Oper Manag Res (2017) 10:148–157
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-017-0128-1
The impact of mindful organizing on operational
performance: An explorative study
Hung-Chung Su 1
Received: 14 July 2016 / Revised: 19 October 2017 / Accepted: 31 October 2017 / Published online: 22 November 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017
Abstract This study explores the effect of Mindful
Organizing, a concept originally developed in the highreliability 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.
Keywords Mindful organizing . High reliability
organization . Operational performance . Environmental
uncertainty
1 Introduction
The concept of Mindful Organizing, rooted in the high reliability
organizations literature, has been proposed as a practice that
could help achieve reliability in operations (Weick et al. 1999;
Weick and Sutcliffe 2001, 2007). High Reliability Organizations
(HROs) are organizations that situate in high-risk settings where
their operations are complex and the potential of error is overwhelming. Despite the high-risk conditions, HROs are consistently capable of achieving highly reliable, error-free perfor-
* Hung-Chung Su
hcsu@umich.edu
1
College of Business, University of Michigan – Dearborn, 19000
Hubbard Dr, Dearborn, MI 48126, USA
mance (Roberts 1990; Rochlin 1993; Schulman 1993; La Porte
1996; Carroll 1998). Examples of HROs include aircraft carriers,
emergency medical treatment teams, and nuclear power generation plants (Sagan 1993; Grabowski and Roberts 1997). Weick
and Sutcliffe (2001) suggest that HROs "act mindfully by organizing themselves in such a way that they are better able to notice
the unexpected in the making and halt its development^ (p.3).
Researchers argue that HROs develop an overall collective
mindfulness within organizations, which helps achieve the consistent, error-free performance (Weick et al. 1999). Mindful organizing is essentially the practice that allows HROs to organize
themselves to act mindfully, to increase their collective
mindfulness (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2012) and enable HROs to
become the Bharbingers of adaptive organizational forms^
(Weick et al. 1999).
Although the concept of mindful organizing is intriguing,
empirical studies examining mindful organizing in an ordinary
business setting are limited. Most recent studies are conceptual
in nature (e.g. Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003; Prasad et al. 2015). In
addition, previous empirical studies about high reliability organizations theory were mostly in education (e.g. Ray et al. 2011)
and information systems (e.g. Anderson 2010). Recently,
scholars have begun to empirically examine the effect of mindful organizing in healthcare (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007a, b) and
retailing (Ciravegna and Brenes 2016). Though few studies
examine mindful organizing in operations management settings, this concept could have implications in operations management settings. In fact, Sitkin et al. (1994) pointed out that
one interesting avenue for future research is to study the effective approaches used by high reliability organizations in operations management. A recent study also argues the principles of
HROs can serve as role models for learning and development in
manufacturing companies (Schulz et al. 2017).
Following this inquiry, the main purpose of this paper is to
explore the applicability of mindful organizing in an
The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study
operations management setting. We first explore the effect of
mindful organizing on a business unit’s operational performance. Second, we explore the moderating role of environmental uncertainty. Developing mindful organizing could involve heavy investment in human resources (Vogus and
Welbourne 2003; Vogus and Sutcliffe 2012) and could be a
costly practice since it requires significant cognitive attention
from organizational members (Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003;
Levinthal and Rerup 2006; Ray et al. 2011). For high reliability organizations, mindful organizing is worth any costs because the consequence of failure is often catastrophic.
However, for ordinary organizations, the value of mindful
organizing may depend on the extent of changes in the environment (Barton et al. 2015). Third, we explore the moderating role of formalization. Several researchers argue that the
existence of formal processes and procedures could help exploit benefits of mindful organizing (Vogus and Sutcliffe
2012). Figure 1 illustrates the overall conceptual model.
Using a sample of 78 business units from 22 firms, the
results indicate that mindful organizing has a positive effect
on operational performance. Mindful organizing is also more
effective in an uncertain environment than in a stable environment. The extent of formalization does not moderate the effect
of mindful organizing on operational performance.
2 Relevant Literature and Hypotheses Development
2.1 Mindful organizing and operational performance
Mindful organizing refers to the degree to which organizational
members collectively engage in behaviors representing the five
processes of collective mindfulness (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007a,
2012). Weick and colleagues articulated five processes in HROs
that promote collective mindfulness: preoccupation with failure,
sensitivity to operations, reluctance to simplify, commitment to
resilience, and deference to expertise (Weick et al. 1999).
