Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Mindfulness-Based Training: A Novel Approach for Cultivating Sustainability Mindset in Business Leaders

Submitted:

09 December 2024

Posted:

10 December 2024

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

This study examines the efficacy of mindfulness-based training programmes in cultivating sustainability mindsets among business leaders. Through qualitative analysis of 20 executive participants in a business school master's programme, the research investigates how mindfulness practices facilitate sustainable leadership development across three dimensions: knowing, being, and doing. The investigation employs longitudinal methodological approaches, incorporating pre-intervention document analysis and semi-structured interviews to examine participants' experiential learning. Findings reveal that mindfulness training catalyses sustainable mindset development through twelve distinct mechanisms, equally distributed across cognitive, existential, and practical domains. These mechanisms operate at personal, relational, and institutional levels, enhancing leaders' capacity to address complex sustainability challenges. Results demonstrate that mindfulness practices fundamentally transform leadership approaches by fostering enhanced interoceptive awareness, strengthened interpersonal dynamics, and expanded institutional consciousness. The study contributes to existing literature by establishing empirical links between mindfulness practices and sustainability mindset development, whilst providing practical insights for business schools seeking to integrate experiential learning approaches into leadership development programmes.

Keywords: 
mindfulness-based training
;  
sustainability mindset
;  
leadership development
;  
experiential learning
;  
corporate social responsibility
Subject: 
Business, Economics and Management  -   Business and Management

Introduction

Modern organisations, in view of pressure from diverse stakeholder groups, must incorporate ethical considerations, environmental stewardship, and human rights principles into their operational protocols whilst endeavouring to advance sustainable development through their enterprise activities. This paradigm shift has precipitated mounting scholarly attention regarding leadership's social responsibility, necessitating an investigation into variables that might strengthen the correlation between executive sustainability mindsets and corresponding decision-making processes. The social processes of contact with those who influence or are influenced by leadership and have an interest in the goals and vision of the leadership are where this relational and ethical phenomena of responsible leadership takes place. This orientation facilitates organisational adoption of socially conscious practices, predominantly through enhanced executive engagement, though practical implementation remains challenging.
In this context, mindfulness presents novel pathways towards sustainability, particularly through cultivating a sustainability mindset derived from comprehensive ecosystem comprehension and leadership impact analysis. Sustainable mindset represents "a cognitive and existential orientation emerging from thorough ecosystem awareness, social receptivity, and introspective examination of personal values and elevated consciousness, manifesting in actions benefiting the collective good." This mindset emerges through deep contemplation of individual principles and transcendent selfhood, influencing thought patterns, behaviours, and modes of existence through sophisticated ecosystem understanding. Sustainable mindset links personal transformation with tangible environmental interventions through three primary mechanisms: 1) systemic cognition, encompassing cyclical and extended temporal perspectives, 2) innovative ideation, incorporating imaginative capacity and enhanced environmental perception, and 3) transformative being, facilitating introspection and collaborative engagement. Developing these capacities requires balancing "knowing," "doing," and "being." Knowledge acquisition involves understanding sustainability challenges through formal education and emotional awareness. Being emphasises spiritual dimensions, where sustainable mindset is enhanced through empathy, compassion, and environmental connection. Implementation involves sustainable decision-making aligned with personal values while considering broader impacts. These elements collectively foster novel worldviews and analytical frameworks promoting societal and environmental welfare.
Business schools' evolution of pedagogical methodologies appears crucial for developing experiential programmes fostering sustainable mindset development. Training initiatives offer promising vectors for transformative processes, as "systems thinking and ecological literacy, when integrated with emotional awareness and personal values, catalyse worldview transformation, promoting reflective and compassionate behaviours benefiting all stakeholders." This approach advances novel theoretical frameworks and pedagogical practices. Initial business school responses have incorporated corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles, though these typically provide future managers with predominantly instrumental understanding focused on financial outcomes. Questions arise regarding educational impact beyond institutional boundaries, as organisations must independently implement these principles through various mechanisms while managing stakeholder pressures. CSR adoption necessitates departure from conventional paradigms towards integrative approaches considering stakeholder interests holistically. Business schools may therefore significantly influence future leaders' moral development by encouraging operational and existential reconsideration.
Scholarly literature has extensively documented mindfulness training's efficacy in enhancing leadership interpersonal dynamics and managerial capabilities within complex environments. Increasing organisational complexity necessitates shifts in established cognitive patterns alongside practical implementation capacity. Contemporary disruption requires decision-makers to challenge traditional socioeconomic frameworks typically employed in strategic processes. Cultivating sustainability mindsets aligns with United Nations sustainable development initiatives, particularly crucial for leaders who must simultaneously address environmental, social, and economic considerations while expanding analytical frameworks beyond organisational boundaries.
This research posits that the sustainable mindset framework—encompassing knowing, being, and doing—illuminates mechanisms fostering three leadership dimensions (personal, interactional, and organisational) through mindfulness-based training. While extensive research exists regarding mindfulness in leadership development, few studies examine sustainable mindset development through experiential learning. Consequently, this investigation examines an experiential university training programme (EUTP) for executive participants in a business school master's programme. This EUTP distinctively combines various approaches with mindfulness practice as its foundation. The research addresses: How does mindfulness-based training cultivate sustainable mindset in leaders? Methodologically, previous studies typically examined immediate post-training effects, whereas longitudinal investigation offers enhanced understanding of contextual impacts. This exploratory qualitative study examines 20 managers participating in a mindfulness-based EUTP incorporating leadership, neuroscience, and CSR elements.

