Content uploaded by Maree Roche
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maree Roche on Sep 07, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
The Role of Mindfulness and Psychological Capital on the
Well-Being of Leaders
Maree Roche, Jarrod M. Haar, and Fred Luthans
Online First Publication, June 16, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037183
CITATION
Roche, M., Haar, J. M., & Luthans, F. (2014, June 16). The Role of Mindfulness and
Psychological Capital on the Well-Being of Leaders. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037183
The Role of Mindfulness and Psychological Capital on the
Well-Being of Leaders
Maree Roche
University of Waikato Jarrod M. Haar
Massey University (Albany)
Fred Luthans
University of Nebraska
In today’s highly competitive and extremely complex global economy, organizational leaders at all levels
are facing unprecedented challenges. Yet, some seem to be handling the pressure better than others.
Utilizing 4 samples of CEOs/presidents/top (n⫽205), middle (n⫽183), and junior (n⫽202) managers,
as well as 107 entrepreneurs, using Structural Equation Modeling we tested the direct effect that their
level of mindfulness (heightened awareness) and the mediating effect of their psychological capital (i.e.,
hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism) may have on their mental well-being. In all 4 samples,
mindfulness was found to be negatively related to various dysfunctional outcomes such as anxiety,
depression, and negative affect of the managerial leaders and burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion and
cynicism) of the entrepreneurs. For all 4 samples, the model with psychological capital mediating the
effects of mindfulness on dysfunctional outcomes fit the data best. The study limitations, future research
and practical implications of these findings conclude the article.
Keywords: leaders’ well-being, psychological well-being, mindfulness, mindfulness of leaders, psycho-
logical capital of leaders
Currently, leaders at all levels of organizations are under ever-
increasing pressure because of the competitiveness and complexity
of the global economy. On one hand, there is considerable evi-
dence that this turbulent environment has taken its toll on organi-
zational leaders’ mental well-being (Andrea, Bultmann, van
Amelsvoort, & Kant, 2009; Melchior et al., 2007; Nielsen &
Daniels, 2012). On the other hand, very little research has focused
specifically on the positive antecedents that may enable better
mental health for leaders, as they continue to face these unprece-
dented challenges (Nielsen & Daniels, 2012). Although consider-
able research has been devoted to overall employee stress over the
years, attention now needs to focus on organizational leaders per
se. Psychologically healthy, thriving leaders not only benefit them-
selves, but are also critical to employee well-being as well. Recent
research indicates that when leaders are stressed, they are less able
to support their employees, and this in turn directly affects the
stress levels of employees (ten Brummelhuis, Haar, & Roche, in
press).
Research shows that leaders facing challenging situations results
in negative affect, being anxious and depressed, and suggests that
by the very nature of their influencing role, this negative reaction
impacts employee ill-being (Bakker, Westman, & Van Emmerik,
2009; Johnson, 2008; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005; ten Brummel-
huis et al., in press). What is not understood is the role that
positively oriented psychological antecedents may have in buffer-
ing leader’s ill-being in the first place. Thus, besides the research
to date which mainly focuses on the negative, toxic environments,
and outcomes traditionally associated with leadership roles, we
propose the time has come to better understand and test the role
that leaders’ positive psychological resources can play in their
well-being.
One such positive psychological resource that has received very
little attention in leadership research is the construct of mindful-
ness (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007).
Specifically, a mindful person is one who has heightened aware-
ness of the present reality and gives focal attention to living the
moment. One of the pioneers on this construct, Ellen Langer
(1989), likes to depict those who are psychologically healthy and
thriving as “mindful” whereas those who are struggling and on a
downward spiral in their life course as “mindless.” The recent
surge of clinical research attests to its beneficial psychological
properties, specifically providing evidence of its positive relation-
ship with one’s well-being (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Weinstein,
Brown, & Ryan, 2009; Weinstein & Ryan, 2011) and, in particular,
stress reduction (e.g., Shapiro, Astin, Bishop, & Cordova, 2005).
However, despite the current popularity in the clinical literature,
mindfulness has only recently found its way into the management
and organizational behavior field (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans,
2008; Dane, 2011; Glomb, Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011; Leroy,
Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, 2013; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, in
Maree Roche, School of Psychology, University of Waikato; Jarrod M.
Haar, School of Management, College of Business, Massey University
(Albany); Fred Luthans, Department of Management, University of Ne-
braska.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maree
Roche, School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3210, New
Zealand. E-mail: mroche@waikato.ac.nz
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 19, No. 3, 000 1076-8998/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037183
1
press). Specifically, mindfulness has been offered as a potential
valuable well-being resource for employees (Grossman, Niemann,
Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Leroy et al., 2013; Weinstein & Ryan,
2011), but has not yet been analyzed in relation to organizational
leaders’ mental well-being.
This study seeks to contribute to the better understanding of the
role that mindfulness may play in leader well-being in three ways.
First, we test the role of mindfulness on a wide range of leaders in
various leadership positions and roles. Our separate samples in-
clude senior managers (CEOs and/or presidents), middle manag-
ers, and junior managers. These three samples serve to answer the
call to do leadership research at all levels of the organization
(DeChurch, Hiller, Murase, Doty, & Salas, 2010). Our fourth
sample is entrepreneurs, as they share common, yet still different
pressures, leadership characteristics and well-being outcomes, in
order to extend generalizability of our findings to all types of
contemporary organizational leaders (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004;
Jensen & Luthans, 2006). Second, across the four separate sam-
ples, we analyze a wide range of dysfunctional mental well-being
outcomes in leaders. Third, because of the established positive role
of psychological capital (PsyCap) on attitudes, behaviors, and
performance (for a recent meta-analysis on the research, see Avey,
Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011 and for an overall review see
Dawkins, Martin, Scott, & Sanderson, 2013) and specifically its
impact on stress (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009) and well-being
(see Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010), in this study we
examine the potential mediating effects it may have on the rela-
tionship between leaders’ mindfulness and the dysfunctional well-
being outcomes across all samples.
Theoretical Foundation for Mindfulness
Research on mindfulness suggests it is as an inner resource that
supports beneficial psychological functioning, and thus facilitates
well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003). In particular, mindfulness has
been found to be important in “disengaging individuals from
unhealthy thoughts, habits, and unhealthy behavioral patterns”
(Brown & Ryan, 2003, p. 823). As such, mindfulness has been
found to play a key role in developing informed and self-endorsed
behavioral regulation, which has long been associated with well-
being (Ryan & Deci, 2008), as well as enhanced leadership effi-
cacy (Hannah, Woolfolk, & Lord, 2009).
As indicated in the opening comments, mindfulness is charac-
terized by an open, receptive, and nonjudgmental orientation to the
present (Martin, 1997). Brown and Ryan (2003) purport to mea-
sure mindfulness as “the presence of attention to, and awareness
of, what is occurring in the present moment” (p. 824). As used in
this study, mindfulness refers to an open state of mind where the
leader’s attention, informed by a sensitive awareness, merely ob-
serves what is taking place: worry about the future and negative
ruminations or projections are bought back to the present moment
where the situation is seen for what it is. Crucial to this meaning
of mindfulness is the internal awareness of the leader’s perception
and attention to the current situation, without reflexive judgment
and categorization of the situation (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown
et al., 2007). As such, this meaning of mindfulness differs from
conventional Western conceptions of mindfulness. These latter
views of mindfulness are more concerned with cognitive evalua-
tions of events and goal orientated behaviors (for a comprehensive
review, see Weick & Putnam, 2006), or emotional intelligence,
that similarly investigates how effectively people categorize, iden-
tify, and harness emotions in themselves and others (for a review
see Schutte & Malouff, 2011).
As mindfulness is used in the present study, Brown and Ryan
(2003) view its awareness as the background “radar” of conscious-
ness, implying the ongoing monitoring of the inner (mind and
body) and outer environments. However, a person may be aware of
stimuli without any one stimulus being at the center of attention.
Attention is a process of focusing conscious, sustained awareness,
and hence heightens sensitivity to a limited range of stimuli
(Brown & Ryan, 2003). Both attention and awareness are constant
features of normal daily functioning, and mindfulness is consid-
ered to be the enhanced, receptive attention to, and awareness of,
current experience or present reality, without evaluation, judgment
or cognitive filters (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown et al., 2007).