Preoccupation with failure refers to an attitude toward treating
any lapse or variations in a system as a symptom of a larger
149
problem. An example behavior would be to articulate the mistakes you don’t want to make or report errors regardless of the
degree of severity (Weick and Sutcliffe 2007). Near-misses also
represent opportunities for learning to improve operational performance (Dillon and Tinsley 2008). Sensitivity to operations
represents a constant awareness of daily operations in HROs.
Example behaviors would be striving to understand an integrated
big picture of operations at the moment. Reluctance to simplify
refers to the tendency of resisting the urge to overly simplify.
Example behaviors include encouraging organizational members to broaden their search for explanations and ongoing discussion of what’s being ignored and taken-for-granted (Weick
et al. 1999). Being reluctant to simplification is a tendency to
avoid classifying events into known categories. For instance,
observing a near miss or unexpected issue in the operating process, employees that are reluctant to simplify might be more
willing to collect more granular information and search for alternative explanations rather than discard the data point or attribute
to the current system. Commitment to resilience manifests as
striving to contain and correct any issues or problems before they
worsen and cause more serious harm. Deference to expertise
manifests as behaviors of allowing organizational members
who have the most relevant expertise to address the issue at hand
instead of relying on hierarchy (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001). The
first three processes are the mechanisms that help anticipate potential problematic issues within operations for preventing failure. The last two processes focus on managing problems once
they have taken place.
Organizations with high extent of mindful organizing
would exhibit behaviors that represent the five processes
discussed above. They often question the status quo (i.e., preoccupation with failure) and are more alert and aware of subtle
changes in the current environment (i.e. sensitivity of operations). High extent of mindful organizing requires organizations to be more suspicious about current performance and
vigilant about subtle changes in operations, which allows organizations to sense and notice small anomalies that might
later harm their product or service performance. For instance,
mindful organizing allows organizations to detect a delivery
Fig. 1 The hypothesized model
Formalization
Operational
Performance
Mindful
Organizing
Environmental
Uncertainty
150
Su H.-C.
issue before products reach customers or halt a production
procedure that may later cause defects. Mindful organizing
emphasizes commitment to correct anomalies and potential
problems by members with relevant expertise (i.e. commitment to resilience and deference to expertise), which together
enable organizations to correct problems rapidly and capture
opportunities for operational improvement (Vogus and
Welbourne 2003).
A recent case study by Ciravegna and Brenes (2016) illustrates how the mindful organizing principles can help a food
retailer, not a typical high reliability organization, to compete
with the entry of a global retail giant. Some practical examples
include an investment in the information system to gain a holistic picture of the current retail operations (i.e. sensitivity to
operations), which help streamline internal processes and improve efficiency; the practice of a routine self-analysis and
auditing to find potential issues in the retail operations (i.e.
preoccupation with failure) (Ciravegna and Brenes 2016).
Through routine self-auditing, the food retailer realized that
even their most productive stores often reported problems.
After consulting with frontline employees, the food retailer
finds that the interruptions due to floods and landslides often
damage the delivery routes. The food retailer then redesigns the
supply network with help from internal experts and performs
simulations to ensure the new delivery route is resilient to natural disasters (i.e. deference to expertise and commitment to
resilience) (Ciravegna and Brenes 2016). Another example is
a buyer outsourcing its maintenance function to a supplier. The
buyer might lose the capability for early error detecting (i.e.
preoccupation with failure) and become less mindful. The disadvantage of outsourcing call centers is that organizations may
lose their capacity of getting real-time feedbacks about their
products and services (i.e. sensitivity to operations) (Weick
and Sutcliffe 2007). Thus, this study suggests the following:
Hypothesis 1: Mindful organizing has a positive effect on
operational performance
2.2 Moderating role of environmental uncertainty
The effectiveness of mindful organizing may change under
different types of environmental conditions as prior research
suggested (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2012). Mindful organizing
could be more in need Bwhere ugly surprises are most likely
to show up^ (Weick et al. 1999). We posit that these ‘ugly
surprises’ (e.g., supplier bankruptcy, late shipments, labor
strikes) posing a threat to operations are more likely to show
up in a more uncertain environment with constant changes.