The Contribution of Experiential Training Programs

The convergence of ecological degradation and social inequities has necessitated fundamental shifts in organizational behaviour, compelling enterprises to integrate ethics-driven frameworks into their core operations. Firms must now reconcile profit-seeking activities with environmental stewardship while advancing social justice imperatives through their business practices. This evolution has sparked intensive academic discourse regarding leadership's role in sustainability, particularly examining the variables that bridge executive mindsets with concrete organizational outcomes. Leadership in this domain manifests primarily through stakeholder engagement and ethical decision-making, though operationalizing these principles presents significant challenges.
Mindfulness methodologies offer innovative approaches to cultivating sustainability-oriented leadership, particularly through the development of sustainability mindsets (SM) grounded in ecological systems thinking. The SM construct encompasses cognitive orientations derived from environmental consciousness, stakeholder receptivity, and values-based introspection, ultimately manifesting in collective benefit-oriented actions. This orientation emerges through deep engagement with personal values and expanded consciousness, fundamentally reshaping cognitive patterns and behavioural manifestations through sophisticated ecological understanding. SM facilitates personal-to-collective transformation through three primary vectors: systemic thinking incorporating circular and long-term perspectives, creative ideation fostering enhanced environmental perception, and transformative presence enabling collaborative engagement. Developing these capacities requires harmonizing cognitive understanding, practical implementation, and existential awareness. The knowledge dimension encompasses both formal sustainability education and emotional intelligence. The being component emphasizes spiritual development through environmental connection and empathic capacity. Implementation focuses on value-aligned decision-making with consideration of broader systemic impacts.
Management education institutions play a pivotal role in developing experiential learning frameworks that cultivate sustainability mindsets. Training programmes serve as critical vectors for transformative learning, particularly when integrating systems thinking with emotional intelligence to catalyze paradigm shifts benefiting diverse stakeholders. While business schools have incorporated corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles into curricula, these often emphasize instrumental approaches prioritizing financial outcomes. Questions persist regarding educational impact beyond institutional boundaries, as organizations must independently operationalize sustainability principles while managing diverse stakeholder demands. Effective CSR integration necessitates abandoning traditional management paradigms in favour of holistic stakeholder approaches.
Empirical research demonstrates mindfulness training's efficacy in enhancing leadership capabilities within complex organizational environments. Increasing systemic complexity demands fundamental shifts in established cognitive patterns alongside practical implementation capacity. Contemporary disruption compels decision-makers to challenge traditional analytical frameworks typically employed in strategic processes. Developing sustainability mindsets aligns with global sustainable development imperatives, particularly crucial for leaders navigating environmental, social, and economic considerations while expanding analytical scope beyond organizational boundaries.
This investigation posits that mindfulness-based training programmes facilitate sustainability mindset development across personal, interpersonal, and organizational dimensions. While extensive literature examines mindfulness in leadership development, limited research investigates experiential learning approaches to sustainability mindset cultivation. This study examines an executive training programme integrating mindfulness practices with leadership development, neuroscience, and CSR principles. The research explores mindfulness-based training's role in cultivating sustainability mindsets, employing longitudinal qualitative methodology to examine twenty managers participating in an integrated experiential programme.