Relevant to this study, there are two primary mental processes
through which mindfulness operates, as well as secondary pro-
cesses (Glomb et al., 2011). First, mindful individuals decouple
themselves from events, thoughts, and emotions. For example
when under threat, rather than personalizing events a mindful
person simply notices but does not judge or categorize. Second,
mindfulness decreases automatic mental processes where past cog-
nitive habits, thinking patterns, and experiences constrain thinking
(Glomb et al., 2011) This leads to secondary processes, such as
decreased rumination and greater affective regulation (Glomb et
al., 2011). Such secondary processes reflect individuals’ deliberate
choice in response to a situation, rather than simply reflexively
reacting to situations.
For leaders who are working in stressful situations (Andrea et
al., 2009), this greater mindfulness enables them to view situations
“for what they really are” without rumination or worry of past or
future negative events. Rather than being mindless and frantic,
present moment awareness and attention allows the leader to focus
on the issue at hand, not on the problems that may arise, or have
previously arisen. This allows leaders to facilitate reflective
choices to situations that in total benefit their mental health out-
comes and well-being.
As awareness and attention are central to the well-established
Eastern version of mindfulness, the Mindfulness Awareness and
Attention Scale (MAAS) has been used to measure Eastern mind-
fulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). A series of studies using the
MAAS have found that individuals with higher mindfulness were
more resistant to stress as they coped more effectively with such
events. That is, participants scoring highly on the MAAS report
less stress, and they also use constructive coping strategies in
response to stress, a linkage that has also been repeated in related
mindfulness research (Weinstein & Ryan, 2011). Mindfulness has
also been found to be positively related to relationship satisfaction,
clarity of emotional states, and enhanced mood repair, and nega-
tively associated with rumination, social anxiety, and psycholog-
ical distress (Chambers, Gullone, & Allen, 2009; Dekeyser, Raes,
Leijssen, Leysen, & Dewulf, 2008). For example, in a recent study
Schutte and Malouff (2011) found higher levels of mindfulness
were associated with greater emotional intelligence, higher levels
of positive affect, lower levels of negative affect, and greater life
satisfaction.
Despite the growing evidence of the value of mindfulness, it has
been tested predominately in clinical or student settings and re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
mains nascent in workplace settings and is less understood with
regard to leaders’ well-being. Dane (2011); Glomb et al. (2011),
and Weinstein and Ryan (2011) provide recent reviews of mind-
fulness and allude to the potential value of examining mindfulness
and its contributions to work-related outcomes, such as resiliency
and stress reduction. While research in the workplace is sparse,
Allen and Kiburz (2011) have tested MAAS on 131 working
parents and found mindfulness was positively related to work-
family balance. Dane and Brummel (2013); Hülsheger et al. (2013)
and Leroy et al. (2013) also tested MAAS in relation to employee
work engagement, turnover, job satisfaction and emotional ex-
haustion. Hence, the beneficial effects of mindfulness do appear to
apply to employees and workplace issues. However, mindfulness
has not yet been explored as an antecedent for leaders’ mental
well-being as measured by a wide variety of dysfunctional out-
comes resulting from the pressure-packed environment that to-
day’s organizational leaders face. As indicated, in this study we
specifically test the role that mindfulness may play in combating
dysfunctional mental outcomes for organizational leaders at all
levels.
Dysfunctional Outcomes and Derivation of
Study Hypotheses
The dynamic, unpredictable work environments that leaders
face are widely associated with greater pressure and stress (Breh-
mer, 1992). Using this understanding as a point of departure, we
specifically investigate managers’ level of anxiety, depression, and
negative affect. Anxiety and depression particularly share a strong
commonality and shared risk factors, including stress. In addition,
Spector, Zapf, Chen, and Frese (2000) in their job stress research
found evidence supporting the direct and discriminant role of
negative affect in stress outcomes. Other research finds negative
affect to be particularly associated with stress and with leadership
influence and effectiveness (Sy et al., 2005). Besides investigating
the anxiety, depression, and negative affect of our manager sam-
ples, we also examined job burnout of our entrepreneur sample
because of its particularly relevant dysfunctions of emotional
exhaustion and cynicism. Although these outcomes are not the
only dysfunctional outcomes managerial and entrepreneurial lead-
ers may experience, we focus on these for the present study
because prior research has deemed these to be representative of the
problems resulting from the pressures managers and entrepreneurs
are currently facing. After summarizing the background of each,
we formulate hypotheses of the relationship between leaders’
mindfulness and these dysfunctional outcomes.
Anxiety and Depression
Leaders’ exposed to stressful work conditions could be at in-
creased risk of both depression and/or anxiety, and in this study we
examine both of these related yet separate dimensions of mental
well-being (Melchior et al., 2007). Anxiety can have acute psy-
chological repercussions, which may include hypersensitivity and
chronic worrying (Kennerley, 1995), as well as a decreased ca-
pacity for concentration, memory, perception, appetite, and sleep
(Baruch & Lambert, 2007). This diverse range of behaviors, which
are impacted by a person’s anxiety, can lead to physiological
and/or psychological disruption in the workplace. Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) classic model of anxiety indicates that anxiety is
influenced by the interaction between the evaluation of external
and internal processes.
Low and manageable levels of anxiety are a normal response to
perceived stressors. Thus, Baruch and Lambert (2007) suggest that
cognitive recognition of such anxiety could trigger coping mech-
anisms. We propose one such mechanism may be mindfulness. We
suggest today’s leaders are facing numerous pressures that result in
anxiety and may be able to cope by having a positive mindset.
Depression is one of the most common and widely experienced
mental illnesses. It is estimated that 50% of all adults are affected
at least to some degree during their lifetimes (Ramsey, 1995). Gray
(2008) defined depression as a general state of malaise, pessimism,
and/or despondence. Depression is characterized by a number of
behaviors, including persistent and prolonged melancholy, sleep
disturbances, fatigue, limited ability to think or concentrate, loss of
pleasure in something usually enjoyed, and feelings of worthless-
ness (Braus, 1991; Shoor, 1994). In the workplace, depressive
symptoms may manifest as a lack of enthusiasm, frequent com-
plaining, reduced productivity, aggressive behavior, decreased ca-
reer interest, and absenteeism (Gray, 2008). Depression may also
influence an employee’s relationships with coworkers. This is
particularly true when a person’s job requires collaboration with
others, as these working relationships may become strained, caus-
ing irritation (Johnson & Indvik, 1997). We suggest this dysfunc-
tional impact depression on relationships is especially critical for
leaders, who need to collaborate and interact with multiple em-
ployees.
Job pressure, conflicting and ambiguous demands, role over-
load, lack of job autonomy, job insecurity, hurried deadlines, and
harassment have all been noted as factors contributing to depres-
sion (Ramsey, 1995; Johnson & Indvik, 1997). Thus, if leaders are
depressed, this clearly limits their ability to effectively manage
themselves, their workloads, and their employees. Comparing with
anxiety, Warr (1996) defined anxiety as being in a state of low
pleasure but high mental arousal, but depression is a state of low
pleasure and low arousal. We propose, supported by findings from
nonworkplace settings, that mindfulness enables leaders to gain
present moment awareness and attention, resulting in lower levels
of anxiety and depression. Thus, the following study hypotheses
are formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Leaders’ mindfulness will be negatively related
to their level of anxiety.
Hypothesis 2: Leaders’ mindfulness will be negatively related
to their level of depression.
Negative Affect
Negative affect (NA) refers to negative moods and tendencies to
experience negative feelings such as distress, nervousness and
hostility. By contrast, positive affect (PA) is associated with feel-
ings of calmness, serenity, and happiness (Elfenbein, 2007; Wat-
son & Tellegen, 1985). Over the years, studies have found that NA
is associated with increased absences, turnover intentions, and
actual turnover (George & Jones, 1996; Pelled & Xin, 1999;
Thoresen, Kaplan, & Barsky, 2003). Staw and Cohen-Charash
(2005) also found that NA was negatively related to decision-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
MINDFULNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADER WELL-BEING
making effectiveness, interpersonal performance, and positive rat-
ings of managerial potential.
There is some evidence that NA may be state-like and malleable
(as opposed to fixed, trait-like). For example, Scott, Colquitt,
Paddock, and Judge (2010) found negative affect fluctuates at
work depending on workplace circumstances such as goal pursuit
and leadership support. Moreover, because leaders’ negative affect
affects employee negative affect (Sy et al., 2005), state-like neg-
ative affectivity takes on increased importance in leadership re-
search. Related studies have examined the processes and interac-
tions involved in the role of leaders’ emotions and the management
of their teams’ emotional responses (e.g., Huy, 2002). Also, Pes-
cosolido (2002, p. 584) has examined how leaders can “set the
emotional tone” of a group, and, as mentioned above, Sy et al.
