Page 67 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018
P. 67

Gärtner and Huber                                                                                281


              manage unexpected events and, eventually, may contradict   with  the  OTAP  to  plan  surgeries,  monitor  their  progress,
              the aim of high-reliability organizations.         reschedule them, and so on that produced accountability.
                While our findings suggest that there is a mixture of   When screenshots were printed and compared with digital
              inscriptions related to temporality, further research may   data, additional work was invested in constructing account-
              focus on controlling for different kinds of time and analyzing   ability, effectively diverting attention away from processes
              their relation to routine or mindful behavior. For example,   of mindful organizing.  Thus, our study offers a different
              scholars may argue that inscriptions that refer to event-based   explanation  of  the  negative  effect  of  “accountability  rou-
              and clock time induce a cognitive style where actors think   tines” as the detrimental effect of materializing accountabil-
              about ongoing changes as a sequence of (unexpected) events   ity on mindful organizing is not necessarily depended on its
              rather than being able to consider that they occur in parallel.   routine-like form. Rather, the loss of attention resulted from
              The effect on mindful organizing may then be detrimental   the failure of the tool to produce formal accountability proce-
              because actors’ attention is limited to a sequence of events   dures, which were regarded as efficient by the actors. Such a
              rather than having a rich awareness of discriminatory detail.   potential misdirection of attention has been discussed in
              Our sociomaterial account urges scholars to not only focus   recent  critical  literature  on  accountability  (Messner, 2009;
              on human actors but to also consider the role of nonhuman   Power, 2007). This literature shows that focusing too much
              actors  as  well.  For example,  Howard-Grenville  (2005)   on creating legalistic evidence to avoid blame can have dete-
              assumes that it is employees who hold different orientations   riorating effects on the performance on which one is poten-
              toward time in their minds, and that it is organizational mem-  tially held accountable for. In our case, we termed such
              bers’ orientations toward the past, present, or future that   practices “behaving defensively” and “practicing micropoli-
              influences the flexibility with which a routine is applied.   tics,” and show their deteriorating effects on the performance
              Extending such studies, our account suggests exploring how   of mindful organizing on the stage of operation theaters. This
              these orientations are distributed between employees and the   echoes findings by Qu and Cooper (2011) who show that
              inscriptions of the OTAP, and how inscriptions shape the   inscriptions are used by actors to influence others and courses
              cognitive effort and flexibility with which routines are   of action in pursuit of their own interest. In addition, our
              applied. In this regard, our findings indicate some counterin-  findings suggest that pursuing interests and exercising power
              tuitive relations between the OTAP and mindful organizing,   in relation to a tool are also related to inscribing temporality
              which help understand findings that remain ambiguous   because it structures preferences. Further research may
              otherwise.                                         explicitly focus on investigating the relation between a tool’s
                                                                 inscriptions, temporality, and practicing micropolitics in
                                                                 greater detail. While our findings suggest a detrimental effect
              Picking Up Accountability                          of micropolitics on mindful organizing, one may also argue

              In prior studies of mindfulness, accountability has only   that power is a capacity for action to keep things on track,
              received passing attention.  While disasters such as the   and thus beneficial for swift responses to unexpected events.
              Tenerife Airplane Crash (Weick, 1990) or the deaths in the   In sum, we believe that exploring how tools shape pro-
              Bristol Royal Infirmary (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007) focus on   cesses of mindful organizing is helpful because it enhances
              what led to mistakes, questions of legal and formal account-  our understanding of how mindful organizing is socially,
              ability have not been studied explicitly. However, account-  materially, and spatially distributed and how it unfolds over
              ability is a major topic for practitioners, especially in medical   time. As our analysis is limited to explaining how one spe-
              care, as the enormous resources used for documentation of   cific tool is involved in producing ambiguous effects  on
              quality management or highly publicized legal cases show   mindful organizing, future research may draw on the identi-
              (Kurunmäki, 2004; Timmermans & Berg, 2003). These pro-  fied themes of the “sociomateriality of mindful organizing,”
              cedures of documentation, which enable reconstructing   and analyze other tools and technologies that are crucial in
              accountability after events are usually highly routinized.   health care (e.g., electronic patient  records or medication
              Levinthal and Rerup (2006) explore the complex relation-  administration records) or other high-reliability settings.
              ship between routines and mindfulness, and suggest that rou-  Acknowledgments
              tines may both foster and hinder mindful behavior, depending
              on how routines and established role structures interact. In   We are deeply grateful to Tim Vogus for his feedback and sugges-
              our study, we add to this a further layer. The attempts to con-  tions on a previous version of this article. We are also indebted to
              struct accountability were routines but not part of formalized   Kathleen Sutcliffe, Georg Schreyögg, Daniel Geiger, and all mem-
                                                                 bers of the track “Managing the unexpected” at the EGOS
              accountability systems (cf. Timmermans & Berg, 2003). It is   Colloquium in 2014, the members of the Professional Development
              not only the professional roles and hierarchy that keep mem-  Workshop “Researching organisational mindfulness and mindful
              bers accountable to one another for their activities, as sug-  organizing:  Theory, method,  and practice” at  the Academy  of
              gested by Faraj and Xiao (2006); rather, the everyday work   Management Annual Meeting in 2014 as well as the members of the
   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72