Content uploaded by Bradley J. Brummel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bradley J. Brummel on Oct 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
human relations
67(1) 105 –128
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0018726713487753
hum.sagepub.com
human relations
Examining workplace mindfulness
and its relations to job
performance and
turnover intention
Erik Dane
Rice University, USA
Bradley J Brummel
University of Tulsa, USA
Abstract
In recent years, research on mindfulness has burgeoned across several lines of
scholarship. Nevertheless, very little empirical research has investigated mindfulness
from a workplace perspective. In the study reported here, we address this oversight
by examining workplace mindfulness – the degree to which individuals are mindful in
their work setting. We hypothesize that, in a dynamic work environment, workplace
mindfulness is positively related to job performance and negatively related to turnover
intention, and that these relationships account for variance beyond the effects of
constructs occupying a similar conceptual space – namely, the constituent dimensions of
work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Testing these claims in a dynamic
service industry context, we find support for a positive relationship between workplace
mindfulness and job performance that holds even when accounting for all three work
engagement dimensions. We also find support for a negative relationship between
workplace mindfulness and turnover intention, though this relationship becomes
insignificant when accounting for the dimensions of work engagement. We consider the
theoretical and practical implications of these findings and highlight a number of avenues
for conducting research on mindfulness in the workplace.
Corresponding author:
Erik Dane, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University, P.O. Box 2932, Houston, Texas
77252, USA.
Email: erikdane@rice.edu
487753HUM67110.1177/0018726713487753Human RelationsDane and Brummel
2013
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
106 Human Relations 67(1)
Keywords
dynamic environment, job performance, turnover intention, work engagement,
workplace mindfulness
For centuries, sages across many cultures have trumpeted the benefits of mindfulness
– a psychological state in which one focuses attention on events occurring in the pre-
sent moment (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Dane, 2011). While mindfulness is often asso-
ciated with traditions that are more philosophical than scientific, recent years have
witnessed a remarkable surge of research activity surrounding mindfulness across
several fields, including clinical and counseling psychology (e.g. Bishop et al., 2004;
Shapiro et al., 2008), social and personality psychology (e.g. Giluk, 2009; Niemiec
et al., 2010), neuroscience (e.g. Creswell et al., 2007; Davidson et al., 2003), medi-
cine (e.g. Epstein, 1999; Santorelli, 1999), and education (e.g. Burke, 2010; Napoli
et al., 2005). As a whole, this body of work points to a myriad of benefits associated
with mindfulness and supports historically-based claims concerning the merits of
focusing on the present.
The rise of scholarly interest in mindfulness has spawned multiple lines of inquiry. A
sizable body of work in this area focuses on linkages between mindfulness and psycho-
logical and physical well-being. For example, research indicates that mindfulness is
positively related to vitality, life satisfaction, and interpersonal relationship quality and
negatively related to depression, anxiety, and stress (for reviews, see Brown et al., 2007;
Glomb et al., 2011). Accounting for these effects, scholars have argued that mindfulness
permits people to view events more objectively and dispassionately (Shapiro et al., 2006;
Weinstein et al., 2009) and enables them to regulate their thoughts, emotions, and physi-
ological reactions more effectively (Lakey et al., 2007; Masicampo and Baumeister,
2007; Papies et al., 2012). In a different vein, a more limited but expanding body of work
examines the effects of mindfulness on task performance. Through this research, schol-
ars have demonstrated that mindfulness relates positively to judgment accuracy (Kiken
and Shook, 2011), insight-related problem solving (Ostafin and Kassman, 2012), and
academic performance (Shao and Skarlicki, 2009). Such findings resonate with research
indicating that mindfulness enhances cognitive flexibility (Moore and Malinowski,
2009) and promotes executive functioning (Zeidan et al., 2010) – qualities instrumental
to performance across a range of tasks.
Given these research findings, one might assume that mindfulness is beneficial within
workplace settings. Unfortunately, however, evidence for this possibility is limited
because mindfulness has received relatively little consideration in organizational schol-
arship. Although some have argued that mindfulness promotes key work outcomes
(Dane, 2011; Glomb et al., 2011), empirical studies examining this claim are just begin-
ning to emerge (e.g. Hülsheger et al., 2013; Reb et al., 2012). Furthermore, within the
limited body of research on mindfulness in the organizational literature, some work
adopts a collective, rather than individual, level of analysis (e.g. Rerup, 2009; Vogus and
Welbourne, 2003; Weick et al., 1999). While insightful and informative, collective-level
accounts of mindfulness implicate processes and mechanisms (e.g. specific forms of
social interaction) beyond the scope of mindfulness as conceptualized here (see Vogus
and Sutcliffe, 2012, for more detail).
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 107
Because empirical research on mindfulness in the workplace is quite limited, key
questions remain unanswered. First, and most directly, it is unclear whether or to what
degree mindfulness relates to work outcomes associated with the domains of mindful-
ness-related inquiry noted above – that is, psychological and physical well-being and
performance-related behavior. While a small body of work suggests that mindfulness
may prove beneficial along these lines – particularly with respect to well-being (Allen
and Kiburz, 2012; Hülsheger et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2013) – research in this area is
nascent. In fact, very little empirical research has examined the work outcomes of (indi-
vidual-level) mindfulness in a particularly notable context – dynamic work environ-
ments. Dynamic environments require individuals to make a series of interdependent
decisions in real time (Gonzalez, 2005) and, according to some scholars, are the very
type of setting in which mindfulness should be of practical concern and theoretical
import (e.g. Dane, 2011; Vogus, 2011; Weick and Roberts, 1993). As mentioned, how-
ever, empirical assessments of such claims are lacking.
Second, while mindfulness has received relatively little investigation from a work-
place perspective, researchers have hardly overlooked questions surrounding how indi-
viduals attend to and engage with the work they perform. In fact, organizational scholars
have long displayed an interest in the degree to which people are ‘engaged’ (Kahn, 1990),
‘present’ (Kahn, 1992), or ‘absorbed’ (Rothbard, 2001) in their work. Relatedly, scholars
have explored the phenomenon of ‘flow’ – intense concentration and complete engage-
ment with an optimally challenging activity, job, or occupation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;
Reid, 2011). Bringing together research along these lines, much recent scholarship
focuses on the concept of work engagement and its dimensions – vigor, dedication, and
absorption (e.g. Bakker, 2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Because these dimensions are concerned with allocating mental resources to tasks and
events unfolding in the present moment (Schaufeli et al., 2002), they may occupy a simi-
lar conceptual space to that of mindfulness. Researchers have connected work engage-
ment and its dimensions to a number of work outcomes, including job performance and
turnover intention (e.g. Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Salanova et al., 2005).
From a mindfulness research standpoint, the expanding body of research on work
engagement begs a key question: does mindfulness carry unique variance beyond the
dimensions of work engagement in terms of predicting work outcomes?
To address the questions outlined above, we conducted a study within a dynamic ser-
vice industry context. In this study, we investigated the relationship between mindfulness
and job performance, as well as the relationship between mindfulness and a work out-
come associated with psychological and physical well-being, turnover intention. In
doing so, we examined not only the fundamental relationships between mindfulness and
job performance and turnover intention respectively, but also what happens to these rela-
tionships when accounting for the three dimensions of work engagement noted above.
Collectively, the results reported here inform our understanding of mindfulness in the
workplace and carry a number of implications for theory and practice.