(2005) found leaders’ negative moods influence employee moods
and well-being. In other words, negative affect is associated with
leadership ability, well-being, and leadership influence and leads
to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Leaders’ mindfulness will be negatively related
to their level of negative affect.
Emotional Exhaustion and Cynicism
Whereas anxiety, depression, and negative affectivity are widely
recognized relevant outcomes to impact organizational leaders’
well-being, the popular literature is especially replete with warning
and steps to be taken to prevent the burnout of entrepreneurs.
However, virtually no research to date has investigated the burnout
of entrepreneurs (see Cogliser & Brigham, 2004). So in this final
sample of entrepreneurial leaders we test the relationship between
the mindfulness of entrepreneurs and their burnout characterized
by emotional exhaustion and cynicism.
Wright and Cropanzano (1998) state that emotional exhaustion
is characterized by a chronic state of both emotional and physical
depletion. Such exhaustion results from excessive job demands
and continuous, long-term stressors. Maslach (1978, 1982) sug-
gests that it is in turn an early detector of burnout. Emotional
exhaustion is an important outcome because of its links with lower
job satisfaction and job performance, and higher turnover (Lee &
Ashforth, 1996; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Clearly, such emo-
tional exhaustion limits an entrepreneurial leader’s effectiveness
and well-being.
Cynicism has been described as negative attitudes felt by par-
ticipants toward the organization and its executives and managers
(Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998). Cynicism is characterized
by frustration, disillusionment, contempt, and distrust toward the
organization (Andersson, 1996). Cynicism is destructive to orga-
nizations, and, similar to emotional exhaustion, it detracts from
entrepreneurial leaders’ effectiveness. Given that mindfulness has
been found to be beneficial for reducing burnout and stress in
clinical samples (Weinstein & Ryan, 2011), we propose that en-
trepreneurial leaders with high mindfulness have a greater aware-
ness and attention to the present, which will ultimately lead to
lower levels of emotional exhaustion and cynicism. This leads to
the following study hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: Entrepreneurial leaders’ mindfulness will be
negatively related to their level of emotional exhaustion.
Hypothesis 5: Entrepreneurial leaders’ mindfulness will be
negatively related to their level of cynicism.
The Mediation Role of Psychological Capital
Besides the direct negative relationship between leaders’ mind-
fulness and various dysfunctional outcomes, we also examined the
possible mediating effect that the now recognized positive multi-
dimensional psychological capital or PsyCap (consisting of hope,
efficacy, resilience, and optimism; see Luthans, Avolio, Avey &
Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007) may have on
better understanding this relationship. Specifically, we propose
that PsyCap may be a mediating mechanism through which the
mindfulness of leaders affects their dysfunctional outcomes.
Drawing from positive psychology and positive organizational
behavior, PsyCap is an individual’s positive psychological state of
development characterized by having confidence (efficacy); mak-
ing positive attributions and having positive future expectations
(optimism); persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redi-
recting paths to goals (hope); and bouncing back from adversity
(resilience) (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 3). Research has
clearly found that when the four psychological resources are
combined, they form a higher order, core construct that is a
stronger predictor of attitudes and performance than any one of the
four components by itself (Luthans et al., 2007). PsyCap has been
shown to add variance to desired attitudinal and behavioral out-
comes beyond the demographics and well known positively ori-
ented constructs such as core self-evaluations, personality traits
and person-organization and person-job fit (Avey, Luthans, &
Youssef, 2010). As indicated in the introductory comments, a
recent meta-analysis of 51 independent samples (see Avey, Reich-
ard, et al., 2011) found PsyCap not only has a strong positive
relationship with desirable attitudes, behaviors and performance,
but also psychological well-being of employees (Avey et al., 2010)
and negative relationships with cynicism, intentions to quit and
counterproductive behaviors (Avey, Luthans, et al., 2010) and
importantly stress (Avey et al., 2009). There has also been research
exploring the relationship between PsyCap and leadership such as
the following: Jensen and Luthans (2006) found a relationship
between entrepreneurs’ PsyCap and their authentic leadership
(Jensen & Luthans, 2006); Avey, Avolio, and Luthans (2011) and
Story et al. (2013) found that leaders’ PsyCap has an impact on
their followers’ PsyCap; and Norman, Avolio, and Luthans (2010)
found that the PsyCap of leaders had an impact on their followers’
trust and perceived performance of them. More directly, Avey et
al. (2008) found that mindfulness and PsyCap were both positively
related to positive emotions, and furthermore, interacted with each
other, showing these constructs can play an important role to-
gether.
As outlined above, mindfulness has been found to play a key
role in developing informed and self-determined behavioral regu-
lation and autonomy, which has long been associated with mental
well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2008; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008). As
indicated, Glomb et al. (2011) noted that mindfulness facilitates
this in two ways. The primary mechanism decreases automatic
mental processes where past cognitive habits and experiences
constrain thinking, but, and central to our mediation hypothesis,
mindfulness also has a secondary process, such that the space
between self and cognition decreases negative rumination and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
enhances positive self-regulation. A series of studies by Fetterman,
Robinson, Ode, and Gordon (2010) found that mindfulness was
not only negatively related to impulsivity, but positively related to
self-regulation, supporting the notion that mindfulness may also
promote other mechanisms such as self-regulation or PsyCap. In
other words, the process of mindfulness may facilitate a separation
between self and the event that results in self-regulated activity
inclined toward positive well-being.
In summary, through greater reflective choice of actions and
reactions, the mindfulness process includes increased response
flexibility, such as receptiveness to resiliency and positivity. In
other words, mindfulness not only has a role in buffering ill-being,
but also acts in a way that enhances a person’s positive reflective
choices and positive functioning (Hülsheger et al., 2013). In sup-
port of this other function of mindfulness in enhancing a person’s
reflective and positive orientation, using MAAS Leroy et al.
(2013) found mindfulness had a positive impact by enhancing
employees’ receptivity toward authentic functioning. This in turn
benefited employee engagement. Other researchers (e.g., Allen &
Kiburz, 2011; Schutte & Malouff, 2011), also using MAAS, found
mindfulness enhanced subjects’ receptivity toward more proximal
psychological and physiological constructs such as emotional in-
telligence, vitality, and sleep. Whereas Avey et al. (2008) found
that mindfulness and PsyCap interacted to promote positivity, in
the current study we extend the benefits of mindfulness. Specifi-
cally, similar to what other studies have done (e.g., see Allen &
Kiburz, 2011; Leroy et al., 2013; Schutte & Malouff, 2011), we
have expanded the function of mindfulness to include PsyCap as a
proposed mediator to outcomes.
PsyCap is developed via one’s ability to engage and harness
positive social–cognitive functioning and agency (Bandura, 2008;
Luthans et al., in press). For example personal efficacy, optimism,
hope, and resiliency all are underpinned by positive mental self-
regulation held together by the common thread of a “positive
appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on
motivated effort and perseverance” (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007,
p. 550). Engaging in hopeful agency and proactive pathways to
goal attainment, personal confidence and efficacy, optimistic cog-
nitive processing in interpreting events, and bouncing back from
stressful situations (resiliency) are all mental processes that require
self-regulation and attention to positive guidance in these mental
processes (Luthans et al., 2007, in press). Mindfulness thus may
harness the positive mental process required for PsyCap by facil-
itating the timely connecting of the positive mental processes
required. Consequently, we suggest that mindfulness serving as a
type of background “radar” aids clarity and receptivity toward the
positive construct of PsyCap.
In summary, we propose that mindfulness may encourage lead-
ers to accurately perceive and draw from their own PsyCap,
because the process of mindfulness facilitates a separation between
self and the event and this in turn facilitates the reflective choice
of actions and reactions such as greater hope, efficacy resiliency,
and optimism. Thus, we predict that mindfulness facilitates one’s
PsyCap, and PsyCap in turn may be related to the leader’s mental
well-being. This background leads to the derivation of our final
study hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 6: Leaders’ PsyCap will mediate the influence of
their mindfulness toward their mental well-being outcomes
(i.e., junior and middle managers’ anxiety, depression, and
negative affect; CEOs/presidents’ anxiety and depression; and
entrepreneurs’ emotional exhaustion and cynicism).
