Content uploaded by Connie Shao-mei Zheng
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Connie Shao-mei Zheng on Jul 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
AOM#12210
1
!
!
Mindfulness and Work Engagement: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Flourishing
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to apply the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions to
examine the mediating effect of psychological flourishing on the relationship between
mindfulness and work engagement. With a sample of 229 employees, path analysis with
structural equation modelling (SEM) was conducted to test the direct and indirect factors
influencing both psychological flourishing and work engagement. In particular, the study
evaluates the extent to which psychological flourishing meditates the relationship between
mindfulness and work engagement. It is found that individual exercises of being mindful and
organisational mindfulness programs had direct effects on the level of employee mindfulness,
but indirectly influenced psychological flourishing. Increased levels of mindfulness as a
construct led to an enhanced level of individual psychological flourishing, which strongly
mediated the effect of mindfulness on work engagement. Theoretical and practical implications
are discussed with reference to building personal resources and positive emotions that could
help individuals to achieve psychological flourishing, and organisations to enhance work
engagement.
Key words: Mindfulness, Psychological Flourishing, Work Engagement, Employee Well-
being, Mediating effect, Structural Equation Modelling.
AOM#12210
2
!
!
Mindfulness and Work Engagement: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Flourishing
1. Introduction
Although a body of work investigating the relationship between mindfulness and work
engagement has emerged in recent years (e.g., Leroy et al., 2013; Reb et al., 2014; Malinowski
& Lim, 2015), little is known about the underlying factors that may have interacted with both
individual mindfulness awareness and organisational provision of mindfulness programs (such
as meditation, yoga and stress-reduction & mindfulness training programs), which aim at
reducing employee stress, and increasing workplace engagement (Leroy et al., 2013; Aiken et
al., 2014; Allen et al., 2015). It is believed that for mindfulness to be effective in the workplace,
individual employees need to channel their mindfulness into generating positive emotions and
resources that can be utilised to create a high level of work engagement (Fredrickson, 2004;
Catalino & Fredrickson, 2011; Malinowski & Lim, 2015). The broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions, developed by Fredrickson (2001), defines psychological flourishing as a
state of optimal mental health of individuals who feel good, not only about themselves, but also
about their potential to contribute to the world around them in positive ways (Keyes, 2007). It
is believed that an increased level of positive emotions can help ease the stress level and
enhance employee engagement (Dawkins et al., 2013; Malinowski & Lim, 2015). However
how positive emotions derived from psychological flourishing of employees impact on work
engagement is less clear. Thus, the current study aims to explore the mediating effect of
psychological flourishing on the relationship between mindfulness practices and work
engagement.
Prior studies (e.g. Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Rayton & Yalabik, 2014; Malinowski
& Lim, 2015) generally reach a consensus that there is a limited variance explaining the direct
effects of mindfulness on work engagement. Meaningful research on examining the
AOM#12210
3
!
!
relationship between mindfulness and engagement lie in exploring the underlying factors that
indirectly influence work engagement (Malinowski & Lim, 2015). Several studies have
attempted to examine the factors such as authentic functioning (e.g. Leroy et al., 2013);
psychological contract (e.g. Rayton et al., 2014); hope and optimism (e.g. Malinowski & Lim,
2015), and spirituality (Roof, 2015; Petchsawang & McLean, 2017) that mediate the
relationship between mindfulness and work engagement. Psychological flourishing has
emerged as an effective factor for organisations to develop engaged employees (Bakker &
Schaufeli, 2008), and as a complementary strategy to promote and protect employee’s mental
health (Keynes, 2007). In more recent years, psychological flourishing has also been treated as
a new well-being measure (Diener et al., 2010) and as an outcome of stress-reduction training
(Feicht et al., 2013) and of meditation and mindfulness practice (Davis & Bjornberg, 2015).
Yet there remains a key research question on how effective does psychological flourishing
mediate the relationship between mindfulness and engagement? The current study intends to
address this research question.
2. Literature review & hypotheses development
Mindfulness is defined as “a way of orienting one’s self to the present moment” that
involves “maintaining awareness on one’s immediate experience” without an attitude of
judgement (Thompson &and Waltz, 2007, p. 1875-6). Mindfulness was reported to benefit
individuals and organisations in a number of ways as it enhances organisational learning
(Levinthal & Rerup, 2006); reduces employee turnover (Dane, 2011; Dane & Brummel, 2013;
Reb et al., 2014); increases job satisfaction (Hulsheger et al., 2013) and employee well-being
(Mellow et al., 2016; Zivnuska et al., 2015). However, the relationship between mindfulness
and work engagement is less investigated, especially with reference to examine the underlying
factors that would influence the role played by mindfulness in helping achieve a desirable level
AOM#12210
4
!
!
of work engagement.
Work engagement is “an act of expressing preferred self through the simultaneous
investment of cognitive and affective energies into role performance that promotes connections
to work and others” (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). Because of its relationship to role performance of
individual employees, and its close connection with organisation and group members, work
engagement is considered as a critical determinant of organisational success (Ghadi et al., 2012;
Kahn, 1990; Malinowski & Lim, 2015; Rich et al., 2010). Therefore, exploring both direct and
indirect effects of various factors contributing to work engagement has been a main interest for
both academics and practitioners alike.