Environmental uncertainty has been defined as the degree of
changes in the business environment due to changes in customers’ needs and the rate of product/process changes (Dess
and Beard 1984; Pavlou and El Sawy 2006; Azadegan et al.
2013). To perform well under high uncertainty environments,
organizations need to be sensitive to subtle changes within
their environment to allow for adaptation. In a sense, mindful
organizing improves a firm’s ability to better Bnotice^ subtle
shifts sooner in their situated environment, which increases a
firm’s adaptability to changes in the environment. Therefore,
mindful organizing should help organizations perform better
under uncertain environments. On the contrary, mindful organizing might not benefit the same organizations in a stable
environment, since the required adaptability is low due to
slow changes in technologies and customers’ needs (Zhang
et al. 2012). The cost of maintaining high extent of mindful
organizing may outweigh the benefits. As a result, we posit
that mindful organizing would benefit organizations poised in
a high uncertainty environment more than that in a stable
environment. This line of argument suggests the following:
Hypothesis 2: The level of environmental uncertainty
positively moderates the effect of mindful organizing on
operational performance
2.3 Moderating role of formalization
The effect of mindful organizing might also depend on the
extent of formalization, which represents the degree to which
formalized rules and procedures are in place within an organization (Deshpande and Zaltman 1982). Formalization acts as a
form of organizational control to regulate behaviors in organizations (Cardinal et al. 2004). As previously discussed, mindful
organizing helps detect emerging issues or problems that pose a
danger to operational performance and encourages dedicated
commitment to rectify issues among organizational members.
Having formalized rules and procedures in place provides a
readily available problem-solving structure for organizational
members to use, which increases information processing efficiency (Cardinal 2001). Employees can then respond to potential issues more effectively if formal and standardized procedures are in place. Further, from a preventive perspective, prior
research in risk management emphasizes the role of risk monitoring procedures on mitigating the negative effects of risk
(Ambulkar et al. 2015) Scholars have found that having formalized risk management procedures reduces ambiguity during
supply chain disruptions and enable quick actions to mitigate
the disruptions (Ambulkar et al. 2015). When there are formal
risk monitoring processes in place, members under the influence of mindful organizing might be more willing to follow
and execute the formal processes hence increase the likelihood
of identifying potential operational problems. In a manufacturing setting, having formalized tools such as statistical process
control could enable a mindful employee to better Bsense weak
signals^ and identify potential issues in the existing operations
(Su et al. 2014). Moreover, mindful organizing can promote
The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study
employee mindfulness and help reduce the tendency of blindly
following the suggestions of existing rules and procedures.
That is, mindful employees are more likely to treat a formal
procedure (e.g., statistical process control) as a powerful learning tool to find the underlying root cause.
In summary, formalized rules and procedures improve information processing efficiency and allow organizational members to monitor and mitigate operational risks more effectively.
Further, employees under the influence of mindful organizing
would apply the existing procedures more mindfully rather than
simply following the rules, which further increase the effectiveness of mindful organizing. Mindful employees could more
effectively correct problems such as late shipments if formal
procedures exist. At the same time, if formal supplier evaluation
procedure is in place, mindful employees are more likely to
treat every incident as an opportunity to re-evaluate the existing
suppliers. As a result, organizational members can detect and
respond to issues and problems in operations efficiently and
effectively if both mindful organizing and formal rules and
procedures exist. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: The extent of formalization positively moderates the effect of mindful organizing on operational
performance.
3 Data and method
3.1 Sample
This study is explorative and the sample is convenient in nature. We first contacted several associations that the author has
connections with to solicit participations in this study. Several
firms eventually agreed to participate in an online survey and
allow the author to gain access to multiple business units
within firms. To reduce common method bias, different informants were designated to respond to different survey items.
The online survey is divided into two parts: the operation
managers respond to questions related to mindful organizing
since they are closer to the Bfront line^ of operations. The
general managers answer the survey questions related to performance, formalization, and environmental uncertainty. The
final sample consists of 78 business units from 22 firms operating in four different manufacturing industries in the U.S:
Food processing, Industrial, Electronic, and Chemical.