Workplace mindfulness
Perhaps not surprisingly, the growth of scholarly interest in mindfulness has generated
discussion concerning what, precisely, mindfulness is (e.g. Bishop et al., 2004; Brown
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
108 Human Relations 67(1)
et al., 2007; Kabat-Zinn, 2005). Drawing together features of mindfulness common
across a number of conceptualizations, Dane (2011: 1000) defined mindfulness as ‘a
state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment phenomena
occurring both externally and internally.’ Similarly, Brown and Ryan (2003: 823) argued
that mindfulness involves ‘an open, undivided observation of what is occurring both
internally and externally.’ As these perspectives suggest, mindfulness may be considered
a unique state of consciousness given its orientation to the present moment and its wide
attentional breadth (Dane, 2011).
While mindfulness is often conceptualized as a state, several studies have revealed
disposition-based differences in mindfulness across individuals (e.g. Baer et al., 2006;
Brown and Ryan, 2003; Lau et al., 2006). These studies indicate that, all things being
equal, some individuals tend to be more mindful than others. In this sense, mindfulness
is analogous to positive and negative affect, which can be conceptualized and evaluated
as both a state and a trait (Watson et al., 1988).
In line with this individual differences perspective, we expect that people differ in the
degree to which they are mindful in their work settings – a concept we term workplace
mindfulness. Though likely tied to one’s dispositional tendency toward mindfulness,
workplace mindfulness may be related to other factors as well. For example, research
suggests that through practice or training individuals can learn to focus their attention
more mindfully within a given performance context (Fehr and Gelfand, 2012; Hülsheger
et al., 2013; Lee, 2012). Thus, some individuals may be more mindful at work than oth-
ers as a result of specific experiences they have accrued. Furthermore, research suggests
that contextual elements of one’s workplace may exert a rather profound influence on
how one behaves at work and, indeed, how one focuses attention within one’s work set-
ting (Elsbach and Pratt, 2007; George, 2009; Zhong and House, 2012). It is therefore
possible that, for some individuals, certain features of the work environment ‘cue’ mind-
fulness. In other words, some people may be likely to focus their attention mindfully at
work owing to contextual stimuli encountered within their workplace. Collectively, these
observations suggest that due to a combination of dispositional, experiential, and contex-
tual factors, individuals may differ, perhaps substantially, in workplace mindfulness. The
arguments and hypotheses that follow build on this premise.
Workplace mindfulness and work outcomes
While a growing body of evidence indicates that mindfulness carries a number of bene-
fits, little empirical research has investigated mindfulness from a workplace standpoint.
It is therefore unclear whether or how mindfulness relates to key work outcomes.
Addressing this oversight, we consider the relationships between workplace mindfulness
and two work outcomes – job performance and turnover intention – associated with the
two broad domains of mindfulness-related inquiry noted previously (task performance
on the one hand and well-being on the other). Drawing on the observation that mindful-
ness is likely impactful in environments that are dynamic (see, e.g. Vogus, 2011), we
situate our arguments and hypotheses in the context of dynamic work environments.
To begin, one of the most theoretically and practically important outcomes in work-
place settings is job performance. While job performance commands much scholarly
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 109
attention (see Motowidlo, 2003, for a review), little research has empirically connected
mindfulness to job performance. Nevertheless, an emerging body of research has dem-
onstrated linkages between mindfulness and performance across a number of tasks (e.g.
Ostafin and Kassman, 2012; Ruedy and Schweitzer, 2010; Shao and Skarlicki, 2009). As
research in this vein suggests, mindfulness contributes to performance by improving
cognitive flexibility and alertness (Moore and Malinowski, 2009; Zeidan et al., 2010)
and guarding against distractions and performance blunders (Herndon, 2008). Taken
together, these findings raise the possibility that workplace mindfulness facilitates job
performance.
Building on this possibility, we predict that workplace mindfulness contributes to job
performance in dynamic work environments. As noted earlier, dynamic environments
require individuals to make a series of interdependent decisions in real time (Gonzalez,
2005). In such environments, it is critical to attend to a wide range of events because any
given event might bring with it critical information and thus inform one’s decisions
about how to proceed (Dane, 2013; Endsley, 1995). Mindfulness should facilitate perfor-
mance behavior in dynamic environments because it is characterized in part by a wide
attentional breadth – a feature that attunes individuals to a large number of events and
stimuli (Dane, 2011). Furthermore, mindfulness is likely to help individuals avoid the
errors and mistakes that occur when attention departs from present moment events
(Herndon, 2008).
Hypothesis 1: Within a dynamic work environment, workplace mindfulness is posi-
tively related to job performance.
Dynamic work environments tend to be associated with high levels of emotional
arousal and stress – byproducts of the time pressure and unpredictability pervading such
environments (Brehmer, 1992; Klein, 1998). Over time, these pressures may become
difficult to bear, leading people to consider relinquishing their employment in the
dynamic work setting. On this point, research demonstrates negative relationships
between psychological and physiological job-related demands and people’s intentions to
leave their organizations (Begley, 1998; Kemery et al., 1987). With that said, intention to
leave (i.e. turnover intention) is subject to a number of influences, including not only
features of the work context, but also individual-level factors (Cardador et al., 2011;
Meyer et al., 2002). As such, even within the same work setting, people may differ in
their turnover intentions.
Drawing on these observations, we consider whether workplace mindfulness relates
to turnover intention within dynamic work environments. Here, research indicates that
mindfulness leads people to cope with challenging or stressful situations proactively and
adaptively (e.g. Shapiro et al., 2007; Weinstein et al., 2009). In particular, mindfulness
facilitates self-regulation (Atkins and Parker, 2012; Glomb et al., 2011) and enables peo-
ple to respond to potentially stressful events with greater equanimity and less rumination
(Brown et al., 2007; Carlson, 2013; Shapiro et al., 2006). Consequently, mindfulness
may guard against emotional exhaustion at work – a possibility supported by recent
empirical research (Hülsheger et al., 2013). Given these lines of theory and evidence,
mindfulness should enhance one’s ability to cope with the stresses and strains of a
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
110 Human Relations 67(1)
dynamic work environment. Accordingly, we predict that those high in workplace mind-
fulness will feel less compelled than others to permanently depart from such an
environment.
Hypothesis 2: Within a dynamic work environment, workplace mindfulness is nega-
tively related to turnover intention.
Workplace mindfulness versus work engagement
To merit scholarly attention, the relationships posited in Hypothesis 1 and 2 should
account for variance over and above the performance-related effects of other constructs
occupying the same broad conceptual space as workplace mindfulness. As noted earlier,
recent years have witnessed accelerating interest in concepts comparable to mindfulness
due to a steadily mounting body of research on work engagement (e.g. Christian et al.,
2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010). Work engagement is often defined
as the extent to which one feels invigorated, dedicated, and absorbed by one’s work (e.g.
Bakker, 2011; González-Romá et al., 2006; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). The first
dimension, vigor, reflects the degree to which one approaches work with energy and
mental resilience (Bakker, 2011). The second dimension, dedication, captures the degree
to which one derives a sense of pride, inspiration, or significance from one’s work
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). The third dimension, absorption, concerns the degree to
which one concentrates fully and engrosses oneself deeply in one’s work (Schaufeli
et al., 2002). While some researchers have coupled absorption with the concept of flow
(e.g. Rothbard, 2001; Salanova et al., 2006), flow may represent a specific form of
absorption – one associated with optimally challenging activities and peak performance
experiences (Schaufeli et al., 2002; see also Quinn, 2005, for a detailed discussion of
flow).
The decomposition of work engagement into three distinct dimensions has garnered
theoretical and empirical support (Macey and Schneider, 2008) and formed the basis for
several scholarly investigations of work engagement (e.g. Bakker et al., 2005; Bakker
et al., 2012; Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2008). This research has examined
both antecedents (e.g. job demands and resources – see Crawford et al., 2010) and out-
comes of work engagement. On the latter, research indicates that, among other outcomes,
work engagement is positively related to job performance and negatively related to turn-
over intention (see Halbesleben, 2010, for a meta-analysis involving effects specific to
each dimension of work engagement).