Method
Samples and Procedure
We utilized four independent samples to test the effects of
leaders’ mindfulness on their mental well-being outcomes. These
four samples were (a) junior managers, (b) middle managers, (c)
senior managers, and (d) entrepreneurs. The mindfulness and
PsyCap survey items used were identical for all four samples.
However, for breadth and relevancy of the outcomes we used
anxiety and depression for the three manager samples, negative
affect for the junior and middle manager samples, and job burnout
(consisting of emotional exhaustion and cynicism) for the entre-
preneur sample. To help minimize potential bias related to com-
mon method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003), data were collected in two waves with a time gap between
surveys of two to four weeks. Spector (2006) also suggested the
separation of variables over time as a way to minimize potential
issues of bias.
The first phase of data collection gathered demographic infor-
mation and the survey responses for the antecedent (mindfulness)
and mediator (PsyCap) variables. The second survey contained all
the mental well-being outcome measures. A cover letter briefly
outlining the study and its aims was included with the surveys, and
they were hand delivered and collected by the researchers except
for the top management sample that was done by mail. Table 1
provides details on the four samples.
The junior and middle managers and entrepreneur samples were
drawn from a wide regional area in New Zealand, and the senior
manager sample came from a mail survey across the entire coun-
try. Only this latter sample of CEOs/presidents had a modest
response rate (15.9%). However, this rate is similar with other
studies targeting CEOs in New Zealand, such as 23.4% (Guthrie,
2001) and 18.2% (Gibb & Haar, 2010). However, in both those
studies, respondents had to complete only one survey as opposed
to the two in this study. Finally, Table 1 shows the nonrespondents
between surveys 1 and 2 across all samples were minimal (less
than 4.6% across all four samples), and there were no significant
differences between those responding to both surveys and those
who completed only the first survey.
Measures
Mindfulness was measured using the Brown and Ryan (2003)
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale or MAAS, coded 1 ⫽never to
5⫽all of the time. The MAAS was chosen because it is the
dominant measure for mindfulness in the literature (e.g., Allen &
Kiburz, 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2013; Schutte &
Malouff, 2011; Weinstein & Ryan, 2011). We used the MASS-
short 5-item scale by Höfling, Moosbrugger, Schermelleh-Engel,
and Heidenreich (2011) as this has strong similarities to the full
measure. A sample item is It seems I am running on automatic
without much awareness of what I’m doing. All items are reverse
scored to produce a score where the higher score indicates greater
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
MINDFULNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADER WELL-BEING
mindfulness and awareness of the present. This measure had strong
reliability across all four samples (␣⫽.81, .81, .72, and .84).
Psychological Capital was measured using the 12-item version
of the PCQ (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). The PCQ consists of
four subscales: (a) Hope, (b) Resilience, (c) Optimism, and (d)
Efficacy and has been validated (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) and
supported in a number of studies over the years (e.g., Avey et al.,
2009; Avey, Reichard, et al., 2011; Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Fra-
zier, & Snow, 2009; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010).
The 12-item version has been psychometrically determined and
validated (Avey et al., 2011) and successfully used in a number of
studies (e.g., Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, & Li, 2008a; Norman et
al., 2010). Items for this study were coded 1 ⫽strongly disagree
to 5 ⫽strongly agree. Sample items include I feel confident in
representing my work area in meetings with management (Effi-
cacy), If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of
many ways to get out of it (Hope), I usually take stressful things at
work in stride (Resilience), and I always look on the bright side of
things regarding my job (Optimism). Following common practice
(e.g., Avey, Reichard et al., 2011; Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007;
Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007), we combined the four dimensions
to determine the overall psychological capital score for respon-
dents. This measure had strong reliability across all samples (␣⫽
.85, .87, .83, and .86).
Anxiety and Depression were measured in the three manager
samples using 6 items from the Axtell et al. (2002) scale ranging
from 1 ⫽never to5⫽all the time. For both scales, respondents
were presented with three adjectives and were asked to describe
how often these apply to them at work. Sample items were anxious
and worried (for anxiety) and depressed and miserable (for de-
pression). A high score represents higher levels of anxiety or
depression. The anxiety measure had acceptable reliability across
all three samples (␣⫽.83, .83, and .87), as did the depression
scale (␣⫽.85, .86, and .87).
Negative Affect was measured in the junior and middle manager
samples through three negative items of the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule or PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),
coded 1 ⫽very slightly to5⫽extremely. Sample items include
upset,irritable, and jittery. Shorted PANAS measures have been
previously validated (Song, Foo, & Uly, 2008). The negative affect
measure had strong reliability in both samples it was used (␣⫽.80
and .82).
Job burnout was measured only in the entrepreneur sample
using 6 items from the Maslach and Jackson (1981) scale, coded
1⫽never to 5 ⫽always. The Emotional Exhaustion dimension
was measured by 3-items; sample items include I feel used up at
the end of the workday, and I feel tired when I get up in the
morning and have to face another day on the job. This scale had
adequate reliability (␣⫽.75). The Cynicism dimension (originally
termed the depersonalization dimension) was measured by
3-items; sample items include I have become more cynical about
whether my work contributes anything and I have become less
interested in my work since I started this job. This scale also had
adequate reliability (␣⫽.71).
As with other Self-Determination Theory studies (e.g., Brown &
Kasser, 2005), demographic variables were controlled for the
following: Age (in years), and Education (1 ⫽high school,2⫽
technical college,3⫽university degree,4⫽postgraduate qual-
ification). Owing to the diverse nature of the samples, and to
improve comparisons between the diverse leader samples, we also
controlled for industry sector, specifically Private Sector (1 ⫽yes,
0⫽no) and Firm Size (total number of employees).
Analytic Strategy
Hypotheses were tested using SEM in AMOS to assess the
direct effects of mindfulness and the potential meditation effects of
PsyCap for each study, following Hair, Black, Babin, and Ander-
son (2010). In addition, we followed Cheung and Lau (2008) using
bootstrapping to confirm the mediated effects.
Table 1
Sample Demographics
Details Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Focus Junior Managers Middle Managers Senior Managers/CEOs Entrepreneurs
Number of organizations sampled 150 150 1,365 200
Distribution method Physically handed out Physically handed out Mail out Physically handed out
Number of surveys distributed 400 400 1,365 200
Number of respondents (response rate) 202 (50.5%) 183 (45.8%) 205 (15.9%) 107 (53.5%)
Number of respondents lost between survey 1 and 2 15 (3.8%) 18 (4.5%) 22 (1.6%) 5 (2.5%)
Respondent demographics
Age (years) 33.3 (SD ⫽12.4) 41.9 (SD ⫽12.4) 51.3 (SD ⫽7.5) 43.2 (SD ⫽12.0)
Males 52% 64% 92% 56%
Married 55% 74% 96% 81%
Hours worked 35.0 (SD ⫽12.0) 45.1 (SD ⫽13.0) 54.2 (SD ⫽8.2) 45.9 (SD ⫽14.4)
Job tenure (years) 4.1 (SD ⫽5.0) 7.4 (SD ⫽7.6) 7.4 (SD ⫽7.5) 10.1 (SD ⫽9.7)
Education qualifications
High school 35.4% 26.8% 13.6% 32.3%
Technical college 19.6% 26.8% 10.6% 23.7%
University degree 32.8% 34.5% 36.9% 33.3%
Postgraduate 12.2% 11.9% 38.9% 10.8%
Sector
Private 64.9% 64.0% 60.4% 83.5%
Public 30.9% 27.4% 31.5% 16.5%
Not-for-profit 4.1% 8.6% 8.1% 0.0%
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
Results
Measurement Models
To confirm the separate dimensions of study variables, measures
were tested by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using AMOS
20.0 for each study. While studies using SEM typically offer a
number of goodness-of-fit indexes, Williams, Vandenberg, and
Edwards (2009) suggested three goodness-of-fit indexes as supe-
rior ways to assess model fit: (a) the comparative fit index (CFI ⱖ
.95), (b) the root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA ⱕ.08), and (c) the standardized root mean residual
(SRMR ⱕ.10). The hypothesized measurement model and alter-
native models (1 ⫽where mindfulness and PsyCap items were
combined and 2 ⫽where outcomes were combined) are shown in
Table 2 for all studies.