3.2 Measurements
The mindful organizing construct is adapted from Vogus and
Sutcliffe (2007a). This construct consists of nine items that
assess the extent to which organizational members engaged
in behaviors representing the five processes of collective
mindfulness. The environmental uncertainty scale is adapted
151
from Jansen et al. (2006). The formalization scale is also
adapted from a prior study (Deshpande and Zaltman 1982).
Operational performance is measured as an organization’s
product and service performance following prior research
(Zu et al. 2008). All items are Likert-scale from 1 to 7.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to verify the
reliability and validity of the constructs. Two survey items
regarding mindful organizing are removed from subsequent
analysis since the factor loadings are less than 0.4. All other
factor loadings are significant (p < 0.01) with values ranging
from 0.54 to 0.93 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The construct reliability and Cronbach α coefficients are higher than
0.7 for all constructs. Most fit indices are above the recommended cutoff (TLI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.082)
which indicates a satisfactory fit (Bentler 1992; Hu and
Bentler 1995). RMSEA is below the upper cutoff points
(RMSEA = 0.066 < 0.08), which indicates an acceptable fit
(MacCallum et al. 1996). The square root of Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) of each construct is also higher than the
correlations between constructs as indicated in Table 1, which
demonstrates discriminate validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981;
Gefen and Straub 2005). Several control variables are considered in the analysis including: business unit size and industry
types. Size is operationalized as the logarithm of the number
of employees. Industry types are coded as dummy variables.
Appendix Table 4 shows the measurement items of the constructs used in this study.
3.3 Analysis approach
Since the survey data contains multiple business units within
different firms, a random effect linear mixed model is used to
accommodate unobserved heterogeneity at the firm level
(Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2008; Cameron and Trivedi
2009). Random effect estimation method accounts for omitted
variable concerns at the firm level, such as culture and policy,
which can potentially affect the outcomes at the business unit
level. Random effect estimation also has the advantage of
considering both the within and between variations (Greene
2003). A random effect approach is preferred rather than a
fixed effect approach since several firms provide only one
business unit for the survey. Using a fixed effect approach will
further reduce the sample size. Robust standard errors are
reported to account for heteroscedasticity in all the estimated
models (Cameron and Trivedi 2009). Variables are also centered to reduce multicollinearity and improve interpretations
of the interaction effects (Aiken and West 1991).
4 Results
Table 1 presents the summary statistics and the correlations
between constructs. As expected, the correlation between
152
Su H.-C.
Table 1 Mean, Standard
deviations, and correlation
Mean
S.D.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Operational Performance (1)
5.56
0.99
0.859
Firm Size (2)
5.83
2.03
−0.167†
N/A
Mindful organizing (3)
Environmental uncertainty (4)
5.52
5.23
0.82
0.96
0.328**
−0.106
−0.023
0.218*
0.685
−0.049
Formalization (5)
4.79
1.32
0.062
0.709
−0.020
0.067
0.016
(5)
0.826
† p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001
The square root of AVE is shown on the diagonal of the correlation matrix
mindful organizing and operational performance is positive
and significant. Table 2 shows the sample distribution across
industry types and size. Table 3 demonstrates the overall results of the random effect models. Model 1 contains results for
control variables. Most control variables are not significant
except for one industry dummy. Model 2 shows that mindful
organizing has a positive effect on operational performance
(b = 0.401, p < .01), which provides support for H1. Model 3
introduces the interaction terms, the results indicate that environmental uncertainty positively moderates the effect of mindful organizing on operational performance (b = 0.385,
p < .001), but the interaction effect of formalization is not
significant. Overall, the results support H2 but not H3.
Figure 2 depicts the interaction plot to better understand the
interaction effect using the 75th percentile as ‘high’ and 25th
percentile as ‘low’ environmental uncertainty. As shown in
Fig. 2, organizations can increase their operational performance considerably in the context of high environmental uncertainty compared to low environmental uncertainty.