In some respects, work engagement is comparable to workplace mindfulness. For
example, like workplace mindfulness, the dimensions of work engagement lead people
to direct mental resources toward work-related events and tasks (González-Romá et al.,
2006; Leroy et al., 2013). Moreover, foundational research on work engagement empha-
sizes the merits of present-moment attentiveness (e.g. Kahn, 1992; May et al., 2004) – a
key feature of mindfulness. With that said, workplace mindfulness differs from work
engagement and its dimensions in subtle, though potentially important ways. Perhaps
most notably, workplace mindfulness is a cognitive construct concerned with the degree
to which one’s attention tends to be focused on a wide breadth of events unfolding in
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 111
one’s work context. By contrast, vigor, dedication and absorption implicate affective
qualities that lack parallel with workplace mindfulness. It is perhaps because of the
affective qualities of these dimensions that work engagement has been compared to
(though differentiated from) attitudinal concepts like job satisfaction, job involvement,
and affective commitment (see Christian at al., 2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008).
When it comes to predicting job performance and turnover intention, we believe these
differences make a difference. Specifically, we expect that workplace mindfulness will
contribute uniquely to each of these work outcomes when controlling for the dimensions
of work engagement. Concerning job performance, researchers have argued that the
effects of work engagement can be understood through a basic observation: engagement
motivates. Insofar as they are invigorated, dedicated, and absorbed by their work, indi-
viduals are likely to exert high levels of effort with the aim of achieving high perfor-
mance (Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008). That is, work engagement should influence the
‘persistence and intensity with which individuals pursue their task performance’
(Christian et al., 2011: 101). Workplace mindfulness, in contrast, should influence per-
formance through pathways that are more cognitive than motivational. As we have
argued, mindfulness enables individuals to attend to a wide range of potentially critical
stimuli in their work environment and guards against performance-related errors and
mishaps. Therefore, while work engagement facilitates performance via increased effort,
workplace mindfulness may spur performance in dynamic environments through the
wide attentional net it casts across unfolding events.
Hypothesis 3: As a predictor of job performance in a dynamic work environment,
workplace mindfulness accounts for variance beyond each dimension of work
engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption).
With respect to turnover intention, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found in a study of
service organization employees that the degree to which one intends to leave one’s organi-
zation was negatively related to all three dimensions of work engagement. Complementing
this finding, scholars have suggested that engaged employees are highly invested in and
identified with their work (e.g. Bakker, 2011; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008). These
employees may be reluctant to abandon their membership in their organization because
this membership provides them the opportunity to perform engaging work. This suggests
that work engagement may influence turnover intention through its effects on organiza-
tional attachment, particularly affective commitment (Macey and Schneider, 2008). In
contrast, and as discussed earlier, mindfulness may influence turnover intention by
enhancing self-regulation and leading people to appraise events with equanimity (Glomb
et al., 2011; Weinstein et al., 2009). As argued, these effects help people cope with the
sources of stress found in dynamic work environments. Therefore, while both work
engagement and workplace mindfulness may be negatively related to turnover intention,
their effects may stem from different mechanisms. This suggests the following.
Hypothesis 4: As a predictor of turnover intention in a dynamic work environment,
workplace mindfulness accounts for variance beyond each dimension of work
engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption).
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
112 Human Relations 67(1)
Method
Research context
To test our hypotheses, we collected survey data from service workers (servers) and
managers in the American restaurant industry. We selected this industry as the context
for our study for several reasons. First, and most fundamentally, the restaurant indus-
try constitutes a workplace domain. This was important because, unlike research on
mindfulness conducted within student and clinical populations, our research required
collecting data from working people. Second, restaurant servers work in a dynamic
environment – the type of environment relevant to our hypotheses. In performing
their work, restaurant servers must pay attention to numerous targets, such as the
customers seated in their sections, the food and drinks consumed by these customers,
and the details of each customer’s order. Moreover, the decisions servers make (e.g.
spending time responding to a customer’s request) shape their subsequent decision
making (e.g. apologizing to other customers for delayed service). Third, although the
overall quality of restaurants in the United States varies widely, the nature of service
work in this industry tends to be relatively similar across many ‘chain-operated’ res-
taurants (see Stamper and Van Dyne, 2001). Thus, we recognized that the common
features of the service work performed within this industry would permit us to com-
bine data from multiple chain restaurants.
Background interviews
To gain a greater understanding of service work in the restaurant industry, the lead
author began this project by interviewing 15 servers (recruited through an industry con-
tact) who worked at a chain-operated restaurant in a large city in the American
Southwest. All interviews were conducted with the voluntary consent of each server, as
well as university-level institutional review board approval, and were transcribed in
their entirety. Sample interview questions included, ‘What are the most challenging
parts of your job?’ ‘What are you paying attention to when you are working?’ and ‘What
makes someone a skillful server?’ These interviews reinforced our perception that res-
taurant servers work in a dynamic environment and highlighted the unrelenting pace of
work in the restaurant industry. Table 1 includes representative quotes that speak to the
dynamism of this line of work.
Besides familiarizing us with the research context, the background interviews helped
us develop survey items to test our hypotheses (see ‘Measures’). For example, in devel-
oping our measure of workplace mindfulness, we selected items that were relevant to the
nature and features of service work performed in the restaurant industry as gleaned from
our interviews. Furthermore, we learned during the course of our interviews that a key
indication of a server’s performance is the size of the section to which he or she is
assigned by a manager. Simply put, managers tend to assign their best servers to the sec-
tions of the restaurant with the most customers (i.e. the busiest sections). Consequently,
we based one of our measures of job performance on this practice of assigning high
performing servers to busy sections.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 113
Participants
We collected survey data from 102 servers across seven chain restaurants in the American
Southwest. We selected these restaurants because they had the same general performance
expectations and role responsibilities for their servers. While occupying the same market
niche as the restaurant in which we conducted background interviews, these seven res-
taurants were separate from that restaurant. With the permission of restaurant managers
(who we contacted through acquaintances who worked in the restaurant industry), as
well as university-level institutional review board approval, we approached servers at
each restaurant during shift changes and asked them to complete a survey questionnaire
as part of our study. The largest number of server participants in any of the restaurants
was 18; the smallest was 8. Of the servers who completed our survey, one provided
incomplete responses to the survey questions. Also, we were unable to obtain perfor-
mance data for three servers. Our analyses are therefore based on the 98 servers for
whom we compiled complete data. Of these servers, 43 were male, 77 were white, 24
had a college degree, and the mean age was 26.5.
Table 1. Restaurant service work: A dynamic environment.
There’s a lot of pressure. We’ve got maybe a hundred things to do and a little time to do it in
. . . You’ve got your traffic, you got other servers running around you . . . If we had blinkers it
would be perfect.
– Server 01 (9 years)
You have food ready [to deliver], you have got to bring out drinks, someone wants a straw,
someone wants extra cocktail sauce, someone is ready for their check. How many hands do
you have?
– Server 02 (6 months)
Let’s say I just ran food for somebody else. And that table, their table tells me, ‘Well I need
this, that, and the other. I need extra this and extra that and that.’ And you don’t see the waiter
around, their waiter around. You go get it for them personally . . . But then, in the meantime,
your tables are waiting there for a minute and a half or two minutes by the time you get there.
‘I’ve been waiting here for like three minutes, man – and nobody’s even talked to me.’
