No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to point out the potential for further theorizing of the concept of mindfulness, by extending and nuancing present accounts of East‐West dichotomies in relation to the concept.Design/methodology/approachThe paper takes the form of a literature review.FindingsDichotomies of Western and Eastern approaches to mindfulness can be extended by analyzing key elements of their respective philosophies, notably through their different views on permanence versus impermanence, uni‐directional versus mutual causality and conceptual versus non‐conceptual knowledge. Through these key elements, a more nuanced picture of Eastern and Western elements can be identified in relation to quality management research and practice. The dual roots in Eastern and Western contexts point at the potential for further theorizing inherent in the concept of mindfulness.Originality/valueThis paper takes a broad and nuancing view on present dichotomies of Eastern and Western accounts on mindfulness and points at the concept's future potential.

This study found that the problem-solving capacity of a public organization can be understood in terms of the legitimacy of the formulated problems and solutions. Increasing the problemsolving capacity depends on not only the acceptance of problems and how to solve them but also on formal structures and processes. Sensemaking and framing are important keys to unlocking how legitimacy is built, and consequently, how problem-solving capacity is built in a complex organization. We contend that although governance theory recognizes complexity through concepts such as networks and multi-levelness, empirical research tends to downplay what complexity can entail, thus limiting the theoretical development and practical usability of governance theory. Using complexity as a sensemaking framework, we analyze how the top-tier managers of a capital understand the challenges and solutions of coping with rapid growth. We argue that although complexity theory is no panacea to unlocking the difficulties of public sector challenges, it can be a valuable guide to future research on governance.

The balance between structure and handling uncertainty through mindfulness remains a riddle in occupational health and safety. In a similar vein, the relationship between strategy, business models, management control, and its influence on actual practice is still poorly understood. Hence, the notion of doctrines is here suggested as a new way of talking about these tensions, as a middle-way between abstract models and routines on the one hand, and actual mindful practices on the other. What becomes clear in this exploration is that the tension between structural abstractions on the one side and the concrete everyday, and possibly mindful, practice on the other are not only theoretical and practical concerns, but touches on the fundamental intelligibility of human action.