5 Discussion
5.1 Theoretical contributions
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first study that
explores the effect of mindful organizing on operational performance. Concepts from high reliability organizations theory
Table 2
Sample distribution across industry
Industry
Number of business units
%
Food Processing
Industrial
Electronics
Chemical
Firm Size
< 250 employees
250–499 employees
500–999 employees
> = 1000 employees
26
14
21
17
33.33
17.95
26.92
21.80
35
8
10
25
44.87
10.26
12.82
32.05
have often been criticized as ‘too exotic’ to offer insights to
ordinary organizations. This study, together with previous
studies (Vogus and Welbourne 2003; e.g. Su et al. 2014),
challenges this view. We find that mindful organizing, a practice developed by reliability-seeking organizations, is also effective for ordinary organizations seeking to increase operational performance. This result suggests that organizations
situated in a less reliability-demanding environment than
HROs can also benefit from mindful organizing.
Interestingly, HROs are mostly situated in an external environment characterized by slow changes in customers’ needs.
For instance, as typical examples of HROs, nuclear power
plants and hospitals usually face stable changes in customers’
needs (customers always require stable electricity and quality
healthcare) while facing limited number of competitors in a
specific region (the entry barrier is typically high for building
a new power plant or hospital) (La Porte 1996). Since external
environments are mostly stable, mindful organizing is designed to prevent unexpected internal changes within HROs.
Nonetheless, we demonstrate that mindful organizing has the
potential to help ordinary organizations adapt to external
changes in the environment. The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty reveals that mindful organizing is more
effective in an uncertain environment. That is, mindful organizing behaviors such as being attentive to emerging changes,
questioning the status quo, and committing to respond from
errors do help organizations adapt to a changing environment.
On the other hand, we did not find formalization moderates
the effect of mindful organizing. Several studies argue that the
objective of formalization is to achieve standardization, which
may not be compatible with mindful organizing, a practice
that fosters flexibility and adaptability within organizations
(Weick 1987). Future research should further investigate this
relationship to verify or rebuff this finding.
Lean management has also been argued to be an antidote to
“normal accidents” within organizations and supply chain disruptions (Marley and Ward 2013; Marley et al. 2014) but with
a different focus compared to mindful organizing. Process
management approach (e.g. Lean, Six Sigma) focuses more
on simplification and standardization to reduce variations in
the operational processes (Shah et al. 2008; Anand et al. 2009;
Langabeer et al. 2009). In contrast, mindful organizing
The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study
153
Table 3 Main results
Dependent variable
Model 1
Operational
performance
Model 2
Operational
performance
Model 3
Operational
performance
Firm Size
−0.025 (0.063)
0.029 (0.080)
0.0316 (0.062)
Industrial
−0.087 (0.411)
−0.062 (0.302)
−0.718 (0.316)
Electronics
Chemical
0.491* (0.384)
−0.005 (0.530)
0.592* (0.247)
0.276 (0.253)
0.447† (0.236)
0.038 (0.253)
Environmental uncertainty
Formalization
−0.185† (0.110)
0.054 (0.051)
−0.115 (0.084)
0.088 (0.057)
Mindful organizing
0.401** (0.144)
Mindful organizing * Environmental uncertainty
Mindful organizing * Formalization
N
Overall R2
Within R2
Between R2
χ2
Δχ2
0.403*** (0.111)
0.385*** (0.081)
0.044 (0.105)
78
0.089
0.000
0.103
4.15
78
0.205
0.132
0.169
24.09
8.07*
78
0.276
0.248
0.252
106.66
26.60***
†p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001
focuses more on increasing the variations in the Bcognitive^
infrastructure of an organization. In a sense, mindful organizing focuses on increasing the requisite variety of an organization as an antidote to normal accidents. We believe these two
approaches can co-exist as an organization can implement
process management to refine the internal processes and implement mindful organizing on the cognition aspect of an
organization. That is, employees should strive to standardize
operational procedures but still treat symptoms from an SOP
with caution (i.e. preoccupation with failure) and resisting the
urge to think all process problems can be resolved by
standardization (i.e. reluctance to simplify) or avoid the danger of blindly follow the existing rules and procedures. This is
like the simultaneous focus on flexibility and efficiency and
on standardization and innovation in operations management
described in previous research (Adler et al. 1999; Spear and
Bowen 1999). Future research could further examine other
possible antecedents discussed in the literature such as trust
and heedful listening in an operations management context.