Overall, the hypothesized measurement model fit the data best
for all studies and this was confirmed with the alternative model
being a significantly poorer fit (Hair et al., 2010) for each sample.
Tables 3 through 5 show that across all four samples, mindful-
ness is significantly and negatively correlated with all the dysfunc-
tional mental well-being variables (⫺.25 ⬎r⬎⫺.37, all p⬍.01).
PsyCap is also significantly negatively correlated with all the
mental well-being variables (⫺.16 ⬎r⬎⫺.36, all p⬍.01). In all
four samples, the leaders’ PsyCap is positively correlated with
their mindfulness (.15 ⬍r⬍.40, all p⬍.05). Finally, within each
sample, all mental well-being outcomes are significantly correlated
(all p⬍.01) but not at levels of concept redundancy (i.e., r⬎.75;
Morrow, 1983), thus providing preliminary evidence indicating
they are convergent, but also discriminant, constructs.
Two structural models were tested to determine the most opti-
mal model based on the data: (a) a direct effects only model with
mindfulness predicting PsyCap and all mental health outcomes;
and (b) a partial mediation model where mindfulness predicts
PsyCap and then both predict all mental health outcomes. Analysis
showed that of the four control variables, only age was significant,
so for parsimony, models are presented with only age included.
The structural models for all studies and the comparison between
them are shown in Table 6.
Model comparison tests (Hair et al., 2010) showed that Model 2
(partial mediation model) is superior to Model 1 (direct effects) for
all four studies. Aligned with the recommendations of Grace and
Bollen (2005), unstandardized regression coefficients are pre-
sented for all studies.
Table 7 shows that for all samples, mindfulness is significantly
related to PsyCap for junior managers (⫽.41, p⬍.01), middle
managers (⫽.17, p⬍.05), top managers (⫽.69, p⬍.001),
and entrepreneurs (⫽.19, p⬍.05). The overall variance for
PsyCap accounted for by age and mindfulness ranged from 4% to
22%. Toward sample 1 (junior managers), Table 7 shows that
mindfulness is significantly and negatively related to anxiety
(⫽⫺.40, p⬍.01), and marginally significant for PsyCap
(⫽⫺.26, p⬍.1), and also for depression (marginally significant
for mindfulness ⫽⫺.30, p⬍.1; and highly significant for
PsyCap ⫽⫺.63, p⬍.001), and negative affect (mindfulness
⫽⫺.38, p⬍.05; PsyCap ⫽⫺.59, p⬍.01). The overall
variance by age, mindfulness and PsyCap toward mental health
outcomes of lower managers was 17% to 23%.
With regard to sample 2 (middle managers), Table 7 shows that
mindfulness is significantly and negatively related to anxiety
(⫽⫺.57, p⬍.01), but PsyCap is not (⫽⫺.24, p⫽.169).
However, for the other outcomes both are related to depression
(marginally for mindfulness ⫽⫺.28, p⬍.1; and significantly
for PsyCap ⫽⫺.38, p⬍.05), and significantly for negative
affect (mindfulness ⫽⫺.37, p⬍.01; PsyCap ⫽⫺.39, p⬍
.01). The overall variance by age, mindfulness and PsyCap toward
mental health outcomes of middle managers was 17% to 24%. For
sample 3 (top managers), mindfulness and PsyCap are shown to be
significantly and negatively related to anxiety (mindfulness
⫽⫺.58, p⬍.05; PsyCap ⫽⫺.39, p⬍.05) and depression
(mindfulness ⫽⫺.52, p⬍.05; PsyCap ⫽⫺.44, p⬍.01). The
overall variance accounted for the mental health model was 17% to
24% for top managers.
Finally, sample 4 (entrepreneurs) showed that mindfulness and
PsyCap are both significantly and negatively related to emotional
exhaustion (mindfulness ⫽⫺.52, p⬍.01; PsyCap ⫽⫺.49,
p⬍.05) and cynicism (mindfulness ⫽⫺.54, p⬍.01; PsyCap
⫽⫺.48, p⬍.05). The overall variance accounted for the mental
health model for entrepreneurs was 27% to 37%. Overall, these
results provide strong support for Hypotheses 1 to 5.
Regarding mediating effects, Tables 2 through 4 show that
PsyCap is significantly positively correlated with mindfulness and
negatively with all the dysfunctional mental well-being outcomes.
These results meet the requirements of steps one and two in
mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Although the SEM
analysis shows the mediation model is the best fit to the data, we
also conducted bootstrapping in AMOS (at 1000 repetitions,
Cheung & Lau, 2008) to provided additional support for mediation
(95% bias-corrected confidence intervals). In study one, junior
managers PsyCap significantly mediated the relationship between
mindfulness and anxiety (LL ⫽⫺0.38, UL ⫽⫺0.01, p⬍.05),
depression (LL ⫽⫺0.48, UL ⫽⫺0.19, p⬍.01), and negative
affect (LL ⫽⫺0.50, UL ⫽⫺0.13, p⬍.01). In study two, middle
managers PsyCap significantly mediated the relationship between
mindfulness and depression (LL ⫽⫺0.42, UL ⫽⫺0.01, p⬍.05)
and negative affect (LL ⫽⫺0.45, UL ⫽⫺0.02, p⬍.05) but not
anxiety (LL ⫽⫺0.28, UL ⫽0.05, not significant). In study three,
top managers PsyCap significantly mediated the relationship be-
tween mindfulness and anxiety (LL ⫽⫺0.40, UL ⫽⫺0.01, p⬍
.05) and depression (LL ⫽⫺0.46, UL ⫽⫺0.06, p⬍.01). Finally,
in study four, entrepreneurs PsyCap significantly mediated the
relationship between mindfulness and cynicism (LL ⫽⫺0.55,
UL ⫽⫺0.05, p⬍.05), but not emotional exhaustion
(LL ⫽⫺0.50, UL ⫽0.06, not significant). Overall, there is
sufficient evidence to suggest PsyCap partially mediates the influ-
ence of mindfulness toward the mental well-being outcomes, sup-
porting Hypothesis 6.
Additional Analysis
We conducted further analysis on the data to better understand
the characteristics of mindfulness and PsyCap. In particular, the
characteristics of our samples allowed us to explore whether
leadership position may play a role in the findings. The mean score
for mindfulness is consistently high and well above the midpoint
of 3.0 for all four samples: junior managers (M⫽3.8), middle
managers (M⫽3.9), top managers (M⫽4.2), and entrepreneurs
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
MINDFULNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADER WELL-BEING
Table 2
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for All Study Measures
Model fit indices Model differences
Model
2
df CFI RMSEA SRMR ⌬
2
⌬df p Details
Study 1 (Junior Managers)
1 377.1 288 .96 .04 .06
2 387.5 291 .95 .04 .07 10.4 3 .05 Model 1 to 2
3 516.6 292 .89 .06 .07 139.5 4 .001 Model 1 to 3
Study 2 (Middle Managers)
1 361.8 288 .96 .04 .06
2 384.5 291 .95 .04 .09 22.7 3 .001 Model 1 to 2
3 427.9 292 .93 .05 .06 66.1 4 .001 Model 1 to 3
Model 1: Hypothesized 5-factor model: mindfulness, PsyCap (higher order model), anxiety, depression, and negative affect.
Model 2: Alternative 4-factor model: PsyCap with mindfulness as a fifth factor, anxiety, depression, and negative affect.
Model 3: Alternative 4-factor model: mindfulness, PsyCap, anxiety and depression combined, and negative affect.
Study 3 (Senior Managers)
1 337.9 223 .96 .05 .07
2 345.8 225 .93 .05 .08 7.9 2 .05 Model 1 to 2
3 450.8 226 .87 .07 .07 112.9 3 .001 Model 1 to 3
Model 1: Hypothesized 4-factor model: mindfulness, PsyCap (higher order model), anxiety, and depression.
Model 2: Alternative 3-factor model: PsyCap with mindfulness as a fifth factor, anxiety, and depression.
Model 3: Alternative 3-factor model: mindfulness, PsyCap, anxiety and depression combined.
Study 4 (Entrepreneurs)
1 262.6 223 .95 .04 .07
2 290.2 226 .92 .05 .10 27.6 3 .001 Model 1 to 2
3 287.1 226 .93 .05 .07 24.5 3 .001 Model 1 to 3
Model 1: Hypothesized 4-factor model: mindfulness, PsyCap (higher order model), emotional exhaustion, and cynicism.