– Server 06 (4 years)
A lot of it has to do with time management. Basically you have to re-tea somebody and you’re
pretty sure that the people are ready for their check. You want to make sure that you’ve got
that check with you when you go to re-tea so you can drop it off. And then on your way back
you pick up the check that’s got the credit card in it. And there’s another table that’s done with
their food. You can pre-bus, put that stuff in the back, run your credit card, go back, and have
another check for that table. That is big time.
– Server 08 (4 months)
I still get really, really, really busy . . . It’s challenging because you’re trying to make every single
guest happy all at that one time. So it is still challenging, you know, to try to keep everyone
happy, you know, when everybody’s demanding here, demanding here, demanding here all at
that one time.
– Server 14 (4 years, 2 months)
Note: Years/months refer to work experience within the focal restaurant.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
114 Human Relations 67(1)
For each server who completed our survey, we collected performance ratings from
one or more restaurant manager. Eight of the servers in our sample were rated by one
manager, 27 were rated by two managers, 53 were rated by three managers, and 10 were
rated by four managers (within each restaurant each server was rated by all managers at
that restaurant who participated in the study). In total, 18 restaurant managers provided
us with performance ratings. Of these managers, 11 were male, 15 were white, 12 had a
college degree, and the mean age was 39.1.
Measures
Workplace mindfulness. Coinciding with the growth of scholarly interest in mindfulness,
researchers have developed a number of self-report measures designed to assess individ-
ual differences in mindfulness (for reviews, see Baer, 2011; Bergomi et al., 2012). One of
the most commonly used measures is the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS:
Brown and Ryan, 2003) – a scale aligned with the conceptualization of mindfulness
advanced here. As opposed to scales developed specifically for use in clinical applications
and interventions (e.g. Walach et al., 2006), the MAAS is geared toward assessing mind-
fulness across a wide range of settings and audiences. While frequently employed in
mindfulness research, the MAAS is not without limitations (Grossman, 2011). For exam-
ple, some of the items that comprise this scale permit very little differentiation across
respondents (Van Dam et al., 2010) and some items may not be relevant to certain respon-
dents or performance settings (e.g. ‘I drive places on “automatic pilot” and then wonder
why I went there.’). These limitations notwithstanding, the items underlying the MAAS
accord with our view that mindfulness entails attunement to present moment events. Fur-
ther, as some have suggested, these items provide a basis for making empirical compari-
sons between mindfulness and other work-related states of consciousness (e.g. ‘mind
wandering’ – see Mrazek et al., 2012). Accordingly, we elected to use items from the
MAAS as a foundation for constructing our measure of workplace mindfulness.
As noted, some of the MAAS items are not relevant to all performance settings. Given
our focus on mindfulness within a specific workplace context, we carefully assessed the
content of each item in the MAAS, considering its relevance to our research context in
light of insights gained through the background interviews described above. For exam-
ple, because many servers discussed work-related errors and mishaps during their inter-
views, we recognized the relevance of the item, ‘I break or spill things because of
carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something else,’ and included it in our
workplace mindfulness scale. In assessing and selecting items based on their relevance
to our research context, we ultimately selected seven items by which to assess workplace
mindfulness (see ‘Appendix’ for a delineation of these items and related details).
Consistent with our focus on mindfulness at work – and reflecting the nature of the work
performed by our participants – we added a stem to these questions: ‘When working as
a server’ (e.g. ‘When working as a server, I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s hap-
pening in the present.’). Our measure of workplace mindfulness demonstrated adequate
internal consistency reliability (α = .73).
Work engagement dimensions. We measured three dimensions of work engagement using
a 17 item scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002). This measure includes sub-scales that
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 115
capture each dimension of work engagement discussed earlier: vigor (6 items), dedication
(5 items), and absorption (6 items). Participants responded to these items on a scale from
1 (never) to 7 (every day). Sample items included, ‘When I get up in the morning, I feel
like going to work’ (vigor), ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’ (dedication), and ‘Time flies
when I am working’ (absorption). As with the reliabilities reported in the scale develop-
ment article (Schaufeli et al., 2002), all three sub-scales demonstrated adequate internal
consistency reliability (vigor: α = .70; dedication: α = .83; absorption: α = .80).
Job performance. Managers rated each server on two performance-related items. First,
managers rated the job performance of the server on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
Second, drawing on a key observation from our background interviews (see above), man-
agers indicated the relative level of section ‘busyness’ they would typically assign to the
server on a scale from 1 (low busyness) to 3 (high busyness). For restaurants in which
multiple managers provided ratings of the same server (six out of seven restaurants; 90 out
of 98 servers), the consistency between managers’ ratings as assessed by intraclass coef-
ficients (ICCs) was generally moderate to high. Thus, we averaged managers’ ratings to
calculate single ratings for each performance-related item. Table 2 provides summary data
for the averaged managers’ ratings – including the mean, standard deviation (SD), and
ICC – of each performance-related item across all seven restaurants. In this table, as well
as the observations that follow, Perform1 refers to the first performance-related item dis-
cussed above (the item based on a 1 to 5 scale) and Perform2 refers to the second perfor-
mance-related item (the item concerning ‘busyness,’ which is based on a 1 to 3 scale).
In principle, the average level of server performance across these restaurants should
be approximately the same because, as previously noted, we purposefully collected all
of our data from restaurants that had the same general performance expectations and
role responsibilities for their servers. Nonetheless, we expected that the mean perfor-
mance ratings – as provided by managers – would vary across restaurants because we
did not have an opportunity to train managers on performance ratings or the patterns of
bias associated with them (e.g. leniency, severity, and central tendency patterns). In
line with this expectation, a one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in mean
performance ratings across restaurants for Perform1 (F(6, 91) = 4.07; p = .001). Post
Table 2. Summary of manager-based server ratings across restaurants.
Restaurant Servers Managers Perform1Perform2
Mean SD ICC Mean SD ICC
1 8 1 3.63 0.52 – 2.38 0.74 –
2 17 3 3.73 0.76 .81 2.31 0.53 .68
3 16 2 4.16 0.77 .62 2.38 0.59 .73
4 18 3 3.62 0.68 .83 2.44 0.40 .66
5 18 3 3.20 0.63 .76 2.41 0.75 .93
6 11 2 3.31 0.78 .77 2.14 0.55 .33
7 10 4 3.05 0.61 .66 2.08 0.57 .76
Note: The low ICC (.33) for Perform2 in Restaurant 6 results from the two managers’ complete disagreement
for one server (i.e. a server received a ‘1’ from one manager and a ‘3’ from the other manager).
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
116 Human Relations 67(1)
hoc comparisons of individual restaurants using the Scheffé correction for multiple
comparisons indicated that the mean rating of Perform1 in Restaurant 3 was signifi-
cantly higher than the mean rating in both Restaurant 5 (p = .020) and Restaurant 7 (p
= .023). While it is possible that the average level of server performance in Restaurant
3 was, in fact, higher than in other restaurants included in our study, it is also possible
that the differences we observed resulted from a leniency bias in Restaurant 3. To
account for this possibility and, more generally, to correct for any possible differences
in how the performance rating scales were interpreted or applied from one restaurant
to the next, we standardized managers’ averaged ratings of Perform1 and Perform2.1
Observing that the standardized ratings of Perform1 and Perform2 are highly correlated
(r = .80), we summed these two variables to create an aggregate measure of job perfor-
mance for each server. The analyses and results that follow are based on this aggregate
measure of job performance.
Turnover intention. We measured turnover intention using a four item scale developed by
Kelloway et al. (1999). Participants responded to these items on a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items included, ‘I am thinking about leaving this
organization’ and ‘I am planning to look for a new job.’ This scale demonstrated ade-
quate internal consistency reliability (α = .88).