Another interesting avenue of inquiry is to apply the findings
to the project or team-level such as Six Sigma process improvement teams (Anand et al. 2010; Lifvergren et al. 2010).
5.5
5
4.5
Operational Performance
6
Fig. 2 Interaction plot
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
Mindful Organizing
Low uncertainty (25th percentile)
1
1.5
High uncertainty (75th percentile)
154
In a sense, process improvement teams face a significant
amount of internal and external uncertainties such as changing
customer requirements, unexpected supplier issues, changing
orders, and production delays. Mindful organizing may help
team members engage in their work more mindfully and adapt
better to uncertainties.
5.2 Managerial implications
Practitioners can benefit from this exploratory study as
well. This study presents a set of cognitive processes to
enable an infrastructure for reliability performance such
as safety and security. This cognitive infrastructure is
often underdeveloped in ordinary organizations Bwhere
people tend to focus on success rather than failure and
efficiency rather than reliability^ (Weick et al. 1999).
Weick et al. (1999) further suspect process improvement
programs such as Total Quality Management often fail
because the cognitive infrastructure is underdeveloped.
This study provides preliminary empirical evidence
showing that mindful organizing is an effective practice,
which managers can apply to the field of operations
management despite its origin in high-risk settings.
The ever increasing complexity, generated by high coupling and interdependency, of today’s operations systems, increases the likelihood of accidents, errors, and
mishaps (Perrow 1999). A system is unlikely to become
completely free from accidents and errors, but applying
mindful organizing related practices could be a solution
for practitioners. In fact, accidents occur Bbecause the
humans who operate and manage complex systems are
themselves not sufficiently complex to sense and anticipate the problems generated by those systems^ (Weick
1987). Mindful organizing can be viewed as a way to
increase the requisite variety (Ashby 1956) of organizational members to manage the complexity of systems.
Most operations management tools and techniques such
as Lean or Six Sigma often emphasize standardization
and the reduction of wastes for process efficiency. La
Porte and Consolini (1991) contended that mindful organizing and the pursuit of adherence to the standard
operating procedure should co-exist. They argued that
employees in high reliability organizations also follow
standard procedures while simultaneously being alert to
the small errors that could cascade into major system
failures (p. 28). A prior study indicates that organizations which employ lean management may tend to overlook the risk posed from tight coupling in a complex
system by eliminating too many non-value-added activities (Eroglu and Hofer 2011).
Finally, managers can use this study’s measurement
to assess the current extent of mindful organizing in
their firms. One can foster the extent of mindful
Su H.-C.
organizing by enhancing the five underlying cognitive
processes. Managers could foster preoccupation with
failure by encouraging the employees to treat and report
any error or near-miss as a warning signal of the future
danger of the system; no matter how small the error is
or how standard the procedures are. Managers could
foster reluctance to oversimplify by ensuring time to
learn about the near-miss or unexpected event and provide tools for collecting and analyzing such information.
Sensitivity to operations can be enhanced by communicating frequently with the frontline personnel.
Acknowledging that the frontline personnel are more
experienced in understanding the current stage of the
system and value their feedbacks. To foster the commitment to resilience, managers could encourage and allow
decision-making to migrate to those with the highest
expertise rather than relying on rank to ensure
resiliency.
6 Conclusions and Limitations
This study is not without limitations. The main limitation
is the convenience nature of the sample and the small
sample size because of the exploratory orientation of this
study. Due to the nature and size of the sample, the empirical results should be viewed as explorative and not be
viewed as conclusive. Also, the cost of generating mindfulness is not included in our empirical analysis of its
impact on performance. Mindful organizing, environmental
uncertainty, and operational performance are represented as
single dimension constructs. The main constructs of this
study can be much richer constructs since the measurement scales do not include all the dimensions. Future research can increase content validity by measuring the main
constructs with multiple dimensions. Future research can
also consider the implications of different individual aspects of environmental uncertainty and mindful organizing,
and the effects on different dimensions of operational performance. Finally, the sample is limited to only certain
industries and we use perceptual measures of performance.
The operational performance for each unit is measured
based on perceptions of single respondent so the external
validity was not verified in this study. Even so, this study
is the first step to demonstrate a promising concept that
may have broad applicability in operations and supply
chain management. We encourage future research to collect a more representative sample from a larger set of
industries and objective performance data to confirm or
reject our findings. We hope this article will encourage
future studies to examine synergies between high reliability organizations and the operations management literature.
