This is crucial for several reasons: (1) Organizations are finding it increasingly difficult to allocate attention mindfully and capture meaningful information (Fiol & O’Connor, 2003); (2) The potential role of mindfulness in performance-related processes and outcomes within organizational contexts has not been extensively explored (Dane, 2010); and (3) Previous research on sensemaking in organizations has mainly focused on crisis situations and extreme circumstances, which may not accurately represent sensemaking processes in a wider range of organizations (Maitlis, 2005).

Our multilevel approach to organizing recognizes the interconnectedness between individual and organizational thinking (Gioia & Sims, 1986). The determinants of scanning and sensemaking in organizational cognition occur at multiple levels, including the

industrial, organizational, team, and individual levels (Shrivastava & Schneider, 1984; Sutcliffe & Huber, 1998; Walsh, 1995). These forces shape how organizations and managers perceive and make sense of reality.

This paper presents the concept of organizations as interpretive attention systems. It is assumed that within a socially constructed reality, organizations shape their environments through interpretation systems. Bounded attention systems are believed to influence managerial cognition and behavior. The cognition and actions of managers are distributed within the interplay of individual and organizational context.

Sensemaking is a complex process that involves interactions and retrospection. It aims to reduce ambiguity and views organizations as open systems with cognitive memories and information channeling processes (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft & Weick, 1984; Weick, 1979; Weick, 1995; Weick & Daft, 1983). Organizational perception is shaped by filtered processing and simplifications (Lant, 2002), and organizations enact their environment (Weick, 1979).

This interpretive perspective suggests that organizations and their environments are interdependent and mutually influence each other (Porac & Rosa, 1996; Smircich & Stubbart, 1985; Weick, 1979). The crucial question is how cognitive processes impact the perception and creation of information to develop accurate strategies. This paper follows the following structure: firstly, I introduce the concept of mindfulness at an organizational level and explain the five processes of mindful organizing.

In the following text, I discuss the strategy formation processes of scanning and sensemaking from a social cognitive perspective. I emphasize the obstacles that organizations encounter in executing these processes effectively and efficiently in an information-overloaded environment. Additionally, I propose that adopting organizational-level mindfulness can aid in overcoming these challenges posed by overloaded cognitive processes during scanning

and sensemaking.

To theorize the impact of organizational mindfulness on the strategy formation process in organizations, it is necessary to clarify and define constructs (Suddaby, 2010). The construct of organizational mindfulness is introduced in this paragraph. According to Brown and Ryan (2003, p. 822), mindfulness is defined as "the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present, (…) an enhanced attention to and awareness of current experience or present reality". Put simply, mindfulness is a quality of consciousness that includes both awareness and attention (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown, Ryan & Creswell, 2007).

The concept of mindfulness involves creating a "space" between perception and response, allowing for a separation of habitual or conceptual reactions (Bishop et al. , 2004, p. 232). From a cognitive viewpoint, mindfulness is described as the process of making new distinctions, which leads to a heightened sensitivity to one's surroundings, a greater openness to new information, the development of new categories for perception, and an increased awareness of multiple perspectives in problem-solving (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000 as cited in Weick & Putnam, 2006, p. 80).

The subject of mindfulness in organization studies is important because an undisciplined mind, caused by habituation, mindlessness, laxity, and scattered attention, is not dependable (Weick ; Putnam, 2006). Mindfulness helps decrease tendencies towards managerial and organizational inertia. Mintzberg (1973; 2009) states that generalizing is a crucial aspect of organizing, which includes simplifying and forming expectations that result in 'pre-interpretation of the universe,' therefore indicating mindlessness.

The act of being mindful, however, encourages the identification of subtle signals in the surroundings that disrupt routines and allows for the

development of concept-free mindfulness. This involves directing mental processes towards the present moment and achieving a state of pure awareness. Up until now, studies on mindfulness have primarily concentrated on two main areas: (1) individual mindfulness within psychological and medical settings, and (2) individual mindfulness within organizational contexts. However, a new and emerging area of research examines collective mindfulness or mindfulness at the organizational level, which will be discussed in the following section.

The principles of organizational mindfulness focus on improving decision-making through awareness and attention. This approach aims to prevent a shift from perception to conception, which can hinder a thorough awareness of important details. Scholars such as Weick and Roberts (1993) and Weick and Sutcliffe (2006) have emphasized the significance of mindful organizing. They argue that collective mindfulness is based on the belief that every event contains new and unique elements; therefore, it is unwise to take anything for granted in a routine-like manner. Karl Weick, drawing from research on High Reliability Organizations (HROs), proposed the construct of collective mindfulness at an organizational level (Weick, Sutcliffe, ; al., 1999).

Weick and his associates, through the analysis of crisis situations and disasters in various settings, have identified at least five processes for mindful organizing that enable simultaneous adaptive learning and reliable performance. These processes have been found to be applicable in both complex and ambiguous environments, extending beyond the context of High Reliability Organizations (HRO) as well. (Obstfeld, 1999; Weick, 1993; Weick, 2010; Weick ; Roberts, 1983; Maitlis, 2005; Mason ; Mitroff, 1981; Rerup, 2005; Rerup, 2009; Vogus, 2011; Vogus ; Welbourne, 2003).

It is important to note that mindfulness at

the organizational level is seen as an organizational capability, rather than individual mindfulness efforts within an organizational context (Barton & Sutcliffe, 2008). The first process of mindful organizing (Vogus, 2011; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007; Weick et al., 1999) is preoccupation with failure, which increases the amount of data for organizational learning. This approach treats all failures as learning opportunities, analyzes "near failures," and recognizes potential negative effects from successful outcomes.

Focusing on failure leads to attending to weak cues (Rerup, 2009) and anticipating signs of possible malfunctioning. Additionally, avoiding simplifying interpretations prevents organizations and their members from simplifying their understanding of observed occurrences through conceptual schemas and expectations, and instead directs attention towards potential anomalies and unwanted outcomes, often caused by skeptical redundancy (Weick et al., 1999).

Thirdly, sensitivity to operations emphasizes the importance of understanding the complex interdependency and intricacy of systems. It places value on the ability to detect, differentiate, and remain vigilant (Weick ; Sutcliffe, 2007). Sensitivity to operations also promotes situational awareness, which involves having a collective understanding and integrated perspective of relevant operations. Fourthly, commitment to resilience refers to the capacity to endure strain and maintain functioning during times of adversity. It involves the ability to recover, bounce back, and learn and grow from these experiences (Weick ; Sutcliffe, 2007).

The concept of resiliency focuses on enhancing response capabilities and promoting conceptual slack. It also involves the idea of underspecification of structures, which means being able to adapt decision-making processes based on organizational structures when unexpected problems occur. This includes the flexibility to delegate decisions to the most knowledgeable individual or team within the organization. Underspecification of

structures allows for temporary instances of organized anarchy that resemble a garbage can structure (Cohen, March ; Olson, 1972).