Model 2: Alternative 3-factor model: PsyCap with mindfulness as a fifth factor, emotional exhaustion, and cynicism.
Model 3: Alternative 3-factor model: mindfulness, PsyCap, and emotional exhaustion & cynicism combined.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
(M⫽3.8). ANOVA confirmed a significant difference existed
among the various samples, F⫽16.680, p⬍.001, and post hoc
analysis (LSD) shows that the top level managers have signifi-
cantly higher levels of mindfulness compared to the lower level
leaders (all p⬍.001). The only other significant difference was
middle managers were significantly higher than junior managers
(p⬍.05).
The mean score for PsyCap is also consistently high and well
above the midpoint of 3.0: junior managers (M⫽3.8), middle
managers (M⫽4.0), top managers (M⫽4.2), and entrepreneurs
(M⫽3.9). Similar to mindfulness, ANOVA confirmed a signifi-
cant difference existed for PsyCap among the samples, F⫽
33.122, p⬍.001, with post hoc analysis (LSD) indicating that top
managers have significantly higher levels of PsyCap compared
with all other leaders (all p⬍.001). Although junior managers and
entrepreneurs were not significantly different from each other, the
PsyCap of middle managers were significantly higher than both
junior managers (p⬍.001) and entrepreneurs (p⬍.01). Overall,
these findings indicate that leaders’ formal position relates to their
mindfulness and PsyCap, with those leaders at the highest orga-
nizational levels showing a greater degree of mindfulness and
PsyCap than those in lower leadership positions and of entrepre-
neurs.
Discussion
Leaders, while trying to be a source of positive energy and
growth within an organization, are nevertheless realistically faced
with complex, challenging, and pressure-packed situations. This
potentially toxic environment calls for organizations to develop a
greater understanding of leaders’ psychological resources that can
aid their positive well-being and help them fight off dysfunctional
outcomes. This study, spread over a wide range of leaders and
organizations, consistently found a strong negative relationship
between their mindfulness and dysfunctional mental well-being
outcomes.
The findings of this study attest to the positive impact that
mindfulness seems to have in combating a number of dysfunc-
tional outcomes affecting today’s leaders. Mindfulness not only
had direct effects on the dysfunctions, but further analysis found
that the leaders’ positive psychological capital served as a partial
mediator between their mindfulness and these outcomes. Overall,
the results indicate mindfulness and PsyCap may prove to be the
type of psychological strengths leaders can draw from for their
mental well-being in these trying times.
The present study also answers the call for the assessment of
constructs at different levels of leadership (e.g., DeChurch et al.,
2010). For example, most studies do not make a distinction be-
tween the various levels of organizational leaders, and those that
do tend to concentrate on either supervisors or CEOs, but middle
managers are often excluded. By including three samples at vari-
ous levels and types of organizations, and even extending this
further to include entrepreneurs, we argue we have a wide range of
leadership positions to test the effects of mindfulness and the
mediating effect of PsyCap, thus contributing to generalization and
external validity. The findings also demonstrate the beneficial role
of mindfulness and PsyCap in combating dysfunctional psycho-
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Senior Managers Sample
Variables MSD 1234567
1. Age 51.3 7.5 —
2. Education 3.0 1.0 ⫺.01 —
3. Firm size 2.4 .56 .08 .18
ⴱ
—
4. Mindfulness 4.2 .46 .09 ⫺.02 .02 —
5. Anxiety 2.1 .72 ⫺.20
ⴱⴱ
.09 .06 ⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
—
6. Depression 1.4 .60 ⫺.08 .09 ⫺.03 ⫺.31
ⴱⴱ
.62
ⴱⴱ
—
7. Psychological capital 4.2 .39 .02 .06 .08 .39
ⴱⴱ
⫺.22
ⴱⴱ
⫺.29
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. Sample 3 (Senior Managers, n⫽205).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Junior and Middle Managers Samples
Sample 1 Sample 2
Variables MSDMSD 12345678
1. Age 33.3 12.4 41.7 12.4 — ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .46
ⴱⴱ
⫺.30
ⴱⴱ
⫺.28
ⴱⴱ
⫺.28
ⴱⴱ
.11
2. Education 2.2 1.1 2.3 1.0 .17
ⴱ
— .05 ⫺.01 .08 .05 .10 ⫺.02
3. Firm size 1.8 .93 1.4 .83 .17
ⴱ
.12 — .04 ⫺.01 .01 .01 .03
4. Mindfulness 3.8 .72 3.9 .72 .33
ⴱⴱ
.14 .08 — ⫺.36
ⴱⴱ
⫺.26
ⴱⴱ
⫺.33
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱ
5. Anxiety 2.4 .77 2.3 .83 ⫺.04 .13 ⫺.03 ⫺.30
ⴱⴱ
— .61
ⴱⴱ
.57
ⴱⴱ
⫺.17
ⴱ
6. Depression 1.8 .88 1.6 .78 ⫺.24
ⴱⴱ
.07 ⫺.04 ⫺.30
ⴱⴱ
.50
ⴱⴱ
— .60
ⴱⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
7. Negative affect 1.8 .84 1.6 .75 ⫺.09 .06 .02 ⫺.28
ⴱⴱ
.51
ⴱⴱ
.68
ⴱⴱ
—⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
8. Psychological capital 3.8 .51 4.0 .50 .19
ⴱⴱ
.00 .02 .35
ⴱⴱ
⫺.24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.35
ⴱⴱ
⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. Sample 1 (Junior Managers, n⫽202) below and Sample 2 (Middle Managers, n⫽183) above the diagonal line.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
MINDFULNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADER WELL-BEING
logical outcomes, again for all types of organizations and levels of
leadership. The consistent finding that PsyCap negatively relates to
these outcomes, as well as having a partial mediation effect, also
supports the beneficial and unique role of mindfulness toward
leaders’ well-being beyond the more established PsyCap construct.
Finally, we extended the outcomes tested and found similar effects
for entrepreneurs toward burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion and
cynicism). Given that burnout is widely recognized as a big prob-
lem for entrepreneurs (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004; Jensen & Lu-
thans, 2006), this finding has potential personal and economic
benefits for start-ups and innovative businesses in a receding
economy needing job creation.
The study findings reinforce previous research that mindfulness
(Weinstein & Ryan, 2011) and PsyCap (Avey et al., 2009) is
beneficial to employee stress reduction. Mindfulness implications
for stress extend the implications beyond clinical research and
applications. For example, clinical research has established that
mindful individuals tend to be less susceptible to psychological
distress and more likely to be psychologically well-adjusted
(Brown et al., 2007). Our study’s findings contribute to a greater
understanding of the benefits of mindfulness and extend it to
leaders’ well-being. This is central as leaders well-being infiltrates
and impacts followers (i.e., the contagion effect, see Story et al.,
2013).
Additional analysis also showed that leadership level was sig-
nificant in mindfulness and PsyCap. For example, senior managers
had significantly higher levels of both mindfulness and PsyCap
compared with lower level leaders and entrepreneurs. Brown and
Ryan (2003) found those who score high on the MAAS appear to
value intellectual pursuits slightly more than lower scorers, sug-
gesting higher levels of mindfulness may predict greater leadership
and higher career pursuits. However, the conjecture surrounding
such findings requires further research.