The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study
155
Appendix
Table 4 Measurements
Mindful Organizing (CR = 0.86, alpha = 0.88, AVE = 0.47)
To what extent do the following statements characterize your current business unit?
We communicate information about our operations activities across all units
We talk about mistakes and ways to learn from them *
Factor
loadings
0.54
We continue to seek areas of improvement in our current operations function *
We discuss alternatives as to how to go about our normal work activities
When discussing emerging problems with coworkers, we usually discuss what to look out for
0.60
0.71
When attempting to resolve a problem, we take advantage of the unique skills of our
colleagues
People here spend time identifying activities we do not want to go wrong
When mistakes happen, we discuss how we could have prevented them
0.72
0.71
0.68
When a crisis occurs, we pool our collective expertise to attempt to resolve it
0.82
Environmental Uncertainty (CR = 0.75, alpha = 0.82, AVE = 0.504)
How would you rate the following statements regarding dynamics in the business environment of your business
unit?
Environmental changes in our local market are intense.
0.76
Our customers regularly ask for new products and services.
In our local market, changes are taking place continuously.
0.61
0.75
Operational performance (CR = 0.91, alpha = 0.91, AVE = 0.741)
The following statements indicate your business unit’s level of product and service performance compared to the
major competition in your industry over the last year.
The quality of our products and services
Customer satisfaction with the quality of our products and services
The delivery of finished products and services to customer
Conformance to customer specification
Formalization (CR = 0.86, alpha = 0.89, AVE = 0.679)
0.81
0.87
0.91
0.85
How well do the following statements describe your business unit?
Whatever situation arises, written procedures are available for dealing with it.
Rules and procedures occupy a central place in this business unit.
0.75
0.93
We had standardized rules and procedures stating how to perform normal daily activities
0.78
*Removed due to low loading
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
Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Sage, Newbury Park
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
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
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
Anderson CL (2010) It is risky business: Three essays on ensuring reliability, security and privacy in technology-mediated settings.
University of Maryland, College Park
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review of recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull
103:411–423
Ashby WR (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall,
London
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
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/10.1111/14685973.12076
156
Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariances and methodology
to the Bulletin. Psychol Bull 112:400
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2009) Microeconometrics Using Stata, 1st
edn. StataCorp, College Station
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
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
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
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
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
Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of Organizational Task
Environments. Adm Sci Q 29:52–73
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
Eroglu C, Hofer C (2011) Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventoryperformance link revisited. J Oper Manag 29:356–369. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.05.002
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating Structural Equation Models
with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J Mark Res
18:39–50
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
Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River
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
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
La Porte TR (1996) High Reliability Organizations: Unlikely, Demanding
and At Risk. J Conting Crisis Manag 4:60
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
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
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
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
MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
Psychol Methods 1:130
Su H.-C.
Marley KA, Ward PT (2013) Lean management as a countermeasure for
BNormal^ disruptions. Oper Manag Res 6:44–52. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12063-013-0077-2
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
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
Perrow C (1999) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk
Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton
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
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and Longitudinal
Modeling Using Stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press, College Station
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
Roberts KH (1990) Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability
Organization. Organ Sci 1:160–176
Rochlin GI (1993) Defining Bhigh reliability^ organizations in practice: A
taxonomic prologue. In: Roberts KH (ed) New challenges to understanding organizations. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Sagan SD (1993) The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and
Nuclear Weapons. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Schulman PR (1993) The negotiated order of organizational reliability.
Adm Soc 25:353
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
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
Sitkin SB, Sutcliffe KM, Schroeder RG (1994) Distinguishing control
from learning in total quality management: a contingency perspective. Acad Manag Rev 19:537–564
Spear S, Bowen HK (1999) Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production
system. Harv Bus Rev 77:96–108
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
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
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
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
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
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
Weick KE (1987) Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability.
Calif Manag Rev 29:112–127
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2001) Managing The Unexpected: Assuring
high performance in an age of complexity, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco
The impact of mindful organizing on operational performance: An explorative study
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing The Unexpected: Resilient
performance in an age of uncertainty, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco
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
157
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
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