Flourishing is a key concept in the area of positive psychology, which focuses on
personal strengths and the way they contribute to psychological well-being. Positive
psychology seeks to understand and encourage human flourishing (Seligman &
Czikszentmihalyi, 2000), defined as the capacity to utilise the optimal range of human
functioning, performance, growth and generativity (Frederickson & Losada, 2005; Larsen &
Prizmic, 2008). Thus, psychological flourishing is referred to as individuals having a state of
optimal mental health (Keyes, 2007). With reference to the workplace and in the organisational
setting, employees who flourish feel good about themselves and also about their abilities to
contribute to workplace and community. Catalino and Fredrickson (2011) apply the broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001) to explain how people could flourish
through experiencing an increased level of positive emotions generated by pleasant events, and
via the building of positive personal resources over a period of time. These positive emotions
and personal resources are treated as psychological capital (Dawkins et al., 2013), assumed to
be closely associated with mindfulness obtained from individual mindfulness awareness and
organisational mindfulness training programs. Psychological capital gained through
mindfulness awareness and training helps contribute to work engagement, employee well-
AOM#12210
5
!
!
being and performance (Catalino & Fredrickson, 2011; Glomb et al., 2011; Demerouti et al.,
2001; 2015; Malinowski & Lim, 2015).
Below we further detail how individual mindfulness awareness and organisational
provision of mindfulness programs contribute to enhance the level of mindfulness and
psychological flourishihg. This is followed by a development of hypotheses on the mediating
effect of psychological flourishing on the relationship between mindfulness and work
engagement.
Individual mindfulness awareness and organisational provision of mindfulness programs
It is argued that mindfulness at the organisational level can be achieved through two
channels; individually-initiated mindfulness practices, and organisationally-promoted
mindfulness training programs (Kabat-Zinn, 2000; Bishop et al., 2004; Wallach et al., 2007;
Irving et al., 2009; Chambers et al., 2011; Hyland et al., 2015; Mellor et al., 2016). It is
commonly known that individual mindfulness awareness can be enhanced by the offer of
organisational mindfulness training programs. For instance, Irving et al. (2009) investigated
the experiences of six focus groups consisting of twenty-six healthcare professionals over the
course of two years, and found that all participants obtained the enhancement of mindful
awareness following the mindfulness training. Participants also reflected on the group
experience during the mindfulness training program, reporting that the group structure of the
program facilitated individual mindful awareness, which, in turn, inspired them to persist with
the program. In addition, participants also identified self-regulated practice of mindfulness as
a causal condition for enhanced mindfulness. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H1: Individual mindfulness awareness will be enhanced by more provision of
organisational mindfulness training programs;
AOM#12210
6
!
!
H1a: Individual mindfulness awareness enhanced by organisational mindfulness
training programs increases the level of mindfulness.
This notion of increased mindfulness practices by individuals resulting from provision
of organisational mindfulness training programs is also supported by another qualitative study
by Wallach et al. (2007) who explored the experiences of employees following a mindfulness
training program. Wallach and colleagues (2007) focused on the acceptance of a mindfulness-
based training program for stress reduction (MBSR), and perceptions of the effectiveness of
the MBSR program. Among 185 employees within a service centre who were offered the
MBSR training program, only 29 employees volunteered to participate in the program. Ninety-
one percent of those participants found the mindfulness training to be effective and useful and
would be willing to share the results and invite their colleagues to participate in the future
programs. When asked about changes in their level of mindfulness, participants perceived their
positive changes of being more mindful as a result of the MBSR training program (Walach et
al., 2007).
A similar study by Chambers and colleagues (2011) investigated the long-term impact
of both individual and organisational mindfulness training programs on a group of newly
practising counsellors and psychotherapists (N=16). Participants had previously taken a course
on mindfulness and self-care before joining the organisation as practising counsellors and
psychotherapists. Chambers et al. (2011) revealed that 13 out of the 16 participants experienced
an on-going mindful awareness as a result of the mindfulness program that they had voluntarily
undertaken, even six years later in some cases; and that the enhanced level of mindfulness
benefited the participants in their personal and professional lives on an on-going basis. This
process demonstrated that individual mindfulness awareness continued to be connected to the
AOM#12210
7
!
!
organisational mindfulness program that was undertaken due to an initial individual interest in
mindfulness (Chambers, et al., 2011).
The effectiveness of mindfulness-based training programs has been the focus of many
meta-analyses (e.g., Allen et. al., 2015; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009; Dimidjian & Segal, 2015;
Gotink, et. al., 2015; Sedlmeier et. al., 2012) and reviews of the mindfulness literature (Glomb,
Duffy, Bono & Yang, 2011; Hyland, Lee & Mills, 2015) in recent years. Although
methodological problems have been identified when comparing and analysing mindfulness
intervention studies (Hyland et al., 2015; Jamieson & Tuckey, 2016; Sedlmeier, et. al., 2012),
the general consensus has been that both individual and organisational mindfulness-based
interventions do increase the level of mindfulness in participants (Dimidjian & Segal, 2015).
Therefore, it is proposed that:
H2a & 2b: Both individual and organisational efforts in creating mindfulness awareness
and training increase the level of mindfulness.
Mindfulness and psychological flourishing
Both individual and organisational efforts in creating mindfulness awareness and training
opportunities can help form a vital link to positive psychology, organisational psychology, and
subsequently to psychological flourishing. According to Davis and Bjornberg (2015), there are
hundreds of meditation and mindfulness techniques that can be practised by individuals to
improve self-monitoring of emotions and reduced negative emotions. Organisational
mindfulness training programs are also associated with developing employees’ self-monitoring
abilities to reduce negative emotions (Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012).
In relation to human/psychological flourishing, Feicht et al. (2013) applied the broaden-
and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001) to test the effectiveness of a seven-week internet-based
happiness and mindfulness training program in improving the well-being of 147 employees.
AOM#12210
8
!
!