Server experience. We included one control variable in our data analysis. Given that
mindfulness may be especially beneficial for domain experts (Dane, 2011), we asked
participants to report the length of time (in months) they had worked as a server for their
employing restaurant as a proxy for expertise within the performance domain.
Construct independence
To examine the empirical distinctiveness of the self-reported focal variables in this
study, we compared three theoretically viable models through confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). Prior to constructing these models, we created item parcels. Item
parceling can help generate stable and efficient indicators of latent constructs (Little
et al., 2002) and has been recommended for studies that feature a relatively large num-
ber of estimated parameters and a relatively small sample size (Landis et al., 2000;
Williams and O’Boyle, 2008). By randomly assigning each item from a given scale
into a parcel associated with that scale, we created 11 parcels (3 parcels for workplace
mindfulness and 2 parcels for vigor, dedication, absorption, and turnover intention)
consisting of two or three items each.
We assessed the fit of each CFA model in line with standards discussed by Hu and
Bentler (1998). In particular, we looked for a model with a root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA) close to .06 and a comparative fit index (CFI) close to .95. In
the first CFA, we tested the fit of a one-factor model, which included all the item parcels.
The fit statistics of this model were poor (χ2(44) = 260.7, p < .001; RMSEA = .224;
CFI = .590). Next, we tested the fit of a three-factor model that treated the three dimen-
sions of work engagement as a single factor. The fit statistics of this model were fairly
poor (χ2(41) = 110.8, p < .001; RMSEA = .132; CFI = .868). Finally, we tested the fit of
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 117
a five-factor model that included workplace mindfulness, vigor, dedication, absorption,
and turnover intention. This model exhibited good fit statistics (χ2(34) = 46.8, p = .071;
RMSEA = .062; CFI = .976). Additionally, the five-factor model fit the data significantly
better than the three-factor model (Δχ2(7) = 64.0, p < .001). These results provide evi-
dence for the discriminant validity of workplace mindfulness and support our decision to
include each dimension of work engagement as a separate factor in our data analysis.
Results
Table 3 presents the correlations between all variables included in our analysis. As seen in
this table, the control variable, server experience, is significantly (and positively) related
to job performance (r = .29, p = .004). The positive yet moderate (and, in one case, not
significant) correlations between workplace mindfulness and the three dimensions of
work engagement – vigor (r = .43, p < .001), dedication (r = .33, p = .001), and absorption
(r = .17, p = .103) – accord with our claim that these constructs are related but distinct.
Further examining Table 3, we see that the correlation between workplace mindfulness
and job performance is positive and significant (r = .23, p = .021). In addition, the correla-
tion between workplace mindfulness and turnover intention is negative and significant
(r = -.25, p = .013), as are the correlations between turnover intention and two dimensions
of work engagement: vigor (r = -.23, p = .022) and dedication (r = -.44, p < .001).
Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive relationship between workplace mindfulness and
job performance. We tested this hypothesis through hierarchical regression (Cohen,
2008). In the first step, we entered server experience; in the second step, we entered
workplace mindfulness (see Table 4). This analysis indicates that workplace mindfulness
is positively related to job performance (β = .22, p = .024). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is
supported.
Hypothesis 2 posited a negative relationship between workplace mindfulness and
turnover intention. We tested this hypothesis through hierarchical regression, first enter-
ing server experience and then entering workplace mindfulness (Table 4). This analysis
reveals that workplace mindfulness is negatively related to turnover intention (β = -.25,
p = .013). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Server experience 24.35 29.57 –
2. Workplace mindfulness 4.38 0.85 .05 .73
3. Vigor 5.87 0.83 −.07 .43** .70
4. Dedication 4.48 1.61 .04 .33** .58** .83
5. Absorption 4.52 1.42 .23* .17 .50** .57** .80
6. Turnover intention 2.51 1.14 .03 −.25*−.23*−.44** −.09 .88
7. Job performance 0.02 1.84 .29** .23*.05 .02 .11 −.20 .89
Note: Internal consistency reliabilities are presented on the diagonal.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
118 Human Relations 67(1)
Hypothesis 3 maintained that, with respect to predicting job performance, workplace
mindfulness accounts for variance unique from that associated with three dimensions of
work engagement – vigor, dedication, and absorption. To test this hypothesis, we again
used hierarchical regression (see Table 5). In this case, we entered server experience in
the first step and entered the three work engagement dimensions in the second step. In
the third step, we entered workplace mindfulness. As this analysis indicates, workplace
mindfulness is positively related to job performance (β = .25, p = .024) when accounting
for the effects of vigor, dedication, and absorption (as well as server experience). Thus,
Hypothesis 3 is supported.
Hypothesis 4 submitted that, with respect to predicting turnover intention, workplace
mindfulness accounts for variance unique from that associated with each dimension of
work engagement. We tested this hypothesis through the same three-step method of hier-
archical regression described above and found that the negative relationship between
workplace mindfulness and turnover intention becomes insignificant (β = -.12; p = .260)
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis.
Predictor Job performance Turnover intention
ΔR2βΔR2β
Step 1 .084** .001
Server experience .28** .04
Step 2 .048*.063*
Workplace
mindfulness
.22*−.25*
Total R2.132** .064*
Note: Beta weights are standardized and refer to the full model.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis.
Job performance Turnover intention
Predictor ΔR2βΔR2β
Step 1 .084** .001
Server experience .27*.00
Step 2 .007 .232**
Vigor −.02 .01
Dedication −.11 −.54**
Absorption .07 .23
Step 3 .049*.010
Workplace mindfulness .25*−.12
Total R2.140*.243**
Note: Beta weights are standardized and refer to the full model.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 119
when accounting for the effects of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Table 5). Thus,
Hypothesis 4 is not supported. On a final note, it is worth observing that, as shown in
Table 5, dedication is negatively and significantly related to turnover intention (β = -.54,
p < .001).2
Discussion
Despite surging interest in mindfulness across several fields of study, organizational
scholars have paid little attention to individual-level mindfulness and its consequences in
the workplace. Addressing this oversight, we examined workplace mindfulness – the
degree to which individuals are mindful in a given work context – and investigated its
relations to job performance and turnover intention in a dynamic work environment. We
found support for a positive relationship between workplace mindfulness and job perfor-
mance that remains significant even when accounting for the influence of three dimen-
sions of work engagement on performance. Further, we found support for a negative
relationship between workplace mindfulness and turnover intention, though this rela-
tionship becomes insignificant when the dimensions of work engagement are accounted
for. Finally, and consistent with prior research, we found that a specific dimension of
work engagement, dedication, is negatively related to turnover intention. Collectively,
these findings carry implications worth considering.
To begin, through this study we demonstrated a positive relationship between work-
place mindfulness and job performance. While recent research has linked the mindful-
ness of leaders to the performance of followers (Reb et al., 2012) and connected
mindfulness and job performance through a spirituality framework (Petchsawang and
Duchon, 2012), to our knowledge no empirical research has investigated the effects of
mindfulness on performance in a dynamic workplace context. Addressing this defi-
ciency, our study provides support for the previously untested claim that, in dynamic
work environments, mindfulness facilitates job performance (Dane, 2011). Thus, our
results show why organizational scholars and managers should care about mindfulness
– namely, because it relates to an outcome associated with the bottom line.