While researchers have long relied on traditional interventions
such as meditation to enhance mindfulness, our study suggests,
like PsyCap which has been proven to be open to development (see
Luthans, Avey et al., 2010; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008b), as
indicated mindfulness may also be “state-like” and thus be open to
development (Brown et al., 2007). For example, Davidson (2012)
and Marianetti and Passmore (2010) have suggested specific
guidelines focused on purposeful and authentic awareness and
attention to stay in the moment, and Langer (1989) has long
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Entrepreneurs Sample
Variables MSD 1234 5 67
1. Age 43.2 11.8 —
2. Education 2.2 1.0 ⫺.07 —
3. Firm size 1.3 1.1 ⫺.16 .02 —
4. Mindfulness 3.8 .71 .24
ⴱ
.09 ⫺.06 —
5. Emotional exhaustion 2.4 .81 ⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
.06 .02 ⫺.35
ⴱⴱ
—
6. Cynicism 1.9 .88 ⫺.21
ⴱ
.04 .03 ⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
.54
ⴱⴱ
—
7. Psychological capital 3.9 .53 .22
ⴱ
⫺.05 .19 .24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.24
ⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. Sample 4 (Entrepreneurs, n⫽107).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 6
Results of Structural Equation Models for All Studies
Model fit indices Model differences
Model
2
df CFI RMSEA SRMR
2
⌬df p Details
Study 1 (Junior Managers)
1 411.2 312 .95 .04 .08
2 397.8 309 .96 .04 .06 13.4 3 .01 Model 2 to 1
Study 2 (Middle Managers)
1 401.0 312 .96 .04 .08
2 391.5 309 .96 .04 .06 9.5 3 .05 Model 2 to 1
Study 3 (Senior Managers)
1 362.1 244 .96 .05 .08
2 353.1 242 .97 .05 .07 9.0 2 .05 Model 2 to 1
Study 4 (Entrepreneurs)
1 296.6 244 .94 .05 .08
2 289.1 242 .95 .04 .07 7.5 2 .05 Model 2 to 1
Model 1: Direct effects model, controlling for age.
Model 2: Partial mediation model, controlling for age.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
emphasized looking for something new in each moment to en-
hance one’s mindfulness and avoid being mindless. Moreover,
although the empirical data of the present study strongly supported
a mediation effect from PsyCap on the mindfulness-mental health
relationships, we also tested for PsyCap as a moderator on these
relationships. However, no significant interaction effects were
found, further confirming the mediation approach that PsyCap
seems to play in mindfulness.
Overall, the study found mindfulness benefited leader well-
being, and these findings also have implications for leader devel-
opment. Moreover, the relationship between leadership position
and both mindfulness and PsyCap provides a new contribution to
the literature on mindfulness, PsyCap, and leadership.
Limitations, Future Research, and Implications
for Practice
Limitations of the study mainly revolve around the self-
reported nature of the data gathering. However, the study vari-
ables tested depend upon self-reporting. Furthermore, although
cross sectional in nature, there was a time lag between predic-
tors and outcomes, which we noted can help to minimize the
problem of common method variance (CMV) (see Podsakoff et
al., 2003; Spector, 2006). Also an additional test for CMV was
conducted; Harman’s one factor test was undertaken on each
sample. The resulting factor analysis (unrotated) resulted in
multiple factors for each sample (more than 10 each) and with
each sample having the largest factor accounting for less than
24% of the variance. Given that a single dominant factor did not
emerge in any of the four samples, this suggests that CMV was
not an issue (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Overall, the multiple samples and the variety of leaders exam-
ined provide support for the findings. However, like other psycho-
logical constructs, future research into mindfulness can benefit
from a longitudinal study design to assess the role of mindfulness
as leaders’ progress through their careers. This is especially im-
portant given our findings on differences among leader positions,
specifically top level managers. Moreover, because the reported
relationships are correlational, causal conclusions cannot be in-
ferred. Future studies need longitudinal and experimental designs
to determine whether mindfulness and PsyCap cause lower dys-
functional outcomes and improved well-being or to better answer
questions such as do more mindful and high PsyCap managers
tend to become CEOs, or does being a CEO manifest in greater
mindfulness and PsyCap.
Another area for future research would be to explore other
employee groups besides managers, such as nurses and teachers,
who experience similar stressful environments and, similar to
organizational leaders, also have a dimension to their job that
involves the support and care of others (Lavoie-Tremblay, Bronin,
Lesage, & Bonneville-Roussey, 2010). For example, future re-
search could examine mindfulness and PsyCap in related helping
professions such as nursing, teaching, social services, and coun-
seling. It would be interesting to test these wider occupational
groups on the benefits of mindfulness and PsyCap as positive
psychological resources. Do these positive resources support those
in roles that have direct influence on others well-being and they
themselves suffer from high rates of dysfunctional outcomes and
burnout?
Future research could also beneficially explore the process
and guidelines of mindfulness training interventions, for exam-
ple, stress reduction programs or meditation. Such training and
development should be brought into the workplace to determine
their effectiveness and importance to organizational leadership.
In this regard, we suggest further research in both dispositional-
based mindfulness and intervention-based state-like mindful-
ness, to enhance understanding of the role that mindfulness may
play in developing positive leader well-being. The parallel can
be seen with PsyCap, which we indicated is a recognized
developmental construct proven to be enhanced through rela-
tively short training interventions (Luthans, Avey et al., 2010)
and has even been conducted online (Luthans et al., 2008b).
This PsyCap training may provide a useful guide and avenue for
researchers and practitioners to begin workplace mindfulness
training interventions.
Table 7
Final Mediation Model Results for Mental Well-Being Outcomes (All Studies)
Study 1 (Junior Managers) Study 2 (Middle Managers)
Variables PsyCap Anxiety Depression Negative affect PsyCap Anxiety Depression Negative affect
Age —
a
.01 ⫺.01 .00 —
a
⫺.01 ⫺.01
ⴱ
⫺.01
Mindfulness .41
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.40
ⴱⴱ
⫺.30
†
⫺.38
ⴱ
.17
ⴱ
⫺.57
ⴱⴱ
⫺.28
†
⫺.37
ⴱⴱ
PsyCap — ⫺.26
†
⫺.63
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.59
ⴱⴱ
—⫺.24 ⫺.38
ⴱ
⫺.39
ⴱⴱ
Total R
2
.22 .17 .23 .21 .04 .21 .17 .24
Study 3 (Top Managers) Study 4 (Entrepreneurs)
Variables PsyCap Anxiety Depression PsyCap Emotional exhaustion Cynicism
Age —
a
⫺.02
ⴱⴱ
⫺.00 —
a
⫺.01
ⴱ
⫺.01
Mindfulness .69
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.58
ⴱ
⫺.52
ⴱ
.19
ⴱ
⫺.52
ⴱⴱ
⫺.54
ⴱⴱ
PsyCap — ⫺.39
ⴱ
⫺.44
ⴱⴱ
—⫺.49
ⴱ
⫺.48
ⴱ
Total R
2
.15 .13 .15 .06 .27 .37
Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients, two-tailed.
a
Age was covaried with PsyCap so no regression weight scores.
†
p⬍.1.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
MINDFULNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADER WELL-BEING
Conclusion
Leaders at all levels of organizations need more ammunition
than ever before to fight off the mounting pressures and threats
they are facing in their day-to-day activities and career progress.
The recent rediscovery of mindfulness has surfaced as a potential
useful addition to leaders’ psychological defense mechanisms and
make a positive, proactive contribution to their mental well-being.
This study provides initial empirical support for the value of
leaders’ mindfulness, and reaffirms the direct and mediating ef-
fects of PsyCap, in combating and preventing the real and potential
dysfunctional outcomes associated with leaders responding to the
pressures coming from their present and future environment.
References
Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2011). Trait mindfulness and work–family
balance among working parents: The mediating effects of vitality and
sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 310–325.
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a
contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 1395–1418. doi:
10.1177/001872679604901102
Andrea, H., Bultmann, U., van Amelsvoort, L. G., & Kant, Y. (2009). The
incidence of anxiety and depression among employees – the role of
psychosocial work characteristics. Depression and Anxiety, 26, 1040–
1048. doi:10.1002/da.20516
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2011). Experimentally analyzing
the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance.
The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 282–294. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02
.004
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. (2009). Psychological capital: A
positive resource for combating stress and turnover. Human Resource
Management, 48, 677–693. doi:10.1002/hrm.20294
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R., & Palmer, N. (2010). Impact of positive
psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 17–28. doi:10.1037/a0016998
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of
psychological capital: Predicting positive and negative work attitudes
and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430–452. doi:10.1177/
0149206308329961
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-
analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee
attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 22, 127–152. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20070
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees
help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and
emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behav-
ioral Science, 44, 48–70. doi:10.1177/0021886307311470
Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner, P., &
Bolden, R. (2002). Familiarity breeds content: The impact of exposure to
change on employee openness and well-being. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 75, 217–231. doi:10.1348/
09631790260098596
Bakker, A. B., Westman, M., & Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2009). Advance-
ments in crossover theory. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24,
206–219. doi:10.1108/02683940910939304
Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J.
Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (pp.
167–196). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Baruch, Y., & Lambert, R. (2007). Organizational anxiety: Applying
psychological concepts into organizational theory. Journal of Manage-
rial Psychology, 22, 84–99. doi:10.1108/02683940710721956
Braus, P. (1991). Your lawyer needs a hug. American Demographics, 13,
16.