The authors found that happiness, well-being, mindfulness and flourishing increased
significantly for the intervention group, whereas no significant effects were shown for the
control group. The strongest correlation between study variables existed between mindfulness
and flourishing (r = 0.60). Positive effects and emotions generated from an enhanced level of
mindfulness helped broaden and build personal resources, which act as a catalyst for facilitating
employees’ personal development, and deep experiences of human flourishing (Feicht et al.,
2013). Another investigation by Akin and Akin (2015), though focusing on the mediating role
of coping competence on the relationship between mindfulness and flourishing, also concludes
that psychological flourishing is positively predicted by mindfulness. Therefore, it is likely
that:
H3: The increased level of mindfulness helps achieve a higher level of psychological
flourishing; and that
H3a & H3b: Both individual and organisational efforts in mindfulness training increase the
level of psychological flourishing.
Flourishing mediates the relationship between mindfulness and work engagement
Embedded in the concepts of positive affect (Van Katwyk et al., 2000) and
psychological capital (Dawkins et al., 2013), the indirect relationship between mindfulness and
work engagement has been empirically explored in the extant literature (e.g. Avey, et al., 2008;
2011; Quoidbach et al., 2010; Malinowski & Lim, 2015). It is argued that a higher level of
mindfulness is conducive to work engagement and employee well-being in the workplace.
According to Malinowski and Lim (2015), the ability to refrain from automatic and habitual
reactions towards potentially distressing situations was the most important mindfulness facet
to predict work engagement. Work engagement can also be augmented via increases in positive
AOM#12210
9
!
!
affect, hope and optimism achieved as an outcome of mindfulness (Avey et al., 2011; Dawkins
et al., 2013; Malinowski & Lim, 2015).
In addition, as argued by Schaufeli et al. (2006), work engagement is treated as a
positive strength-based construct that is opposite to burnout. Empirically, mindfulness was
found to be negatively related to emotional exhaustion, as mindfulness enabled individuals to
cope with challenging situations proactively, thereby reducing burnout (Hulsheger et al., 2013).
These findings support the notion that a positive association between mindfulness and work
engagement may exist as work engagement is opposite to emotional exhaustion and burnout
(Hulsheger et al., 2013; Schaufeli et al., 2006). Furthermore, it is suggested that individuals
with a period of mindfulness practice would develop a positive and preferred self-image
through contemplative behavior (Glomb et al., 2011). Based on Kahn (1990), a positive self-
image helps individuals feel more worthy and willing to fully engage at work. Thus, mindful
individuals with heightened ‘preferred self-image’ may be more positive, and willing to engage
in the work that they do (Rich et al., 2010; Kiken and Shook, 2011; Malinowski & Lim, 2015).
However, the mechanisms leading to the positive effects of mindfulness in organisational
settings have not been sufficiently investigated in the existing literature. Thus, the current
study proposes to test the both direct and indirect role of organisational provision of
mindfulness programs on work engagement. Therefore, it is proposed that:
H4: Mindfulness achieved from individual and organisational effort helps increase the
level of work engagement;
H4a: Individual mindfulness awareness helps increase the level of work engagement;
H4b: Organisational provision of mindfulness programs also helps increase the level of
work engagement.
AOM#12210
10
!
!
A recent study by Leroy et al. (2013), using self-determination theory, attempts to
address this research gap around whether and how mindfulness is associated with work
engagement. Self-determination theory (Brown & Ryan, 2003) proposes that individuals
become more engaged in activities when they positively internalise external demands into a
core sense of self, so they are able to be happily immersed and intrinsically motivated at
workplace. Leroy et al. (2013) hypothesised that mindfulness is positively related to work
engagement via two channels. The first channel operates directly through developing and
facilitating a person’s attention and focus with non-judgement and non-reaction skills. The
second channel functions indirectly through increasing a person’s internal awareness. This
increased internal awareness produces higher levels of authentic functioning, defined as
individuals showing the authenticity of being true to self, and free to demonstrate personal
strengths such as humility, openness and willingness to adapt to the changes where necessary
(Leroy et al., 2013). This idea of authentic functioning is similar to the earlier discussion of the
concept of human and psychological flourishing (Seligman & Czikszentmihalyi, 2000),
whereby individuals are mentally healthy (Keyes, 2007), and able to function in the optimal
capacity to achieve performance, growth and generativity (Frederickson & Losada, 2005;
Larsen & Prizmic, 2008). The findings by Leroy et al. (2013) show that mindfulness is
important for strengthening the personal resources and positive emotions required for work
engagement, and also that mindfulness is an antecedent of authentic functioning, and possibly
of human/psychological flourishing as well.
This line of argument about the indirect relationship between mindfulness and work
engagement is consistent with another recent study conducted by Zivnuska et al. (2015), who
investigated the relationships among mindfulness, resources and employee engagement,
grounded in the conservation of resources theory (COR) (Hobfoll, 2001). Zivnuska et al.
(2015) argue that mindfulness at work may help employees develop resources that are
AOM#12210
11
!
!
potentially associated with greater job satisfaction and affective commitment, and with less
psychological distress and intent to turnover. It was further claimed by Zivnuska et al. (2015)
that work engagement encompasses these resources as they reflect a positive motivational
sense of well-being, in line with positive affect and psychological capital (Van Katwyk et al.,
2000; Dawkins et al., 2014). Zivnuska and colleagues (2015) contend that workplace
mindfulness and work engagement are separate constructs, although they are related
conceptually. Their findings suggest that employees practising mindfulness at work may be
better off and more able to focus on task completion with less distraction, and potentially
develop a higher level of psychological flourishing, which in turn, helps increase their work
engagement (Zivnuska et al., 2015). Thus, it is proposed that:
H5: Psychological flourishing positively mediates the relationship between
mindfulness and work engagement.