In spotlighting performance-related benefits of mindfulness in the workplace, our
study contributes to an emerging body of organizational scholarship concerned with
attention (for a review, see Ocasio, 2011). As such work suggests, various forms of atten-
tion can be assessed in terms of specific qualities or features (Levinthal and Rerup, 2006;
Rerup, 2009; Weick and Sutcliffe, 2006). Mindfulness, for example, is concerned with
attending to the present moment while maintaining a wide breadth of attention (Dane,
2011). While scholars have documented numerous benefits of achieving and maintaining
the qualities of attention that characterize mindfulness (see Glomb et al., 2011), research
indicates that the human mind is prone to wander away from the present and take hold of
any number of objects including memories of the past or thoughts about the future
(Gilbert and Wilson, 2007; Smallwood and Schooler, 2006). In light of the mind’s ten-
dency to wander, we view mindfulness (in the workplace and elsewhere) as a remarkable
feat: situating the mind in present moment time despite psychological pressures to the
contrary. In performing this mental feat in a dynamic work environment, individuals
attend to a number of stimuli and events and, as a result, perform effectively.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
120 Human Relations 67(1)
Buttressing the case for a positive relationship between workplace mindfulness and
job performance, our results suggest that this relationship cannot be dismissed as an
artifact of the link between work engagement and job performance that has been identi-
fied in previous research. As our data show, workplace mindfulness is significantly
related to job performance even when accounting for all three dimensions of work
engagement. This suggests that in at least some work environments, there is value not
only in being engaged by one’s work, but also in focusing attention mindfully. More
specifically, in the context of restaurant service work, mindfulness appears to be an
important (though perhaps unheralded) determinant of job performance – a finding that
challenges the notion that in service work settings (and elsewhere), performance is pri-
marily a matter of enthusiasm, passion, and other manifestations of work engagement
(see Boverie and Kroth, 2001; Robinson, 2009).
That being said, we find it curious that none of the dimensions of work engagement
were significantly related to job performance in our research context, particularly given
previous research findings concerning the engagement/performance link (see Christian
et al., 2011). While discussion along these lines is necessarily speculative, we believe
that certain features of the research context may have contributed to our results. Notably,
as we learned through our background interviews, some aspects of working as a server
may be engaging but not especially relevant to performance. On this point, several serv-
ers mentioned that, while at work, they routinely engage in social activities that are
energizing but not performance related (e.g. gossiping and flirting). This suggests that
within a given job, organization, or occupation, the strength of the link between work
engagement and job performance may depend on how closely tied the activities prompt-
ing engagement are to job performance itself.
It is also worth noting that a specific dimension of work engagement – dedication –
was significantly and negatively related to turnover intention. This result aligns with
previous research findings (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) and thus provides some level of
assurance that study participants understood and provided thoughtful responses to the
work engagement items. If this were not the case, the absence of significant relationships
between the dimensions of work engagement and job performance could be explained
and dismissed on methodological grounds. Thus, our results concerning turnover inten-
tion help to rule out an alternative explanation for the job performance results.
From an organizational perspective, our study hints at the importance of helping
workers develop greater mindfulness. After all, our data indicate that workplace mind-
fulness is not only positively related to job performance, but also predictive of the
degree to which individuals are attached to their employer (as measured by turnover
intention). As noted earlier, research suggests that as a result of specific forms of train-
ing, practice, or experience, individuals may become more adept at focusing attention
mindfully within a given performance context (e.g. Hülsheger et al., 2013). In particu-
lar, scholars have demonstrated the utility of meditation-based programs, such as
mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR; see Kabat-Zinn, 2003), designed to help
people focus attention on the present (see Hölzel et al., 2011, for a neural perspective
on mindfulness meditation). Insofar as workplace mindfulness can be improved
through training, this concept differs in notable respects from other individual-level
antecedents to job performance, such as cognitive ability (Kuncel et al., 2004) and
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 121
personality (Barrick and Mount, 1991), which are often depicted as relatively stable
and enduring attributes. With that said, consistent with our individual differences per-
spective on workplace mindfulness, we expect that some individuals are more mindful
at work than others owing to dispositional tendencies (see Brown and Ryan, 2003).
Consequently, we see potential in research that examines not only whether or to what
degree workplace mindfulness can be developed through training, but also whether
such training benefits some individuals more than others.
Limitations and future research directions
Given that our results are based on cross-sectional data, questions remain concerning the
causal direction of the relationships between workplace mindfulness and job perfor-
mance and turnover intention, respectively. Although we developed our hypotheses con-
cerning these relationships theoretically, it is possible that these relationships may work
in the opposite direction (i.e. the more strongly individuals intend to leave their organiza-
tion, the less mindful they are). Longitudinal research may help unpack issues concern-
ing causal directionality.
Next, research is needed to determine whether the relationships between workplace
mindfulness and the work outcomes we studied hold in other work settings, including
dynamic environments beyond the restaurant industry, as well as less dynamic – or static
– settings. In carrying out such research, scholars could investigate relationships between
workplace mindfulness and various dimensions of job performance. That is, given that
we used a global measure of job performance in our study, researchers could connect
workplace mindfulness to more specific components of performance, including contex-
tual work performance and counterproductive work behavior (for distinctions, see
Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002).
Along related lines, scholars could examine whether or how workplace mindfulness
relates to other work outcomes of interest to organizations and their members. Although
research suggests that mindfulness fosters ethical decision making (Ruedy and
Schweitzer, 2010), enhances creativity (Ostafin and Kassman, 2012), and improves the
accuracy of affective forecasting (Emanuel et al., 2010), little if any research has inves-
tigated connections between mindfulness and these outcomes in work settings. In dem-
onstrating relationships between workplace mindfulness and work-related outcomes
including but not limited to those noted above, scholars could demarcate the range of
outcomes pertinent to workplace mindfulness and illuminate further the benefits – and,
perhaps, the limitations – of mindfulness in organizations.
Finally, while our study assesses workplace mindfulness and its consequences, our
methodology does not permit us to account for why individuals differ in workplace
mindfulness. As suggested above, we believe workplace mindfulness is partially attribut-
able to dispositional differences in mindfulness though, consistent with scholarly obser-
vations (Glomb et al., 2011; Weick and Putnam, 2006), we also believe workplace
mindfulness can also be developed through training. Through future research, scholars
could investigate connections between mindfulness training and workplace mindfulness
and thus examine the degree to which workplace mindfulness, as an intra-person
attribute, is malleable.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
122 Human Relations 67(1)
Conclusion
Although research across several disciplines is rife with interest in mindfulness, research
on mindfulness from a workplace standpoint has lagged well behind other lines of mind-
fulness-related investigation. In examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to
job performance and turnover intention in a dynamic work environment, our study helps
to reduce key theoretical and empirical blind spots in this area and highlights the impor-
tance of conducting further research on mindfulness in work settings. Through such
research, organizational scholars may not only maintain pace with other lines of mindful-
ness inquiry, but also help chart the course of this burgeoning field of study.
Acknowledgements
For their insightful feedback on earlier versions of this paper, we thank Tammy Allen, Joyce Bono,
Reeshad Dalal, Hannes Leroy, Fred Oswald, Seth Spain, Kerrie Unsworth, and the participants of
the OB Seminar Series at Washington University in St. Louis, USA. We also thank Brandon
Jordan, Andrew Schiller, and Alex Jackson for their assistance with data collection.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Notes
1 The correlations between the non-standardized and standardized ratings are .85 for Perform1
and .93 for Perform2.
2 In addition to the analyses reported here, we tested for two-way interactions between work-
place mindfulness and server experience with regard to job performance and turnover inten-
tion. Neither of these interactions was significant. We also tested for two-way interactions
between workplace mindfulness and each dimension of work engagement with regard to job
performance and turnover intention. None of these interactions was significant either. Also,
we should note that, besides controlling for server experience, we included a measure of
conscientiousness in our study (a scale adopted from John and Srivastava, 1999). Perhaps not
surprisingly – given robust support for a link between conscientiousness and job performance
(Barrick and Mount, 1991) – we found that adding conscientiousness to the regression analy-
ses reported here reduces the strength of the relationship between workplace mindfulness and
job performance, such that this relationship becomes statistically insignificant. Of course, as
we have discussed, this study was not intended to show that workplace mindfulness accounts
for variance beyond conscientiousness; rather, our intent was to demonstrate significant per-
formance-related effects of workplace mindfulness over and above the dimensions of work
engagement.