Brehmer, B. (1992). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex
systems. Acta Psychologica, 81, 211–241. doi:10.1016/0001-
6918(92)90019-A
Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological
well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle.
Social Indicators Research, 74, 349–368. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-
8207-8
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological wellbeing. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4
.822
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Mindfulness:
Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psycholog-
ical Inquiry, 18, 211–237. doi:10.1080/10478400701598298
Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion
regulation: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 560–
572. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.005
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression
effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation mod-
els. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325. doi:10.1177/
1094428107300343
Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004). The intersection of leadership
and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 771–799. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.004
Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task
performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37, 997–1018.
doi:10.1177/0149206310367948
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness and
its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Human Rela-
tions. doi:10.1177/0018726713487753
Davidson, R. J. (2012). The emotional life of your brain. New York, NY:
Hudson.
Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., & Sanderson, K. (2013). Building on the
positives: A psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of
Psychological Capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86, 348–370. doi:10.1111/joop.12007
Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cyn-
icism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.
DeChurch, L. A., Hiller, N. A., Murase, T., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2010).
Leadership across levels: Levels of leaders and their levels of impact.
The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1069–1085. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010
.10.009
Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008).
Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behavior. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 44, 1235–1245. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.018
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotions in organizations: A review and theo-
retical integration. The Academy of Management Annuals, 1, 315–386.
doi:10.1080/078559812
Fetterman, A. K., Robinson, M. D., Ode, S., & Gordon, K. H. (2010).
Neuroticism as a risk factor for behavioral dysregulation: A
mindfulness-mediation perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
chology, 29, 301–321. doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.3.301
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover
intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and
positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 318–325. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318
Gibb, J., & Haar, J. (2010). Risk taking, innovativeness and competitive
rivalry: A three-way interaction towards firm performance. International
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 871–891. doi:10.1142/
S136391961000291X
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness
at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 30,
115–157. doi:10.1108/S0742-7301(2011)0000030005
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P., Frazier, L., & Snow, D. (2009). In the
eyes of the beholder: Transformational leadership, positive psychologi-
cal capital and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 15, 353–367. doi:10.1177/1548051809332021
Grace, J. B., & Bollen, K. A. (2005). Interpreting the results from multiple
regression and structural equation models. Bulletin of the Ecological
Society of America, 86(4), 283–295.
Gray, H. (2008). Work and depression in economic organizations: The
need for action. Development and Learning in Organizations, 22, 9–11.
doi:10.1108/14777280810861758
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004).
Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta analysis.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57, 35–43. doi:10.1016/S0022-
3999(03)00573-7
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and
productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 180–190. doi:10.2307/3069345
Hannah, S. T., Woolfolk, R. L., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Leader self-
structure: A framework for positive leadership. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 30, 269–290. doi:10.1002/job.586
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Höfling, V., Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Heidenreich, T.
(2011). Mindfulness or mindlessness? European Journal of Psycholog-
ical Assessment, 27(1), 59–64.
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. (2013).
Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion
regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 98, 310–325. doi:10.1037/a0031313
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and
radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47, 31–69. doi:10.2307/3094890
Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Relationship between entrepreneurs’
psychological capital and their authentic leadership. Journal of Mana-
gerial Issues, 18, 254–273.
Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (1997). Blue on blue: Depression in the
workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12, 359–364. doi:
10.1108/02683949710176106
Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional conta-
gion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes. The Leader-
ship Quarterly, 19, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.001
Kennerley, H. (1995). Managing anxiety: A training manual. Oxford, UK:
Oxford Medical Publications.
Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Boston, MA: Merloyd Lawrence.
Lavoie-Tremblay, M. M., Bronin, J. P., Lesage, A. D., & Bonneville-
Roussey, A. (2010). Contribution of the psychosocial work environment
to psychological distress among health care professionals before and
during a major organizational change. The Health Care Manager, 29,
293–304. doi:10.1097/HCM.0b013e3181fa022e
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New
York, NY: Springer.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the
correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 123–133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness,
authentic functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling ap-
proach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 238–247. doi:10.1016/j.jvb
.2013.01.012
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The
development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological
capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 41–67. doi:
10.1002/hrdq.20034
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008a). More
evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychological capital: A
potentially unlimited competitive resource? The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 19(5), 818–827.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008b). Experimental analysis of
a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological
capital. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 209–221.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.32712618
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Psycho-
logical capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2007.00083.x
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (in press). Psychological
capital and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marianetti, O., & Passmore, J. (2010). Mindfulness at work: Paying atten-
tion to enhance well-being and performance. In A. Linley, S. Harrington,
& N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and Work
(pp. 189–200). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Mindfulness: A proposed common factor. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 7, 291–312. doi:10.1023/B:JOPI
.0000010885.18025.bc
Maslach, C. (1978). The client role in staff burnout. Journal of Social
Issues, 34, 111–124. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1978.tb00778.x
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced
burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113. doi:10.1002/job
.4030020205
Melchior, M., Avshalom, C., Milne, B. J., Danese, A., Poulton, R., &
Moffitt, T. E. (2007). Work stress precipitates depression and anxiety in
young, working women and men. Psychological Medicine, 37, 1119–
1129.
Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The
case of work commitment. The Academy of Management Review, 8,
486–500.
Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2012). Enhancing team leaders’ well-being
states and challenge experiences during organizational change: A ran-
domized, controlled study. Human Relations, 65, 1207–1231. doi:
10.1177/0018726711433312
Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of
positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effec-
tiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 350–364. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua
.2010.03.002
Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the
relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal
of Management, 25, 875–895. doi:10.1177/014920639902500605
Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emo-
tion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 583–599. doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(02)00145-5
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
doi:10.1177/014920638601200408
Ramsey, R. (1995). Depression at work. Supervision, 56, 14–17.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13
MINDFULNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND LEADER WELL-BEING
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). A self-determination theory approach
to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian
Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 186–193. doi:10.1037/
a0012753
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V. A., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-
determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 9, 139–170. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2011). Emotional intelligence mediates
the relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 50, 1116–1119. doi:10.1016/j.paid
.2011.01.037
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. (2010). A daily
investigation of the role of manager empathy on employee well-being.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 127–
140. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.001
Shapiro, S. L., Astin, J. A., Bishop, S. R., & Cordova, M. (2005).
Mindfulness-based stress reduction for health care professionals: Results
from a randomised trial. International Journal of Stress Management,
12, 164–176. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.164
Shoor, R. (1994). The consequences of depression. Business & Health, 12,
6–10.
Song, Z., Foo, M.-D., & Uly, M. A. (2008). Mood spillover and crossover
among dual-earner couples: A cell phone event sampling study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93, 443–452. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.443
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi:10.1177/
1094428105284955
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative
affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw
out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 79–95. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1⬍79::AID-
JOB964⬎3.0.CO;2-G
Staw, B. M., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2005). The dispositional approach to
job satisfaction: More than a mirage, but not yet an oasis: Comment.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 59–78. doi:10.1002/job.299
Story, J. P., Youssef, C. M., Luthans, F., Barbuto, J. E., & Bovaird, J.
(2013). Contagion effect of global leaders’ positive psychological capital
on followers. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 24, 2534–2553. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.744338
Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of
the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone,
and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295
ten Brummelhuis, L., Haar, J. M., & Roche, M. A. (in press). Does family
life help to be a better leader? A closer look at crossover processes from
leaders to followers. Personnel Psychology. doi:10.1111/peps.12057
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Barsky, A. P. (2003). The affective
underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review
and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.129.6.914
Warr, P. B. (1996). Employee well-being. In P. B. Warr (Ed.), Psychology
at work (pp. 224–253). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98
.2.219
Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern
wisdom and Western knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15,
275–287. doi:10.1177/1056492606291202
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method
examination of the effects of mindfulness on stress attribution, coping,
and emotional well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 374–
385. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.008
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). A self-determination theory ap-
proach to understanding stress incursion and response. Stress and
Health, 27, 4–17. doi:10.1002/smi.1368
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural
equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved
analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543–604.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a
predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 486–493. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.486
Received November 5, 2012
Revision received April 29, 2014
Accepted May 13, 2014 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14 ROCHE, HAAR, AND LUTHANS
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