H6: Psychological flourishing itself may also positively affect work engagement.
The conceptual framework depicting the above-discussed hypotheses is outlined in
Figure 1:
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
3. Research Methods
Sample and procedure
As the study is exploratory in nature, data were collected, using a non-probability
snowball sampling approach (Streeton et al., 2004; Creswell, 2013). An online survey with
several channels was applied to generate the survey responses. First, the online survey was
posted via the authors’ social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn to invite
AOM#12210
12
!
!
participation in the study. Second, potential participants were also contacted through publicly
available e-mail addresses (e.g., contact details displayed on the websites of organisations, such
as professors/lecturers in the higher education sector, alumni societies of universities, and
‘Business Owners’ Group and Mindfulness trainers in Australia). Third, the participants who
had filled in the survey were encouraged to help with the distribution of the online survey to
their own social and professional networks. The online link provided to potential participants
was accompanied with the ethics approval reference and the consent statement that contained
a brief description of the study purpose, time commitment, and details regarding the
confidentiality and use of the information gathered.
The survey responses were collected through an eight-month period from April-
November 2016. As a result, 229 usable responses (N = 229) were gathered, of which 47
percent of respondents were male and 53 percent were female, 57 percent were Australians and
43 percent were Sri Lankans. On average participants were 40 years old (SD: 16). For level
of education, 5 percent reported secondary or equivalent, 12 percent had completed certificates
or diplomas, 42 percent held a bachelors degree or equivalent, and 41 percent had masters or
doctoral level qualifications. In regard to religion, 47 percent indicated Buddhist, 15 percent
Catholic, 12 percent Christian, 19 percent ‘not particularly religious’, 2 percent Hinduism, 1
percent Islam, 1 percent indicated ‘do not wish to indicate’, and 3 percent was other.
Measures of key variables
Work engagement was measured with the short version of Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES) that consists of nine items developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). This scale has
been widely used in different cultures and countries and validated both as a one-factor and
three-factor construct (Roof, 2015; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Seppälä et al., 2009; Shimazu et al.,
2008; Viljecac et al., 2012). Items in the scale were rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging
AOM#12210
13
!
!
from Never (=0) to Always (=6). To assess the factor structure of the work engagement scale,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed in AMOS version 24. In the present study,
results of the CFA indicate that the one-factor model fits the data better, as the key indicators
such as χ2/df =1.88, RMSEA .06, SRMR .03; CFI=.982; TLI=.971 are stronger than that in the
three-factor model (i.e. χ2/df =5.20, RMSEA .13, SRMR .04, CFI=.916; TLI=.874). Cronbach
α = .91 also demonstrates a high reliability of the scale for choosing the one-factor model.
Psychological flourishing was measured with the 9-item Flourishing Scale developed by
Diener et al. (2010). As explained by the scale authors (Diener et al., 2010), the scores of all
9 items were averaged to reflect overall psychological flourishing. Each item on the scale was
answered with a 1–7 scale ranging from Strong Disagreement (=1) to Strong Agreement (=7).
Results of the CFA indicate that the one-factor model fits the data well through the key
indicators such as χ2/df =1.66, RMSEA .05, SRMR .03 and CFI=.980 and TLI=.969. The scale
reliability for all 9 items of psychological flourishing was α =.89.
Mindfulness was measured by 10 items of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness
Scale-R (CAMS-R) developed by Feldman et al. (2007). Compared to the other scales that
measure mindfulness, such as Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown and Ryan, 2003),
CAMS-R was thought to be more appropriate in the current study due to its broader conceptual
coverage (Bishop et al., 2004). Items in the scale were rated on a four-point Likert scale
ranging from Rarely/not at all (=1) to Almost always (4). Similarly, CFA was conducted to
assess the factor structure of the mindfulness scale. All 10 items were loaded onto a single
latent variable. The results indicated an acceptable model fit with key indicators (χ2/df =2.28,
RMSEA .07, SRMR .07 and CFI=.910 and TLI=.877). The scale reliability was Cronbach α
= .78.
Individual mindfulness awareness was assessed by asking participants to rate their level
of awareness of mindfulness practices on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from Poor (=1) to
AOM#12210
14
!
!
Excellent (=7). Organisational provision of mindfulness programs was assessed by asking the
respondents to rate the answer to the question “I participate in mindfulness programs offered
by my organisation” (e.g., mindfulness classes, meditation programs, mindful stress reduction
programs, yoga programs, relaxation music, quiet rooms or any other program) also on a seven-
point Likert scale ranging from Strongly disagree (=1) to Strongly agree (=7).
Common method variance
Because of the nature of our data being cross-sectional, there is a need to address the
issue of common method bias when conducting structural equation modelling (SEM). Kenny
(2008) suggests that SEM does somewhat mitigate the potential bias related to the presence of
common method variance (CMV). Thus, Harman’s single-factor test was used to assess the
degree to which CMV may inflate the observed relationships between measures. Accordingly,
all observed variables were forced into a single latent construct to examine whether a single
factor can account for all the variance in the data and whether the subsequent model would fit
the data. Results indicate that CMV only accounts for 13 percent of variance in the data in the
current study, which is not an issue (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).
4. Data analysis results
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and correlations among all the study constructs.
As indicated, all the variables possessed an acceptable degree of internal consistency with
acceptable reliability scores. According to the results, ‘work engagement’ was found to be
significantly correlated with all the key constructs in the study, especially with ‘psychological
flourishing’ (r=.51, p<0.01), ‘mindfulness’ (r= .46, p<0.01), and ‘organisational provision of
mindfulness programs’ (r=.35, p<0.01), but moderately correlated with ‘individual
mindfulness awareness’ (r=.16, p<0.05). ‘Psychological flourishing’ was found to be
AOM#12210
15
!