Appendix
Workplace mindfulness scale: Restaurant service work
Below is a collection of statements about your work experience. Please answer according
to what really reflects your work experience rather than what you think your experience
should be.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 123
When working as a server . . .
1. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of
something else.
2. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.
3. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I
experience along the way.
4. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.
5. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
6. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.
7. I find myself doing things without paying attention.
In line with Brown and Ryan (2003), participants responded to these items using the fol-
lowing scale: 1 (almost always); 2 (very frequently); 3 (somewhat frequently); 4 (some-
what infrequently); 5 (very infrequently); 6 (almost never). This implies that an individual
who responds ‘almost never’ to the items listed above is high in workplace mindfulness
and an individual who responds ‘almost always’ to these items is low in workplace
mindfulness.
References
Allen TD and Kiburz KM (2012) Trait mindfulness and work-family balance among working
parents: The mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior
80(2): 372–379.
Atkins PWB and Parker SK (2012) Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The
role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review 37(4):
524–546.
Baer RA (2011) Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism 12(1): 241–261.
Baer RA, Smith GT, Hopkins J, Krietemeyer J and Toney L (2006) Using self-report assessment
methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment 13(1): 27–45.
Bakker AB (2011) An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science 20(4): 265–269.
Bakker AB, Albrecht SL and Leiter MP (2011) Key questions regarding work engagement. Euro-
pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20(1): 4–28.
Bakker AB, Demerouti E and Schaufeli WB (2005) The crossover of burnout and work engage-
ment among working couples. Human Relations 58(5): 661–689.
Bakker AB, Tims M and Derks D (2012) Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations 65(10): 1359–1378.
Barrick MR and Mount MK (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1–26.
Begley TM (1998) Coping strategies as predictors of employee distress and turnover after an
organizational consolidation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71(4):
305–329.
Bergomi C, Tschacher W and Kupper Z (2012) The assessment of mindfulness with self-report
measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness. Available at: http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007%2Fs12671-012-0110-9.
Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, Carlson L, Anderson ND, Carmody J, Segal ZV, Abbey S, Speca
M, Velting D and Devins G (2004) Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice 11(3): 230–241.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
124 Human Relations 67(1)
Boverie PE and Kroth M (2001) Transforming Work: The Five Keys to Achieving Trust, Commit-
ment, & Passion in the Workplace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Brehmer B (1992) Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psycho-
logica 81(3): 211–241.
Brown KW and Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psy-
chological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(4): 822–848.
Brown KW, Ryan RM and Creswell JD (2007) Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence
for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry 18(4): 211–237.
Burke CA (2010) Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: A preliminary
review of current research in an emergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies 19(2):
133–144.
Cardador MT, Dane E and Pratt MG (2011) Linking calling orientations to organizational attach-
ment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior 79(2): 367–378.
Carlson EN (2013) Overcoming the barriers to self-knowledge: Mindfulness as a path to seeing
yourself as you really are. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(2): 173–186.
Christian MS, Garza AS and Slaughter JE (2011) Work engagement: A quantitative review and test
of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology 64(1): 89–136.
Cohen BH (2008) Explaining Psychological Statistics, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Crawford ER, Lepine JA and Rich BL (2010) Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied
Psychology 95(5): 834–848.
Creswell JD, Way BM, Eisenberger NI and Lieberman MD (2007) Neural correlates of disposi-
tional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine 69(6): 560–565.
Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
Dane E (2011) Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the work-
place. Journal of Management 37(4): 997–1018.
Dane E (2013) Things seen and unseen: Investigating experience-based qualities of attention in a
dynamic work setting. Organization Studies 34(1): 45–78.
Davidson RJ, Kabat-Zinn J, Schumacher J, Rosenkranz M, Muller D, Santorelli SF, Urbanowski
F, Harrington A, Bonus K and Sheridan JF (2003) Alterations in brain and immune function
produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine 65(4): 564–570.
Elsbach KD and Pratt MG (2007) The physical environment in organizations. Academy of Man-
agement Annals 1(1): 181–224.
Emanuel AS, Updegraff JA, Kalmbach DA and Ciesla JA (2010) The role of mindfulness facets in
affective forecasting. Personality and Individual Differences 49(7): 815–818.
Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors
37(1): 32–64.
Epstein RM (1999) Mindful practice. Journal of the American Medical Association 282(9):
833–839.
Fehr R and Gelfand MJ (2012) The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness at
work. Academy of Management Review 37(4): 664–688.
George JM (2009) The illusion of will in organizational behavior research: Nonconscious pro-
cesses and job design. Journal of Management 35(6): 1318–1339.
Gilbert DT and Wilson TD (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science 317(5843):
1351–1354.
Giluk TL (2009) Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis. Personality and
Individual Differences 47(8): 805–811.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 125
Glomb TM, Duffy MK, Bono JE and Yang T (2011) Mindfulness at work. Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management 30: 115–157.
Gonzalez C (2005) Decision support for real-time, dynamic decision-making tasks. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 96(2): 142–154.
González-Romá V, Schaufeli WB, Bakke AB and Lloret S (2006) Burnout and work engagement:
Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(1): 165–174.
Grossman P (2011) Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during every-
day awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness:
Comment on Brown et al. (2011). Psychological Assessment 23(4): 1034–1040.
Halbesleben JRB (2010) A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources, and consequences. In: Bakker AB and Leiter MP (eds) Work Engage-
ment: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York: Psychology Press, 102–117.
Halbesleben JRB and Wheeler AR (2008) The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in
predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress 22(3): 242–256.
Herndon F (2008) Testing mindfulness with perceptual and cognitive factors: External vs. inter-
nal encoding, and the cognitive failures questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences
44(1): 32–41.
Hölzel BK, Lazar SW, Gard T, Schuman-Olivier Z, Vago DR and Ott U (2011) How does mind-
fulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural per-
spective. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(6): 537–559.
Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.
Hülsheger UR, Alberts HJEM, Feinholdt A and Lang JWB (2013) Benefits of mindfulness at
work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfac-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(2): 310–325.
John OP and Srivastava S (1999) The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theo-
retical perspectives. In: Pervin L and John OP (eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and
Research, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford, 102–138.
Kabat-Zinn J (2003) Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clini-
cal Psychology: Science and Practice 10(2): 144–156.
Kabat-Zinn J (2005) Wherever You Go There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life.
New York: Hyperion.
Kahn WA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal 33(4): 692–724.
Kahn WA (1992) To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations 45(4):
321–349.
Kelloway EK, Gottlieb BH and Barham L (1999) The source, nature, and direction of work and
family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational and Health Psychology
4(4): 337–346.
Kemery ER, Mossholder KW and Bedeian AG (1987) Role stress, physical symptomology, and
turnover intentions: A causal analysis of three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupa-
tional Behaviour 8(1): 11–23.
Kiken LG and Shook NJ (2011) Looking up: Mindfulness increases positive judgments and
reduces negativity bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2(4): 425–431.
Klein G (1998) Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA and Ones DS (2004) Academic performance, career potential, creativity,
and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 86(1): 148–161.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
126 Human Relations 67(1)
Lakey CE, Campbell WK, Brown KW and Goodie AS (2007) Dispositional mindfulness as a
predictor of the severity of gambling outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences 43(7):
1698–1710.