The Contribution of the Paradigm of Embodied Cognition

Recent management scholarship has witnessed substantial engagement with mindfulness practices, conceptualised as the cultivation of present-moment awareness characterised by receptive attention and non-judgmental observation of phenomenological events. This approach emphasises direct experiential engagement with immediate circumstances whilst maintaining an attitude of openness and curiosity.
The emergence of mindfulness represents a significant corporeal reorientation within organisational theory, serving as a counterpoint to the historical disembodiment of management practices prevalent through the twentieth century. Empirical investigations have documented mindfulness's efficacy in leadership development, particularly its capacity to enhance self-directed action and ecological awareness. The proliferation of mindfulness interventions in organisational contexts addresses mounting demands for enhanced resilience and adaptability. Regular mindfulness practice appears to heighten somatic awareness, enabling recognition of physiological indicators that might otherwise perpetuate automated behavioural patterns indicative of workplace alienation. This heightened awareness facilitates emotional regulation and promotes interpersonal capacities including empathy and compassion. For individuals in positions of organisational influence, mindfulness proves particularly salient given their exposure to critical career events and emotional labour demands, especially within contemporary work structures characterised by intensive public interaction.
Certain scholars position meditation as a meta-competency for leadership development. The mindfulness paradigm offers systematic methodologies for cultivating present-moment attention through specific exercises and techniques, encouraging practitioners to observe both internal and external phenomena without judgment. In crisis scenarios, mindfulness-based interventions - such as conscious respiratory regulation - enable emotional distancing, preventing potentially maladaptive responses. Within management contexts, this manifests as enhanced cognitive flexibility, characterised by the interrogation of established mental models, generation of nuanced conceptual frameworks, and cultivation of multifaceted analytical perspectives. Observable outcomes include improved situational adaptability, enhanced reality acceptance, and refined strategic decision-making capabilities.
The development of sustainability-oriented leadership mindsets necessitates fundamental reconsideration of existing theoretical frameworks regarding organisational dynamics in complex systems. Understanding mindfulness meditation's role in sustainable mindset cultivation requires engagement with embodied cognition and enactment theory. This theoretical framework posits that worldview formation emerges through dynamic body-mind interactions, synthesising Western phenomenology, Eastern mindfulness traditions, and cognitive science. Knowledge acquisition occurs through direct environmental engagement rather than predetermined representational frameworks. The learning process integrates cognitive, sensory-motor, and affective competencies within perception-action feedback loops co-constructed through environmental interaction. This theoretical orientation challenges traditional mind-centric approaches to learning, which often result in superficial knowledge acquisition.
Learning processes emerge through the historical and contemporary interaction between individual body-mind systems and their environment, with knowledge creation fundamentally grounded in lived experience. This theoretical framework positions mindfulness as crucial for experiential knowledge acquisition. Notable theoretical contributions include Varela's conceptualisation of ethical action as an emergent phenomenon rather than a predetermined regulatory framework. However, mindfulness practices face criticism regarding their potential instrumentalization, particularly concerning their extraction from Buddhist foundations to serve potentially problematic power dynamics. Critics suggest mindfulness might function as temporary respite from acceleration-driven performance imperatives rather than addressing fundamental systemic issues. While acknowledging these critiques, this analysis examines mindfulness's role within executive training programmes in fostering sustainability-oriented leadership mindsets.

Research Context

The trainees for the programme hold leadership positions, including top and operational management, which are likely to significantly influence organisational practices. The programme provided a variety of resources and practices to train the core capacities associated with mindfulness practices of observation and no-judgment. The participants learned mindfulness practices and were encouraged to practice them daily. These practices included breathing, body scanning, mindfulness of sounds and thoughts, walking, moving, and sitting mindfully.
The programme comprised of seminars combining meditation practices, and contributions from experts in neuroscience, conferences on the subjects like links between learning and emotions, the learning functioning of attention, and epigenetics, lectures by experts in meditation, leadership, and neuroscience about their personal development and their commitments in their organisations and in society.
Additionally, the program offered opportunities for learning outside of the classroom through group physical activities, experience sharing, walks in the forest, and walking meditation sessions. Following the workshop, attendees were asked to divide into smaller groups based on their areas of interest in order to continue exchanging ideas while supporting one another's individual CSR-related projects. A university credential authorises it when the participants complete the reflective essays that are required at the conclusion of the program. At the conclusion of the training, the participants had access to audio and video recordings of the group's online activities to facilitate practice and communication outside of in-person meetings.

Data Collection and Analysis

Because our primary goal was to learn about the subjective experiences of individuals, we conducted a qualitative study with leaders who participated in the training programme. Similar to previous studies of this kind, these leaders willingly took part in the program, enabling the researchers to communicate with them and get qualitative input to better understand how they see mindfulness. The goal, aims, and possible results of the study were also fully explained to the participants, who were also reminded of their right to withdraw and their voluntary involvement. Two types of data were collected:
(a)
During a pre-intervention phase, various documents created by the leaders who participated in the program were read and analysed, including their motivational letters to join, their curriculum vitae, written evaluations of their experiences after the program ended, and student written exams, among other documents, to conduct a descriptive exploration of their unique paths and contexts. We were better able to comprehend the concerns, expectations, and histories of the participants after analysing these documents before the interviews. This allowed for in-depth conversations with the respondents and a more thorough examination.
(b)
Semi-structured interviews with all of the program's leaders, which included questions about their experiences, motivations for practicing mindfulness, frequency of mindfulness, changes in awareness and learning, and potential effects on their personal and professional lives; conditions and receptivity of collaborators and outcomes of a potential implementation of mindfulness practices within their organisations; and changes in strategy, corporate culture, ethical behaviour of individuals, and socially responsible commitment observed as a result of implementing mindfulness practices, among other issues that were addressed as they emerged.
For the analysis of the datasets, abductive reasoning was adopted as part of a grounded theory approach. During the pre-intervention phase, documents regarding the contexts of each participant were read employing a content analysis method, which allowed an overview of the target of the study to emerge, notably their backgrounds and expectations, as as also the specific context of active leadership and its constructs. For the same reasons, the analysis of the semi-structured interviews started with their full transcription, followed by a process of reading the corpus multiple times through a thematic analysis in order to identify key themes and report patterns within the texts.

Results

Processes that are triggered by the mindfulness training program and lead to three degrees of responsible leadership based on the SM model's knowing, being, and doing dimensions were indentified.The “knowing” dimension refers to participants’ explicit and tacit learning during the program, which was derived from the theoretical content they were exposed to, as well as from an increased awareness of their own feelings and emotions. In the case of a more formal learning experience, many participants highlighted experiencing sudden realisations regarding others and themselves. Others mentioned the impact of lessons learned in their professional activities. In the interviews, several respondents talked about the importance of emotions. And mentioned joy in life that sustainenance of the energy intended for deployment in projects. Based on the participants’ experiences, to the emergence of four different mechanisms that embodied the “knowing” dimension were observed.
(1) Inner questioning: This mechanism refers to participants’ attention to the numerous insights they claimed to have had during and after the program and that lead them to question themselves as individuals and leaders. The participants highlighted the strong impact that the learning experience had on them.
(2) Increasing the ability to focus: Most respondents mentioned their newfound capacity of better focus on their needs and what was really important for them. For some participants, it was not just a matter of focusing on what was important for them as individuals but also in terms of sustainability. In addition, the realization that some of their actions conflicted with the sustainable mindset they were discussing during the program also had an impact on participants.
(3) Raising awareness of and accepting “negative” feelings: Participants stated that their self-knowledge was enhanced to the point of calming their anxieties.
(4) Avoiding unnecessary struggles: This mechanism requires leaders to try to manage internal conflicts and emotional challenges by consciously choosing not to engage with and/or be overwhelmed by negative feelings This mechanism emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and emotional regulation in maintaining personal and professional balance.
The “being” dimension is based on the value of compassion, which praises awareness and appreciation of others’ situations as a means to foster empathy, connection, and understanding. It concerns the impact of individual transformations and actions on interactions with others, notably regarding leadership capacities. Regarding this aspect, the participants discussed the reflections that emerged from the awareness initially sparked by the mechanisms of “knowing,” particularly in relation to themselves but also in relation to others. Bearing in mind these ideas, four mechanisms characterizing the “being” dimension could be observed.
(1) Leading from within the team: For many participants, adopting this mechanism meant accepting having a more participative rather than supervisional form of leadership. Participants mentioned a paradigm shift in thinking about how we do or move forward on projects.
(2) Being a driving force in the co-construction of solutions: This mechanism reflects the active role of leaders in motivating their teams to look for solutions while considering the current issues to which they are exposed from a sustainability point of view. According to participants, mindfulness experiences allowed them to be such drivers, and it began with an awareness-raising stage..
(3) Questioning routines: This mechanism encourages leaders to reassess their actions and rethink their habits.This mechanism may influence one’s mindset and self-perception, leading to changes in how individuals approach their leadership role and interact with their teams rather than directly altering their technical skills or procedures.
(4) Enhancing the capacity and the quality of listening: This mechanism leads participants to realize that dedicating time to listen to others not only benefits them but also positively impacts their teams. The participants noticed enhancement of their listening capacity and understanding what they were hearing.
The ability to make values-based, sustainable decisions while being conscious of how those actions affect the people and environments around oneself is known as the "doing" component. These organisational change-related decisions and/or actions may be a reflection of the leaders' individual experiences. Four processes that support the "doing" component by using this viewpoint were delenieated:
(1) Adopting and sharing tools learned in training: The participants highlighted the importance of this mechanism, both from personal and professional perspectives, since it leads them to adopt new habits and incorporate them into their daily activities, sometimes raising curiosity and/or influencing others into such new ways of doing things.
(2) Aligning personal values with professional practices: This mechanism involves associating one’s inner values, emotions, and mindfulness practices with one’s professional and leadership situations to foster personal and professional growth, both for the leaders and the teams. Some participants stated that the programme changed their personal orientation.
(3) Embodying experiences and sharing: This mechanism reflects the actions leaders adopted after realizing the reconnection between their bodies and minds through the training, Participants felt that the program allowed This mechanism consists of reflecting on such reconnection with the self, learning from it, and, most importantly, passing along such insights in order to improve a team’s performance.
(4) Integrating societal and environmental responsibility within the organisation: This mechanism involves increasing awareness and prioritization of a sustainable mindset, something that many of the participants evoked during the interviews and the discussions held in training. Participants stated that the societal and environmental responsibility, something that was important to them, took on even more importance. This mechanism reflects a shift in perspective, where most participants became more aware of the impact of their leadership on society and the environment..

Discussion

Contemporary research demonstrates how the tripartite framework of the SM model—comprising cognitive ("knowing"), existential ("being"), and practical ("doing") components—operates through interconnected pathways to achieve its effects. These elements collectively enhance leadership capabilities and organisational transformation through mindfulness interventions. The empirical evidence suggests three distinct spheres of influence—individual, relational, and institutional—through which mindfulness practices facilitate SM development in leadership contexts by activating internal capacities to address multifaceted leadership challenges.
At the individual stratum, which emerges from the cognitive dimension of SM, leaders develop heightened interoceptive awareness of their physiological and affective states. This microscopic level positions the individual as both the source and primary beneficiary of transformative outcomes. Such metacognitive awareness correlates strongly with psychological presence—a state characterised by comprehensive engagement in professional responsibilities. This phenomenon manifests through physical, intellectual, and emotional channels, enabling individuals to maintain focus and integration in their operational contexts. The empirical observations indicate enhanced psychological presence, particularly among previously disengaged leaders. These subjects had maintained superficial involvement whilst experiencing cognitive, emotional, and physical detachment, failing to invest their authentic selves professionally. The data suggests that cultivating self-presence enhances awareness of personal requirements, augments vitality, and supports sustained professional engagement.
The relational dimension, rooted in the existential component of SM, encompasses leadership roles and interpersonal dynamics within organisational hierarchies. This intermediate level reflects how leaders embody institutional strategies and cultural elements. In reconciling personal inclinations with organisational imperatives, effective leaders cultivate environments characterised by both cohesive collaboration and intellectual rigour. This dual approach fosters strong interpersonal bonds while maintaining critical discourse and innovation. Mindfulness practices develop temporal competencies that enable conscious modification of unconscious socio-cultural dispositions—the habitus that shapes social perception and action. The mindfulness-enhanced presence to self and others reflects leadership relationship quality across organisational and domestic spheres, suggesting identity reconstruction processes that harmoniously integrate diverse aspects of personal experience.
The institutional sphere, derived from the practical dimension of SM, operates at the macroscopic level, addressing leadership interventions with broad societal and environmental implications, particularly regarding global challenges such as climate change and societal wellbeing. Research indicates mindfulness practices assist leaders in managing ecological anxiety and environmental despair, promoting proactive engagement rather than resigned acceptance of these challenges.

Conclusion

The empirical investigation demonstrates that mindfulness-based training programmes effectively cultivate sustainable mindsets through three interconnected dimensions: knowing, being, and doing. These dimensions manifest across personal, relational, and institutional spheres of leadership influence. The knowing dimension enhances leaders' self-awareness and cognitive focus, whilst the being dimension fosters compassionate engagement and collaborative leadership approaches. The doing dimension facilitates the practical implementation of sustainability principles through organisational systems and processes. The research reveals that mindfulness practices serve as fundamental catalysts for developing leadership capabilities essential for addressing contemporary sustainability challenges. Notably, the integration of mindfulness with experiential learning approaches enables leaders to transcend conventional management paradigms, fostering more holistic understanding of ecological and social systems. This transformation occurs through enhanced interoceptive awareness, strengthened interpersonal dynamics, and expanded institutional consciousness. The findings suggest that business schools and organisations should consider incorporating mindfulness-based training programmes into leadership development initiatives, particularly when aiming to cultivate sustainability-oriented mindsets. Future research might productively examine the longitudinal impacts of such programmes on organisational sustainability outcomes and investigate potential variations across different cultural and institutional contexts.