!
significantly correlated with ‘mindfulness’ (r=.46, p<0.01) and with ‘individual mindfulness
awareness’ (.21, p<0.01), but was not significantly correlated to ‘organisational provision of
mindfulness programs’ (r=.04, p=n.s). The ‘mindfulness’ construct was significantly related to
both ‘individual mindfulness awareness’ (r=.38, p<0.01) and ‘organisational provision of
mindfulness programs’ (r=.27, p<0.01). The ‘individual mindfulness awareness’ variable was
related to ‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’ (r=.28, p<0.01).
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Age, gender, level of education, country of residence, religion, preferred mindfulness
technique, industry and employment category were controlled in the present study. The results
indicate that age was significantly related to mindfulness, that is, the older respondents became
more mindful (β=.22, p<0.01) and they also had a higher level of work engagement than the
younger respondents (β=.13, p<0.05). Level of education was moderately related to work
engagement (β=.28, p<0.05), suggesting that more highly-educated individuals tended to be
more engaged at work. Country of residence (Australia=1; Sri Lanka=0) was found to be
related to work engagement (β=.16, p<0.01), meaning that employees in Australia were more
engaged at work than those surveyed in Sri Lanka. None of the other control variables were
significantly related to work engagement, mindfulness and psychological flourishing.
Measurement model and the path model
The measurement model included three distinct scales: mindfulness, psychological
flourishing and work engagement. According to Thompson (1997), larger correlations (ranging
from .80 to .90) between latent variables in the measurement model may suggest a lack of
discriminant validity. Therefore, the present study with lower correlations (r=.54 for
AOM#12210
16
!
!
‘mindfulness’ and ‘psychological flourishing’, r=.53 for ‘mindfulness’ and ‘work engagement’
and r=.57 for ‘psychological flourishing’ and ‘work engagement’) between latent variables
assures the discriminant validity of the variables. As indicated by the fit indices in Table 2, the
measurement model resulted in an acceptable fit to the data in an absolute sense with key
indicators of χ2/df = 1.80, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .06, CFI =.903 and TLI =.901. These results
support the adequacy of the measures that test the hypothesised relationships. Thus, the path
analysis was subsequently conducted to investigate the goodness-of-fit between the variables.
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
Test of hypothesised relationships
As per the conceptual framework, ‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’,
‘individual mindfulness awareness’, ‘mindfulness’, ‘psychological flourishing’ and ‘work
engagement’ were included in the path model together with control variables (age; level of
education; country of residence). As indicated by the fit indices, the hypothesised model fits
the data (χ2/df = 1.83, RMSEA=.06, SRMR= .05, CFI =.960 and TLI=.908). The standardised
path estimates, depicted in Figure 2, support hypotheses H1, H2, H2a and H2b. The path from
‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’ via ‘individual mindfulness awareness’ to
‘mindfulness’ is significant and positive (β=.31, p<.001), and its magnitude is much stronger
than ‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’ on ‘mindfulness’ (β=.18, p<.001).
This suggests that the level of ‘mindfulness’ is much improved via the increased level of
individual mindfulness awareness, which is enhanced by ‘organisational provision of
mindfulness programs’.
Table 3 also presents the direct and indirect effects of both ‘individual mindfulness
awareness’ and ‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’ on the construct of
AOM#12210
17
!
!
‘mindfulness’. Clearly, total effects of combining both individual and organisational resources
are strong to achieve the overall level of ‘mindfulness’ (β=.26, p<.001). The finding supports
the notion that employees should be supported by organisational provision of mindfulness
programs in order to have a greater effect on enhancing the level of mindfulness (Chamber et
al., 2011; Hyland et al., 2015).
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
However, ‘individual mindfulness awareness’ was found to have no significant direct
effect on ‘psychological flourishing’ (β=.05, p=.516) and ‘work engagement’ (β=.09, p=.096),
therefore, the hypotheses H3a and H4a were not supported. In addition, ‘organisational provision
of mindfulness programs’ did not have a significant direct effect on ‘psychological flourishing’
(β=.10, p=.096), thus neither was H3b supported.
Interestingly, it was found that ‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’ is
nonetheless significantly related directly to ‘work engagement’ (β=.29, p<.001), supporting
the hypothesis H4b. Likewise, ‘mindfulness’ was found to be significantly and positively
related to ‘psychological flourishing’ (β=.46, p<.001) as well as ‘work engagement’ (β=.18,
p<.001), supporting the hypotheses H3 and H4.
The path also shows a significant relationship between ‘psychological flourishing’ and
‘work engagement’ (β=.40, p<.001), supporting H6. When the mediating effect of
‘psychological flourishing’ on the relationship between ‘mindfulness’ and ‘work engagement’
was examined, it was found that H5 was fully supported. In particular, the magnitude of the
indirect effect of mindful via ‘psychological flourishing’ on ‘work engagment’(β=.37, p<.001)
was much stronger than the direct effect (β=.18, p<.001). These results suggest that making
AOM#12210
18
!
!
effort to increase the level of ‘psychological flourishing’ might be more effective to help
enhance the level of ‘work engagement’.