Landis RS, Beal DJ and Tesluk PE (2000) A comparison of approaches to forming composite mea-
sures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods 3(2): 186–207.
Lau MA, Bishop SR, Segal ZV, Buis T, Anderson ND, Carlson L, Shapiro S and Carmody J
(2006) The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology 62(12): 1445–1467.
Lee RA (2012) Accelerating the development and mitigating derailment of high potential through
mindfulness training. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 49(3): 23–34.
Leroy H, Anseel F, Dimitrova NG and Sels L (2013) Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and
work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior 82(3):
238–247.
Levinthal D and Rerup C (2006) Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful
perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science 17(4): 502–513.
Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G and Widaman KF (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Explor-
ing the question, weighting the merits. Structural Equation Modeling 9(2): 151–173.
Macey WH and Schneider B (2008) The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology 1(1): 3–30.
Masicampo EJ and Baumeister RF (2007) Relating mindfulness and self-regulatory processes.
Psychological Inquiry 18(4): 255–258.
May DR, Gilson RL and Harter LM (2004) The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology 77(1): 11–37.
Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L and Topolnytsky L (2002) Affective, continuance, and nor-
mative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and con-
sequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61(1): 20–52.
Moore A and Malinowski P (2009) Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility. Conscious-
ness and Cognition 18(1): 176–186.
Motowidlo SJ (2003) Job performance. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR and Klimoski RJ (eds) Hand-
book of Psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,
39–53.
Motowidlo SJ and Van Scotter J (1994) Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(4): 475–480.
Mrazek MD, Smallwood J and Schooler JW (2012) Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding
convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion 12(3): 442–448.
Napoli M, Krech PR and Holley LC (2005) Mindfulness training for elementary school students.
Journal of Applied School Psychology 21(1): 99–125.
Niemiec CP, Brown KW, Kashdan TB, Cozzolino PJ, Breen WE, Levesque-Bristol C and Ryan
RM (2010) Being present in the face of existential threat: The role of trait mindfulness in
reducing defensive responses to mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 99(2): 344–365.
Ocasio W (2011) Attention to attention. Organization Science 22(5): 1286–1296.
Ostafin BD and Kassman KT (2012) Stepping out of history: Mindfulness improves insight prob-
lem solving. Consciousness and Cognition 21(2): 1031–1036.
Papies EK, Barsalou LW and Custers R (2012) Mindful attention prevents mindless impulses.
Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(3): 291–299.
Petchsawang P and Duchon D (2012) Workplace spirituality, meditation, and work performance.
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 9(2): 189–208.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Dane and Brummel 127
Quinn RW (2005) Flow in knowledge work: High performance experience in the design of national
security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(4): 610–641.
Reb J, Narayanan J and Chaturvedi S (2012) Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of
supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness. Available
at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/3320.
Reid D (2011) Mindfulness and flow in occupational engagement: Presence in doing. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy 78(1): 50–56.
Rerup C (2009) Attentional triangulation: Learning from unexpected rare crises. Organization
Science 20(5): 876–893.
Rich BL, LePine JA and Crawford ER (2010) Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of Management Journal 53(3): 617–635.
Robinson K (2009) The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. New York: Viking.
Rothbard NP (2001) Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family
roles. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4): 655–684.
Rotundo M and Sackett PR (2002) The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterpro-
ductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology 87(1): 66–80.
Ruedy NE and Schweitzer ME (2010) In the moment: The effects of mindfulness on ethical deci-
sion making. Journal of Business Ethics 95(1): 73–87.
Salanova M, Agut S and Peiró JM (2005) Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology 90(6): 1217–1227.
Salanova M, Bakker AB and Llorens S (2006) Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of
personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies 7(1): 1–22.
Santorelli S (1999) Heal Thy Self: Lessons on Mindfulness in Medicine. New York: Random
House.
Schaufeli WB and Bakker AB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burn-
out and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(3): 293–315.
Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V and Bakker AB (2002) The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies 3(1): 71–92.
Schaufeli WB, Taris TW and Van Rhenen W (2008) Workaholism, burnout, and work engage-
ment: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology
57(2): 173–203.
Shao R and Skarlicki DP (2009) The role of mindfulness in predicting individual performance.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 41(4): 195–201.
Shapiro SL, Brown KW and Biegel GM (2007) Teaching self-care to caregivers: Effects of mind-
fulness-based stress reduction on the mental health of therapists in training. Training and Edu-
cation in Professional Psychology 1(2): 105–115.
Shapiro SL, Carlson LE, Astin JA and Freedman B (2006) Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal
of Clinical Psychology 62(3): 373–386.
Shapiro SL, Oman D, Thoresen CE, Plante TG and Flinders T (2008) Cultivating mindfulness:
Effects on well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology 64(7): 840–862.
Smallwood J and Schooler JW (2006) The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin 132(6): 946–958.
Stamper CL and Van Dyne L (2001) Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field
study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(5): 517–536.
Van Dam NT, Earleywine M and Borders A (2010) Measuring mindfulness? An item response
theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences 49(7): 805–810.
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
128 Human Relations 67(1)
Vogus TJ (2011) Mindful organizing: Establishing and extending the foundations of highly reli-
able performance. In: Cameron KS and Spreitzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive
Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 664–676.
Vogus TJ and Sutcliffe KM (2012) Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: A recon-
ciliation and path forward. Academy of Management Learning and Education 11(4): 722–735.
Vogus TJ and Welbourne TM (2003) Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and mind-
ful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(7):
877–903.
Walach H, Buchheld N, Buttenmüller V, Kleinknecht N and Schmidt S (2006) Measuring mind-
fulness – the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences
40(8): 1543–1555.
Watson D, Clark LA and Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 54(6): 1063–1070.
Weick KE and Putnam T (2006) Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern wisdom and western knowl-
edge. Journal of Management Inquiry 15(3): 275–287.
Weick KE and Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on
flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3): 357–381.
Weick KE and Sutcliffe KM (2006) Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Orga-
nization Science 17(4): 514–524.
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (1999) Organizing for high reliability: Processes of col-
lective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior 21: 81–123.
Weinstein N, Brown KW and Ryan RM (2009) A multi-method examination of the effects of
mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. Journal of Research in
Personality 43(3): 374–385.
Williams LJ and O’Boyle EH (2008) Measurement models for linking latent variables and indi-
cators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human Resource
Management Review 18(4): 233–242.
Zeidan F, Johnson SK, Diamond BJ, David Z and Goolkasian P (2010) Mindfulness meditation
improves cognitive functioning: Evidence of brief mental training. Consciousness and Cogni-
tion 19(2): 597–605.
Zhong CB and House J (2012) Hawthorne revisited: Organizational implications of the physical
work environment. Research in Organizational Behavior 32: 3–22.
Erik Dane is Assistant Professor of Management at the Jesse H Jones Graduate School of Business,
Rice University, USA. He received his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
USA. His research focuses on cognition in the workplace and addresses topics such as mindfulness,
intuition, and expertise. His work has been published in journals including Academy of Management
Review, Journal of Management, Organization Studies, and Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. [Email: erikdane@rice.edu]
Bradley J Brummel is Assistant Professor of Psychology at The University of Tulsa, USA. He is
also a research affiliate of The University of Tulsa’s Institute for Information Security. He received
his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. His research interests include
training and development using simulations and role-plays, job attitude structure and incremental
validity, and individual differences in the workplace. His work has appeared in journals such as
Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Psychologist-Manager Journal, and Science and
Engineering Ethics. [Email: bradley-brummel@utulsa.edu]
by guest on July 7, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
