Seite - 102 - in Applied Interdisciplinary Theory in Health Informatics - Knowledge Base for Practitioners

‘decision surprises’ in the banking sector [11], and the dialectics of collective minding in a building project of a renowned architecture firm [12]. A different type of research on collective mindfulness aims to more formally assess and measure the association between antecedents (e.g. organisational structures) and mindful organising, and between mindful organising and organisational outcomes (reliability, safety) (Table 2). Vogus and Sutcliffe designed and tested a scale to measure levels of mindful organising across healthcare organisations (nursing units). This scale was then used to examine associations between levels of mindful organising with organisational outcomes (medication errors) [13]. More recently, the scale was used in a similar, more complex, mixed-method study where mindful organising was taken as one of four reliability-enhancing work practices (REWP) (in addition to: respectful interaction; affective commitment; and organisational citizenship behaviour). A survey of 10 items capturing information about each of these REWP was administered to nurses in 95 units across 10 hospitals. They were then correlated to outcomes of patient care (medication errors and patient falls). In assessing the constructs, the authors found mindful organising correlated with respectful interaction. However, mindful organising had significant correlation with medication errors and patient falls, while respectful interaction did not [14][p.14]. The study found that scores on ‘mindful organising’ were significantly negatively associated with medication errors and falls, i.e. units with higher mindful organising scores had significantly lower rates of medication errors and falls. [14][p16]. Thus, measurements of this kind add predictive value to the theory, i.e. making it usable to predict the likelihood of positive or negative outcomes in the presence of different levels of mindful organising practices. Their drawback is loss of insight into the dynamics of collective mindfulness processes that may be specific to different organisational contexts. Overall, it is important to remember that studying, or measuring, collective mindfulness is not the same as studying, or measuring, individual mindfulness. The latter is increasingly of interest among researchers of users’ behaviour with technology, and can be achieved, for example, by use of the generic Langer’s mindfulness scales, or scales designed more specifically to capture individual’s mindfulness with IT. But studying individual mindfulness does not reveal collective capabilities, organisational processes or outcomes (and there is no evidence yet that individual mindfulness directly produces collective mindfulness [2]). Table 2. Examples of methods used to empirically study collective mindfulness Aims Examples of methods Exploring how collective mindfulness unfolds and why; understanding the dynamic processes (and possible mechanisms) that lead to positive or negative outcomes (reliability/failures) Qualitative research; in depth case studies. Measuring collective mindfulness (presence/absence or levels) Design of scales distributed and tested through surveys Assessing/Testing association between organisational characteristics (antecedents) and mindful organising, or between mindful organising* and organisational outcomes (e.g. reliability/failures) Scales and surveys; mixed methods. * Mindful organising here is equivalent to ‘an intervention’ (e.g. to improve reliability or safety). However, to our knowledge there have been no studies that introduce organisational mindfulness as an intervention and then test its effects on outcomes. V.LichtnerandJ.I.Westbrook /CollectiveMindfulnessandProcessesofSensemaking102