Post-hoc model modification
According to the results of the present study, it is noticed that only some of the
hypothesised paths were significant. Due to little empirical evidence available in this area of
study, conducting an exploratory post-hoc analysis was recommended (Hoyle, 2011). To do
so, three insignificant paths (shown in dash line in Figure 2) were removed from the
hypothesised model (Byrne, 2010). ‘Individual mindfulness awareness’ had no significant
direct effect on ‘psychological flourishing’ and ‘work engagement’. However, ‘Individual
mindfulness awareness’ seemed to affect ‘psychological flourishing’ and ‘work engagement’
through ‘mindfulness’. Similarly, ‘organisational provision of mindfulness programs’ did not
have a significant direct effect on ‘psychological flourishing’ as it only influences
‘psychological flourishing’ through ‘mindfulness’. The fit indices of this post-hoc model show
a good fit (χ2/df = 1.91, RMSEA=.06, SRMR= .05, CFI =.966 and TLI=.906 (also see Table
2), however, regression paths tested in the post hoc model are not significantly different to the
hypothesised model. Figure 2 displays all regression paths.
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
5. Discussion & Conclusion
Based on the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion (Fredrickson, 2001), we
argue that psychological flourishing achieved by individual effort and organisational support
provides add-on value to promote workplace engagement. Our findings support this line of
argument and further contribute to the extant knowledge in three dimensions. First, earlier
AOM#12210
19
!
!
research (e.g. Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Rayton & Yalabik, 2014; Malinowski & Lim, 2015)
has explored some direct and indirect effects of various factors contributing to work
engagement. We extend this line of research by empirically examining, for the first time, the
mediating effect of psychological flourishing on the relationship between mindfulness and
work engagement. This focus on mediation is consistent with the studies carried out by several
authors (e.g. Leroy et al., 2013; Zivnuska et al., 2015) who evaluated the factors, such as
authentic functioning and resources, that mediated the relationship between mindfulness and
engagement. The accumulating evidence suggests that mindfulness might not have a direct
effect on work engagement, but that the effect may be indirect, via individual effort and
organisational support. It is through individual effort and organisational support that
individuals attain the critical resources of positive emotion and mental health, enabling them
to experience psychological flourishing, which in turn influences workplace engagement
(Dawkins et al., 2013). This finding further extends the existing theory of engagement (Kahn,
1990) with an additional construct of psychological flourishing, which is useful to test the
relationship between mindfulness and work engagement in future research.
Second, it is noticed that both individual effort to create mindfulness awareness and
organisational provision of mindfulness training programs did not directly, and separately, lead
to achieving the level of psychological flourishing. In addition, ‘organisational mindfulness
program’, though significantly related to the construct of ‘mindfulness’ (β=.18, p<.001), was
not as effective as the individual effort to achieve ‘mindfulness’ (β=.31, p<.001). Most
remarkably, the magnitude of the total effects on the level of ‘mindfulness’ increased (β=.26)
when organisational provision of mindful programs had effects on creating a higher level of
individual mindfulness awareness. This finding suggests that the sense of mindfulness is
individually-based, and that organisations should rigorously aim at enhancing individual
employees’ awareness of mindfulness. These results are somewhat consistent with the prior
AOM#12210
20
!
!
studies (e.g. Wallach et al., 2007; Irving et al., 2009; Chambers et al., 2011). The different
contribution made by the current study is to test the link of achieved ‘mindfulness’ to enhance
‘psychological flourishing’ and ‘work engagement’, which is a step further to advance the
positive psychology and engagement theory (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Roof,
2015).
Third, although both ‘mindfulness’ as a composite construct and ‘organsational provision
of mindfulness programs’ were found in the current study to have direct effects on work
engagement, the magnitude of their total effects on engagement was much stronger. This
finding has significant implications for practice. The effect of combining individual and
organisational mindfulness resources can have positive outcomes on work engagement, and an
important contributor to engagement is psychological flourishing. Organisations with
mindfulness training programs in place need to note that the focus of these programs should
not only be directed at work engagement, but at individual psychological flourishing that helps
employees reduce stress and enhance their well-being (Mellor et al., 2016). The achievement
of individual psychological flourishing, encompassing employees’ positive emotions and
mental wellness, is as important as work engagement when considering organisational
outcomes. The focus on employee well-being is especially critical, given that mental illness is
the leading cause of long-term workplace absence in most developed countries (Sane, 2017).
In addition to the above three areas of contributions, our study also makes a
methodological contribution. We validate the three important constructs (i.e., mindfulness,
psychological flourishing, and engagement) used in the existing research on the relationship
between mindfulness and engagement. In particular, the earlier studies (e.g., Brown and Ryan,
2003; Feldman et al., 2007) tend to treat ‘mindfulness’ as a multi-dimentional construct. We
confirm that a one-factor solution for ‘mindfulness’ is adequate, consistent with the argument
made by Bishop et al. (2004). In addition, both ‘psychological flourishing’ and ‘engagement’
AOM#12210
21
!
!
as distinctive constructs were tested and validated. Future research in a similar field can adopt
the items used to measure these constructs as developed by Diener et al. (2010) for
‘psychological flourishing’, and by Schaufeli et al. (2006) for work engagement.
Mindfulness as a general personal strategy (Walach et al., 2007), and psychological
flourishing as an organisational tool generating positive resources for employees to enhance
their work engagement (Dawkins et al., 2013), may be largely determined by individual
dispositions such as personality, education, age and religious background. Our findings show
that age and education are closely linked to mindfulness and engagement, but the other control
variables were found to have no effect. Future research should further investigate the effects of
these control variables on enhancing psychological flourishing and work engagement.
Several research limitations should be addressed to provide some avenues for future
research in the field. First, despite the robust test of three distinctive contructs: mindfulness,
psychological flourishing and engagement, in the current study, the choice of non-probability
snowball sampling approach may induce a sampling bias. In addition, cross-sectional data with
convenience sampling of single raters would augment the issue of common method bias.
Although the use of SEM with Harman’s single-factor test helped reduce the potential bias
(Kenny, 2007; Hooper et al., 2008), it is recommended that future studies adopt multiple raters
with a random sampling approach to generate a larger scale of data in order to further validate
the scale for these constructs.
