Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the effect of Mindful Organizing, a concept originally developed in the high-reliability organizations literature. We show that mindful organizing can also be applied to ordinary organizations seeking better performance, not just to organizations seeking high reliability. Results of this study demonstrate that mindful organizing and operational performance are positively related. Further, mindful organizing benefits organizations in an uncertain environment more than organizations in a stable environment. Future research avenues of this understudied concept in operations management are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organ Sci 10:43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambulkar S, Blackhurst J, Grawe S (2015) Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. J Oper Manag 33–34:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand G, Ward PT, Tatikonda MV, Schilling DA (2009) Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. J Oper Manag 27:444–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand G, Ward PT, Tatikonda MV (2010) Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma projects: An empirical examination of differential project success. J Oper Manag 28:303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson CL (2010) It is risky business: Three essays on ensuring reliability, security and privacy in technology-mediated settings. University of Maryland, College Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review of recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103:411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Azadegan A, Patel PC, Zangoueinezhad A, Linderman K (2013) The effect of environmental complexity and environmental dynamism on lean practices. J Oper Manag 31:193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2013.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton MA, Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ, DeWitt T (2015) Performing Under Uncertainty: Contextualized Engagement in Wildland Firefighting. J Conting Crisis Manag 23:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychol Bull 112:400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2009) Microeconometrics Using Stata, 1st edn. StataCorp, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal LB (2001) Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organ Sci 12:19–36. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.19.10119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal LB, Sitkin SB, Long CP (2004) Balancing and Rebalancing in the Creation and Evolution of Organizational Control. Organ Sci 15:411–431. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JS (1998) Organizational Learning Activities in High-Hazard Industries: The Logics Underlying Self-Analysis. J Manag Stud 35:699–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciravegna L, Brenes ER (2016) Learning to become a high reliability organization in the food retail business. J Bus Res 69:4499–4506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande R, Zaltman G (1982) Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research Information: A Path Analysis. J Mark Res 19:14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Adm Sci Q 29:52–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon RL, Tinsley CH (2008) How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning. Manag Sci 54:1425–1440. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eroglu C, Hofer C (2011) Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventory-performance link revisited. J Oper Manag 29:356–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub D (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-GRAPH: Tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(1):91–109

  • Grabowski M, Roberts K (1997) Risk Mitigation in Large-Scale Systems: LESSONS FROM HIGH RELIABILITY ORGANIZATIONS. Calif Manag Rev 39:152–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu L-T, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousands Oaks, pp 76–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Manag Sci 52:1661–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porte TR (1996) High Reliability Organizations: Unlikely, Demanding and At Risk. J Conting Crisis Manag 4:60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porte TR, Consolini P (1991) Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of High-Reliability Organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory 1:19–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Langabeer JR, DelliFraine JL, Heineke J, Abbass I (2009) Implementation of Lean and Six Sigma quality initiatives in hospitals: A goal theoretic perspective. Oper Manag Res 2:13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal D, Rerup C (2006) Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning. Organ Sci 17:502–513. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lifvergren S, Gremyr I, Hellström A et al (2010) Lessons from Sweden’s first large-scale implementation of Six Sigma in healthcare. Oper Manag Res 3:117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1:130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley KA, Ward PT (2013) Lean management as a countermeasure for “Normal” disruptions. Oper Manag Res 6:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-013-0077-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley KA, Ward PT, Hill JA (2014) Mitigating supply chain disruptions – a normal accident perspective. Supply Chain Manag Int J 19:142–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2013-0083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou P, El Sawy O (2006) From IT Leveraging Competence to Competitive Advantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development. Inf Syst Res 17:198–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1999) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad S, Su H-C, Altay N, Tata J (2015) Building disaster-resilient micro enterprises in the developing world. Disasters 39:447–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray JL, Baker LT, Plowman DA (2011) Organizational mindfulness in business schools. Acad Manag Learn Educ 10:188–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2011.62798929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts KH (1990) Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization. Organ Sci 1:160–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochlin GI (1993) Defining “high reliability” organizations in practice: A taxonomic prologue. In: Roberts KH (ed) New challenges to understanding organizations. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagan SD (1993) The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulman PR (1993) The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Adm Soc 25:353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz K-P, Geithner S, Mistele P (2017) Learning how to cope with uncertainty. J Organ Chang Manag 30:199–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2015-0142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah R, Chandrasekaran A, Linderman K (2008) In pursuit of implementation patterns: the context of Lean and Six Sigma. Int J Prod Res 46:6679–6699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin SB, Sutcliffe KM, Schroeder RG (1994) Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management: a contingency perspective. Acad Manag Rev 19:537–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear S, Bowen HK (1999) Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harv Bus Rev 77:96–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Su H-C, Linderman K, Schroeder RG, Van De Ven AH (2014) A comparative case study of sustaining quality as a competitive advantage. J Oper Manag 32:429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ (2003) Organizing for resilience. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE (eds) Positive Organizatoinal Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, pp 94–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM (2007a) The impact of safety organizing, trusted leadership, and care pathways on reported medication errors in hospital nursing units. Med Care 45:997–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM (2007b) The safety organizing scale: development and validation of a behavioral measure of safety culture in hospital nursing units. Med Care 45:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM (2012) Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: A reconciliation and path forward. Acad Manag Learn Educ 11:722–735. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0002C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogus TJ, Welbourne TM (2003) Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. J Organ Behav 24:877–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1987) Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability. Calif Manag Rev 29:112–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2001) Managing The Unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing The Unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (1999) Organizing For High Reliability: Processes of Collective Mindfulness. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, p 81

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Linderman K, Schroeder RG (2012) The moderating role of contextual factors on quality management practices. J Oper Manag 30:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2011.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zu X, Fredendall LD, Douglas TJ (2008) The evolving theory of quality management: The role of Six Sigma. J Oper Manag 26:630–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, University of Michigan – Dearborn, 19000 Hubbard Dr, Dearborn, MI, 48126, USA

    Hung-Chung Su

Authors
  1. Hung-Chung Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hung-Chung Su.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Measurements
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, HC. The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study. Oper Manag Res 10, 148–157 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-017-0128-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-017-0128-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation