I have a feeling that you've somewhat missed the author's intended point. Or, I don't think the two of you are in disagreement on the fundamentals, but you haven't noticed some of the intended nuance, which I think is where the intended message lies.

> the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me

Technically, the author didn't say this, but rather pointed out some criticisms (holistic shortcomings) of the manner in which it has been deployed in corporations, specifically:

>> For example, corporate mindfulness programs are now quite popular. And as we all know, most employees these days are extremely stressed out. The Gallup poll that came out about four or five years ago said that corporations — and this is in the U.S. — are losing approximately 300 billion dollars a year from stress-related absences and seven out of ten employees report being disengaged from their work. So there's certainly a problem. There's no doubt that people are suffering from anxiety and stress and depression. No one no one is going to argue that that's not the case.

>> The problem is: what is the remedy? The remedy has now become mindfulness, where employees are then trained individually to learn how to cope and adjust to these toxic corporate conditions [rather than launching kind of a diagnosis of the systemic causes of stress not only in corporations but in our society at large. That sort of dialogue, that sort of inquiry, is not happening.]

To my reading (interpretation) of the article, that last portion is the main point the author is trying to make.

> Attention and acceptance training (the two fundamental aspects of mindfulness in my research supported but not definitive view) don’t belong to Buddhism or any other system or set of teachings. The underlying science of mind training can be applied wherever we see fit. There’s no “what mindfulness is about and what it’s not” in a corporate versus holistic sense. There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that.

All (mostly) of this is true, but it misses the point the author was trying to make, and I think the author would take exception with your closing: "there’s nothing wrong with that", his assertion seemingly being ~"actually, there is something ~"wrong" (less than perfect) with that".

> The idea that mindfulness creates better killers or justified immoral behavior also seems spurious to me.

Fair criticism, but the degree to which such things are actually true is unknowable, with any sort of accuracy.

> What we’re teaching is an awareness of what’s happening inside of experience.

Different people teach different things, and different combinations of things. This is one of them.

> Mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch. It’s simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state.

Here I will respectfully disagree. Indeed, the physical practice is "simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state", but "mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch" seems to be (based on my personal experience and reading of anecdotal experience) an incorrect assertion. Rather, it often (but not always) seems to be described as just that, some sort of a "magical" way to lower stress and raise consciousness, without explicitly (consciously) setting those two outcomes as goals.

> That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions.

Again, I don't think this is what the author is saying. Rather, he seems to be saying that if you teach only the mindfulness portion of these traditional practices, they can be used to the benefit of "improper" greater causes, like individual/corporate greed. Whereas, if some of the additional teachings that have historically accompanied mindfulness are included in the package, this exploitative approach would be less successful.

> And to the extent that we have a large number of poorly trained teachers selling a poorly designed product AS mindfulness, THAT in my mind is the larger issue, rather than the context or clientele.

Maybe. But maybe not. It is certainly "an" issue, but imagine a parallel universe where mindfulness along with some of the other traditional practices was adopted to the same degree that only-mindfulness has been adopted in this universe. Which scenario would have the greatest difference in positive outcome? Again, this is one of those things we have no way of knowing, but perhaps the simple act of thinking about things in this manner might yield positive results. Who knows, but it's fun to think about.

I happen to believe well intentioned mindfulness advocates like Sam Harris are also overlooking the potentially important truths contained in the authors words. I'd be interested to know whether he disagrees with this sentiment, but my perception is that it currently isn't even on his radar, due to his aversion (ironic, if you think about it) to religion.