The second limitation is related to the sampling bias, as eighty-three percent of the
participants had completed bachelor or above level education, and the majority of survey
participants were from the service industry. Thus, the findings from the current study may not
be generalizable to all organisations operating in different sectors. The focus on employed
individuals in the work environment may help improve the generalizability of the findings
(Bickerton et al., 2015), to some extent. Future research should extend to include a population
AOM#12210
22
!
!
with different educational levels working in varied industries, so as to compare and contrast
the different responses by employees to the concepts of mindfulness, psychological flourishing
and engagement.
Third, since the construct of ‘mindfulness’ is contributed both by individuals and the
organisation, there is a greater need to establish a validated scale, instead of using just one item
each to measure individual mindfulness awareness and organisational provision of mindfulness
programs, as in the current study. In particular, future research may consider several types of
organisational mindfulness programs such as meditation, yoga and mindfulness training
programs to ascertain the effectiveness of different mindfulness programs offered to
employees. As it may take time to see the effect of individual practices and organisational
support on the level of mindfulness, psychological flourishing and engagement, it is useful for
future research to collect longitudinal data to measure these different effects within the time
series. Negative effects of practising mindfulness at the individual and organisational level may
exist, and would be subject to further investigation, as the identification of these negative
effects may help change organisational programs and individual practices for the benefit of
individuals and organisations.
Mindfulness and psychological flourishing may have effects on other organisational
outcomes, apart from work engagement. Therefore, future research may consider mindfulness
and psychological flourishing as predictors of both health-related outcomes (e.g., employee
stress; well-being), and performance-oriented outcomes (e.g., employee performance;
managerial effectiveness), as did Kroon et al. (2015). Nevertheless, the current study provides
strong evidence to support the direct and indirect effects of mindfulness and psychological
flourishing on work engagement, which could ultimately help improve both health and
performance outcomes for individuals and organisations.
AOM#12210
23
!
!
References
Aikens, K. A., Astin, J., Pelletier, K. R., Levanovich, K., Baase, C. M., Park, Y. Y., & Bodnar, C. M.
(2014). Mindfulness goes to work: Impact of an online workplace intervention. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56, 72-731.
Akin, A., & Akin, A. (2015). Mediating role of coping competence on the relationship between
Mindfulness. Suma Psychological, 22(1), 37-43.
Allen, T. D., Lillian, T. E., Conley, K. M., Williamson, R. L., Mancini, V. S., & Mitchell, M. E.
(2015). What do we really know about the effects of mindfulness-based training in the
workplace? Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 4(4), 652-661.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F. L, & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of
positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 27-152.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organisational
change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70.
Baime, M. (2012). Effective and viable mind-body stress reduction in the workplace: A randomised
controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 246-258.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organisational behavior: engaged employees
in flourishing organisations. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 29(2), 147-154.
Bickerton, G. R., Miner, M. H., Dowson, M., & Griffin, B. (2015). Spiritual resources as antecedents
of clergy well-being: The importance of occupationally specific variables. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 87, 123-133.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., … Carmody, J. (2004). Mindfulness:
A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230-241.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. London: Taylor & Francis.
AOM#12210
24
!
!
Catalino, L. I., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). A Tuesday in the life of a flourisher: the role of positive
emotional reactivity in optimal mental health. Emotion, 11(4), 938-950.
Chiesa, A. & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy
people: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(5),
593-600.
Christopher J., & Maris, J. A. (2010). Integrating mindfulness as self-care into counselling and
psychotherapy training. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10(2), 114-125.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed methods Approaches.
London: Sage.
Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., Sanderson, K. (2015). Advancing conceptualization and
measurement of psychological capital as a collective construct. Human Relations, 68, 925-949.
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 Organisational Psychology, 86, 348-370.
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job
performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67(1), 105-128.
Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 997-1018.
Davis, D., & Bjornberg, N. (2015). Flourishing in the workplace through meditation and
mindfulness. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 8(4), 667-674.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Gevers, J. M. P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of
work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources
model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-
being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing, positive, and negative feelings. Social
Indicator Research 97, 143-156.
AOM#12210
25
!
!
Feicht, T., Wittmann, M., Jose, G., Mock, M., von Hirschhausen, E., & Esch, T. (2013). Evaluation of
a seven-week web-based happiness training to improve psychological well-being, reduce stress,
and enhance mindfulness and flourishing: a randomised controlled occupational health
study. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013, 1-16.
Felder, J. N., Dimidjian, S., & Segal, Z. (2012). Collaboration in mindfulness-based cognitive
therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 179-186.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., Laurenceau, J. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion
regulation: The development and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness
scale-revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177-
190.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J. & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives:
Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal
resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045-1062.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive
emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks
on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of personality and Social
psychology, 84(2), 365-376.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The Broaden and Build
Theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
Ghadi, M.Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement:
The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership and Organisation Development
Journal, 34(6), 532-550.
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 30, 15-157.
AOM#12210
26
!
!
Gotink, R. A., Chu, P., Busschbach, J. V., Benson, H., Fricchione, G. L., & Hunink, M. G. M. (2015).
Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: An overview of systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of RCTs. PLoS ONE, 10(4), (Available online at
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124344)
Haar, J. M., Russob, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterred, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on
job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 85, 361-373.
Hobfoll, S. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6, 307-324.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A. & Lang, J. W. B. (2012). Benefits of mindfulness
at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310-325.
Hyland, P. K., Lee, R. A., & Mills, M. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: A new approach to improving
individual and organisational performance, Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 8(4), 576-
602.