References

  1. Torelli, R. Sustainability, responsibility and ethics: different concepts for a single path. Social Responsibility Journal 2021, 17, 719–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Talpur, S. , Nadeem, M., & Roberts, H. Corporate social responsibility decoupling: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 2024, 25, 878–909. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amir, M. , Siddique, M, & Ali, K. Responsible leadership and business sustainability : Exploring the role of corporate social responsibility and managerial discretion. Business and Society Review 2022, 127, 701–724. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zaman, R. , Asiaei, K., Nadeem, M., Malik, I., & Arif, M. Board demographic, structural diversity, and eco-innovation: International evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review 2024, 32, 374–390. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lei, X. , & Yu, J. Striving for sustainable development: Green financial policy, institutional investors, and corporate ESG performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2024, 31, 1177–1202. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shi, Y. , Van Toorn, C., & McEwan, M. Exploration–exploitation: How business analytics powers organisational ambidexterity for environmental sustainability. Information Systems Journal 2024, 34, 894–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liao, Z. , & Zhang, M. The influence of responsible leadership on environmental innovation and environmental performance: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2020, 27, 2016–2027. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lilja, J. Facilitating organizations to dance with the complex “logic of life”: Spinning with paradoxes in regenerative appreciative inquiry summits. The Learning Organization 2024, 31, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hibbert, P. , & Cunliffe, A. Responsible management: Engaging moral reflexive practice through threshold concepts. Journal of Business Ethics 2015, 127, 177–188. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pless, N. M. , & Maak, T. (2011). Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. In N. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 3–13). Springer.
  11. Voegtlin, C. , Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. G. Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 2012, 105, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhao, L. , Yang, M. M., Wang, Z., & Michelson, G. Trends in the dynamic evolution of corporate social responsibility and leadership: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 2022, 182, 135–157. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mai, B. T. T. , Mai, L. T. T., Hung, N. V., & Anh, V. T. Key leaders’ sustainable decision making: The roles of key leaders’ sustainability mindset. Business Strategy & Development 2024, 7, e322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shrivastava, P. Pedagogy of passion for sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2010, 9, 443–455. [Google Scholar]
  15. Maak, T. , & Pless, N. M. Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society–a relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 2006, 66, 99–115. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mishra, P. , & Schmidt, G. B. How can leaders of multinational organizations be ethical by contributing to corporate social responsibility initiatives? Guidelines and pitfalls for leaders trying to do good. Business Horizons 2018, 61, 833–843. [Google Scholar]
  17. Menon, K. Designing transformative learning experiences for managerial transition to integrative CSR. Business Horizons 2022, 65, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wamsler, C. , & Brink, E. Mindsets for sustainability: Exploring the link between mindfulness and sustainable climate adaptation. Ecological Economics 2018, 151, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hermes, J. , & Rimanoczy, I. Deep learning for a sustainability mindset. The International Journal of Management Education 2018, 16, 460–467. [Google Scholar]
  20. Parkes, C. , Buono, A. F., & Howaidy, G. The principles for responsible management education (PRME): The first decade – What has been achieved? The next decade – Responsible management education’s challenge for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Journal of Management Education 2017, 15, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aghajani, M. , Ruge, G., & Jugdev, K. An integrative review of project portfolio management literature: Thematic findings on sustainability mindset, assessment, and integration. Project Management Journal 2023, 54, 629–650. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kassel, K. , Rimanoczy, I., & Mitchell, S. F. The sustainable mindset: Connecting being, thinking, and doing in management education. Academy of Management Proceedings 2016, 2016, 16659. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rimanoczy, I. , Saillant, R., & Teal, C. (2016). A holistic approach for responsible management education. In R. Sunley & J. Leigh (Eds.), Educating for responsible management: Putting theory into practice, (pp. 159–184). Sheffield, UH: Greenleaf Publishing.
  24. Rimanoczy, I. (2017). Developing the sustainability mindset. In J. A. Arevalo & S. F. Mitchell (Eds.), Handbook of sustainability in management education (pp. 221–241), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  25. Moon, C. , Walmsley, A., & Apostolopoulos, N. (2019). The mindset of eco and social entrepreneurs: Piloting a new measure of ‘sustainability mindset’. In ECIE 2019 14th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p. 686). Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited.
  26. Dutton, J. E. , Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly 2006, 51, 59–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Miller, T. L. , Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review 2012, 37, 616–640. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuechler, W. , & Stedham, Y. Management education and transformational learning: The integration of mindfulness in an MBA course. Journal of Management Education 2018, 42, 8–33. [Google Scholar]
  29. Shinde, J. S. , Shinde, U. S., Hill, A., Adams, C., & Harden, J. Effect of data mindfulness training on accounting students: Results from a randomized control trial. Accounting Education 2021, 30, 277–303. [Google Scholar]
  30. Asthana, A. N. Prosocial behavior of MBA students: The role of yoga and mindfulness. Journal of Education for Business 2023, 98, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Petriglieri, G. , & Petriglieri, J. L. Can business schools humanize leadership? Academy of Management Learning & Education 2015, 14, 625–647. [Google Scholar]
