Conspicuously Imperceptible: The Moderating Role of Mindfulness in the Experience of Paradoxical Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizations are rife with paradox, or seemingly contradictory yet interdependent forces that persistently surface, often across organizational levels (Smith & Lewis, 2011). This paper aims to answer the recent call for greater scholarly attention to the micro- foundations of organizational paradox (Miron-Spektor, Keller, Ingram, Lewis, & Smith, 2018; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016). In two experimental studies, we conceptually and empirically investigate what people think and how they feel when tackling paradoxical demands. Building upon the burgeoning body of research on mindfulness - the degree to which one brings full attention and awareness to the present in a non-judgmental way (Baer et al., 2006; Brown & Ryan, 2003) – we further explore when, how and why highly mindful individuals could benefit from seeming contradictions. Our results reveal that tasks entailing competing priorities may lead to changes in one’s integrative complexity, interfering thoughts, and calming emotions, as a function of trait mindfulness (i.e., high versus low). Overall, mindfulness fosters and maintains positive psychological experiences in the face of paradox. This paper informs not only the paradox and mindfulness scholarship but also practitioners about the peculiar nature of paradox and strategies to leverage competing work priorities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".