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modelling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced
topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90-98.
Jamieson, S. D., & Tuckey, M. R. (2016). Mindfulness interventions in the workplace: A critique of the
current state of the literature. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 80-193.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary
strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95-108.
Kiken, L. G., & Shook, N. J. (2011). Looking up: Mindfulness increases positive judgements and
reduces negative bias. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 25-431.
AOM#12210
27
!
!
Kroon, B., Menting, C., & Van Woerkom, M. (2015). Why mindfulness sustains performance: The role
of personal and job resources. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 8(4), 638-642.
Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). Mindfulness research and the future. Journal of Social Issues,
56, 129-139.
Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2008). Regulation of emotional well-being: Overcoming the hedonic
treadmill. In Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds). The Science of Subjective Well-Being (pp.259-
289), New York: Guilford.
Leroy, H., Frederik, A., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and
work engagement: A growth modelling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 238-247.
Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful
perspectives on organisational learning. Organisation Science, 17(4), 502-513.
Malinowski, P., & Lim, H. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Positive affect, hope, and optimism
mediate the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement, and well-being.
Mindfulness, 6, 1250-1262.
Mellor, N. J., Ingram, L., & Van Huizen, M. (2016). Mindfulness training and employee well-
being. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(2), 126-145.
Petchsawang, P., & McLean, G. N. (2017). Workplace spirituality, mindfulness mediation and work
engagement. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 14(3), 216-244.
Rayton, B. A., & Yalabik, Z. Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and
job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(17), 2382-2400.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Roof, R. A. (2015). The association of individual spirituality on employee engagement: The spirit at
work. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 585-599.
Sane. (2017). Mental health in the workplace, accessed on 17 June, 2017, via
https://www.sane.org/employers/147-mental-health-in-the-workplace
AOM#12210
28
!
!
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Sedlmeier, P., & Eberth, J. (2012). The effects of mindfulness meditation: a meta-
analysis. Mindfulness, 3(3), 174-189.
Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli,
W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: Multi-sample and
longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459-481.
Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig. F., Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S. (2012).
The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 138(6), 1139-
1171.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Kosugi, S., et al. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: validation of
the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. An International Review, 57(3), 510-
523.
Streeton, R. Cooke, M., & Campbell, J. (2004). Researching the researchers: Using a snowballing
technique. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), 35-46.
Thompson, B. L., & Waltz, J. (2007). Everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation: Overlapping
constructs or not. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1875-1885.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the job-related affective
well-being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219-230.
Viljevac, A., Cooper, T. H. D., & Anderson, N. (2012). An investigation into the validity of two
measures of work engagement. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17),
3692-3709.
AOM#12210
29
!
!
Walach, H., Nord, E., Zier, C., Dietz-Waschkowski, B., & Kersig, S., Schupbach, H. (2007).
Mindfulness-based stress reduction as a method for personnel development: A pilot
evaluation. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 188-198.
Wolever, R. Q., Bobinet, K. J., McCabe, K., Mackenzie, E. R., Fekete, E., Kusnick, C. A., & Baime, M.
(2012). Effective and viable mind-body stress reduction in the workplace: randomised controlled
trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 246-58.
Zivnuska, A., Kacmar, M. K, Ferguson, M., & Carlson, D. S. (2016). Mindfulness at work:
Resource accumulation, well-being, and attitudes. Career Development International, 21(2),
106-124.
!
Figure 2: Path Diagrams with Standardized Regression Weights
N= 229, *p<.001. Dash lines represents non-significant paths.
Individual
Mindfulness
Awareness (.26*)
Psychological
Flourishing (.37*)
Mindfulness
Work Engagement
.28*
.40*
.31*
.46*
Organisational
provision of
Mindfulness
Programmes
.29*
.18*
.18*
.05
.09
.10
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Key Study Variables
M
SD
α
1
2
3
4
1. Work engagement
47.82
8.05
.91
2. Psychological flourishing
47.07
5.19
.89
.51**
3. Mindfulness
24.98
4.07
.78
.46**
.46**
4. Individual mindfulness
awareness
3.90
1.67
.16*
.21**
.38**
5. Organisational provision of
mindfulness programs
3.87
1.62
.35**
.04. n.s
.27**
.28**
N=229, ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05, n.s correlation is not significant.
Table 2: Model Fit Indices
χ2/df
RMSEA
SRMR
CFI
TLI
Work engagement (One factor model)
1.88
.06
.03
.982
.971
Psychological Flourishing
1.66
.05
.03
.980
.969
Mindfulness
2.28
.07
.07
.910
.877
Measurement Model
1.80
.05
.06
.903
.901
Hypothesised Model
1.83
.06
.05
.960
.908
Post-hoc Model
1.91
.06
.05
.966
.906
N=229
Table Click here to download Table Tables1-3.docx
Table 3: Direct, Indirect and Total Effect of Relationships
Path
Direct effect
Indirect effect
Total effect
OP IMA
.28***
IMA M
.31***
OP M
.18**
OP IMA M
.08***
.26***
M PF
.46***
IMA PF
.05 n.s
IMA M PF
.14***
.20***
OP PF
.10 n.s
IMA WE
.09 n.s
IMA M WE
.14***
.46***
OP WE
.29***
OP PF WE
.04 n.s
.32***
PF WE
.40***
M WE
.18**
M PF WE
.18***
.37***
N=229
** p < .01, *** p < .001, Only standardised coefficients are reported. To estimate errors, data were bootstrapped
using 2000 random draws. OP - Organisational provision of mindfulness programs, IMA – Individual mindfulness
awareness, M – Mindfulness, PF – Psychological flourishing, WE - Work engagement.