  32. Evert, A. F. , Gray-Graves, A., & Shapiro, J. M. Earthquake simulation: Shaking up the ethics education of future business marketing leaders. Journal of Education for Business 2020, 95, 313–320. [Google Scholar]
  33. Starkey, K. , Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. Rethinking the business school. Journal of Management Studies 2004, 41, 1521–1531. [Google Scholar]
  34. Starkey, K. , & Pettigrew, A. The legitimacy and impact of business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education 2016, 15, 649–664. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cunliffe, A. L. “On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner” redux: What does it mean to be reflexive? Journal of Management Education 2016, 40, 740–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cunliffe, A. L. , & Scaratti, G. Embedding impact in engaged research : Developing socially useful knowledge through dialogical sensemaking. British Journal of Management 2017, 28, 29–44. [Google Scholar]
  37. Reina, C. S. , Mills, M. J., & Sumpter, D. M. A mindful relating framework for understanding the trajectory of work relationships. Personnel Psychology 2023, 76, 1187–1215. [Google Scholar]
  38. Antonacopoulou, E. , & Tsoukas, H. Time and reflexivity in organization studies: An Introduction. Organization Studies 2002, 23, 857–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Božič, K. , Bachkirov, A. A., & Černe, M. Towards better understanding and narrowing of the science–practice gap : A practitioner-centered approach to management knowledge creation. European Management Journal 2022, 40, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Clarke, T. , & Clegg, S. Management paradigms for the new millennium. International Journal of Management Reviews 2000, 2, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dovey, K. , Burdon, S., & Simpson, R. Creative leadership as a collective achievement : An Australian case. Management Learning 2017, 48, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ferraro, F. , Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies 2015, 36, 363–390. [Google Scholar]
  43. Feeney, M. , Grohnert, T., Gijselaers, W., & Martens, P. Organizations, learning, and sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics 2023, 184, 217–235. [Google Scholar]
  44. Reitz, M. , Waller, L., Chaskalson, M., Olivier, S., & Rupprecht, S. Developing leaders through mindfulness practice. Journal of Management Development 2020, 39, 223–239. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rupprecht, S. , Falke, P., Kohls, N., Tamdjidi, C., Wittmann, M., & Kersemaekers, W. Mindful leader development: How leaders experience the effects of mindfulness training on leader capabilities. Frontiers in Psychology 2019, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  46. Siqueira, A. C. O. , & Ramos, D. P. Preparing students to address world challenges through international and cross-cultural active learning: A focus on sustainability and social entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Education 2014, 9, 145–166. [Google Scholar]
  47. Waite, A. M. Leadership’s influence on innovation and sustainability: A review of the literature and implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and Development 2014, 38, 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Urrila, L. I. From personal wellbeing to relationships: A systematic review on the impact of mindfulness interventions and practices on leaders. Human Resource Management Review 2021, 100837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Urrila, L. I. , & Mäkelä, L. Be(com)ing other-oriented: Mindfulness-trained leaders’ experiences of their enhanced social awareness. Management Learning 2024, 55, 273–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boyatzis, R. , Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Harvard Business Press.
  51. Asthana, A. N. Role of Mindfulness and Emotional Intelligence in Business Ethics Education. Journal of Business Ethics Education 2023, 20, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  53. Maclean, M. , Harvey, C., & Chia, R. Sensemaking, storytelling and the legitimization of elite business careers. Human Relations 2012, 65, 17–40. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sveningsson, S. , & Alvesson, M. Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations 2003, 56, 1163–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hardy, M. Responding to turbulent times: Where does leadership come in? New England Journal of Public Policy https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol34/iss2/6. 2022, 34. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tihanyi, L. , Howard-Grenville, J., & DeCelles, K. A. From the editors—Joining societal conversations on management and organizations. Academy of Management Journal 2022, 65, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rooney, D. , Küpers, W., Pauleen, D., & Zhuravleva, E. A developmental model for educating wise leaders: The role of mindfulness and habitus in creating time for embodying wisdom. Journal of Business Ethics 2021, 170, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bagley, C. E. , Sulkowski, A. J., Nelson, J. S., Waddock, S., & Shrivastava, P. A path to developing more insightful business school graduates : A systems-based, experiential approach to integrating law, strategy, and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2019, 19, 541–568. [Google Scholar]
  59. Waddock, S. Shaping the shift: Shamanic leadership, memes, and transformation. Journal of Business Ethics 2019, 155, 931–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Willis, P. From knowing to doing: Reflexivity, leadership and public relations. Public Relations Review 2019, 45, 101780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brown, K. W. , Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry 2007, 18, 211–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vu, M. C. , & Burton, N. Mindful reflexivity: Unpacking the process of transformative learning in mindfulness and discernment. Management Learning 2020, 51, 207–226. [Google Scholar]
  63. Vu, M. C. , & Nguyen, L. A. Mindful unlearning in unprecedented times: Implications for management and organizations. Management Learning 2022, 53, 797–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hochschild, A. R. The managed heart. In A. S. Wharton (Ed.), Working in America (pp. 47–54). Routledge.
  65. Good, D. J. , Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., Baer, R. A., Brewer, J. A., & Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work : An integrative review. Journal of Management 2015, 42, 114–142. [Google Scholar]
  66. Salmon, P. , Sephton, S., Weissbecker, I., Hoover, K., Ulmer, C., & Studts, J. L. Mindfulness meditation in clinical practice. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 2004, 11, 434–446. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2024). The Way of Awareness An Immersion Experience in Mindfulness and Heartfulness. Arbor Seminare. Salzburg.
  68. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2023). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hachette.
  69. Kabat-Zinn, J. The liberative potential of mindfulness. Mindfulness 2021, 12, 1555–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kabat-Zinn, J. Mindfulness. Mindfulness 2015, 6, 1481–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kabat-Zinn, J. Meditation is not what you think. Mindfulness 2021, 12, 784–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Asthana, A. N. The Mechanism of Stress-Reduction Benefits Of Yoga For Business Students. The Seybold Report 2024, 19, 198–208. [Google Scholar]
  73. Asthana, A. N. Contribution of Yoga to Business Ethics Education. Journal of Business Ethics Education 2022, 19, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Selart, M. , Schei, V., Lines, R., & Nesse, S. Can mindfulness be helpful in team decision-making? A framework for understanding how to mitigate false consensus. European Management Review 2020, 17, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Varela, F. Neurophenomenology : A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1996, 3, 330–349. [Google Scholar]
  76. Varela, F. (1999). Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  77. Purser, R. E. , & Milillo, J. Mindfulness revisited : A Buddhist-based conceptualization. Journal of Management Inquiry 2015, 24, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Davidson, R. J. , & Kazniak, A. W. Conceptual and methodological issues in research on mindfulness and meditation. American Psychologist 2015, 70, 581–592. [Google Scholar]
  79. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Sage.
  80. Mantere, S. , & Katikati, M. Reasoning in organization science. Academy of Management Review 2013, 38, 70–89. [Google Scholar]
  81. Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage.
  82. Bryman, A. , & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.
  83. Huettman, E. Using triangulation effectively in qualitative research. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication 1993, 56, 42–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gonzales, C. Privatisation of water: New perspectives and future challenges. Public Enterprise 2023, 27, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Smith, M. C. Enhancing food security through Public Enterprise. Public Enterprise 2023, 27, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Marton, F. , Carlsson, M. A., & László, H. Differences in understanding and the use of reflective variation in reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1992, 62, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tight, M. Phenomenography: The development and application of an innovative research design in higher education research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2016, 19, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hsieh, H. F. , & Shannon, S. E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, S. S. Mergers and Acquisitions: Implications for public enterprises in developing countries. Public Enterprise 2022, 26, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Singh, S. S. Using Natural Experiments in Public Enterprise Management. Public Enterprise 2023, 27, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Asthana, A. N. Descentralización y necesidades básicas. Politai 2010, 1, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  92. Williams, B. , & Thompson, D. HIV/AIDS-related research in U.S. higher education journals: A content analysis. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2022, 17, 129–140. [Google Scholar]
  93. Fereday, J. , & Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bou, V. C. M. P. Measuring Energy efficiency in public enterprise: The case of Agribusiness. Public Enterprise 2022, 26, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bou, V. C. M. P Reskilling Public Enterprise executives in Eastern Europe. Public Enterprise 2023, 27, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Asthana, A. N. Reskilling business executives in transition economies: can yoga help? International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets 2023, 15, 267–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Asthana, A. N. Enhancing social intelligence of public enterprise executives through yogic practices. Public Enterprise 2022, 26, 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  98. Kahn, W. A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kahn, W. A. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations 1992, 45, 321–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kahn, W. A. , & Heaphy, E. D. (2013). Relational contexts of personal engagement at work. In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 96–110). Routledge.
  101. Saxena, N. C. Yogic Science for Human Resource Management in Public Enterprises. Public Enterprises 2021, 25, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Saxena, N. C. Profitability prediction in Public Enterprise contracts. Public Enterprise 2022, 26, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Saxena, N. C. Using Machine Learning to improve the performance of Public Enterprises. Public Enterprise 2023, 27, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Asthana, A. Social mechanisms, Peter Hedström...(eds.): Cambridge[u. a], Cambridge Univ. Press. Kyklos 2000, 53, 88–89. [Google Scholar]
  105. Asthana, A. Soltan, Karol, Eric M. Uslaner und Virginia Haufler (eds.)(1998). Institutions and Social Order. Kyklos 2000, 53, 105. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ong, M. , Ashford, S. J., & Bindl, U. K. The power of reflection for would-be leaders : Investigating individual work reflection and its impact on leadership in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2022, 44, 19–41. [Google Scholar]
  107. Skea, J. , Shukla, P., & Kılkış, Ş. (2022). Climate Change 2022 : Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press.
  108. Stanley, S. K. , Hogg, T. L., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. The Journal of Climate Change and Health 2021, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings