Mindfulness Training Improves Employee Well-Being: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Organizations are turning towards behavioral interventions with the aim of improving employee well-being and job performance. Mindfulness training has been suggested as one type of intervention that can achieve these goals, but few active treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted. We conducted a RCT among employees of a midwestern marketing firm (n=60) that compared the effects of six-week mindfulness training program to a half-day mindfulness training seminar comparison program on employee well-being outcomes. While both groups improved comparably on job productivity, the six-week mindfulness training group had significantly greater improvement in attentional focus at work and decreases in work-life conflict, as well as a marginal improvement in job satisfaction compared to the half-day seminar comparison group. These findings suggest that while small doses of mindfulness training may be sufficient to foster increased perceptions of job productivity, longer-term mindfulness training programs are needed to improve focus, job satisfaction and a positive relationship to work.

Full text

Running Head: MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 1
© 2018, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors'
permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000132
Mindfulness Training Improves Employee Well-Being: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Jerry Slutsky
Brian Chin
Julianna Raye
J. David Creswell
Author Note
Jerry Slutsky, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida; Brian Chin and J.
David Creswell, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University; Julianna Raye, Unified
Mindfulness, Los Angeles, California.
A previous version of this article was presented at the 33rd annual Society for Industrial
Organizational Psychology Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April, 2018.
We wish to thank Michael Tumminia for his assistance with study recruitment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Jerry Slutsky, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler
Avenue, PCD 3112, Tampa, FL 33620. Email: jeremiah22@mail.usf.edu.
J. David Creswell, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 354L Baker Hall,
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Email: creswell@cmu.edu.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 2
Abstract
Organizations are turning towards behavioral interventions with the aim of improving
employee well-being and job performance. Mindfulness training has been suggested as one type
of intervention that can achieve these goals, but few active treatment randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) have been conducted. We conducted a RCT among employees of a midwestern
marketing firm (n=60) that compared the effects of a six-week mindfulness training program to a
half-day mindfulness training seminar comparison program on employee well-being outcomes.
While both groups improved comparably on job productivity, the six-week mindfulness training
group had significantly greater improvement in attentional focus at work and decreases in work-
life conflict, as well as a marginal improvement in job satisfaction compared to the half-day
seminar comparison group. These findings suggest that while small doses of mindfulness
training may be sufficient to foster increased perceptions of job productivity, longer-term
mindfulness training programs are needed to improve focus, job satisfaction and a positive
relationship to work.
Keywords: mindfulness, attention, well-being, work, randomized controlled trial (RCT)

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 3
Mindfulness Training Improves Employee Well-Being: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Mindfulness interventions, which aim to foster greater openness to present moment
experiences, are being increasingly applied to workplace settings (Good et al., 2016). The
widespread adoption of workplace mindfulness programs has outpaced the science testing their
efficacy, with only a few methodologically strong randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of
workplace mindfulness programs published in the literature (e.g., Kiburz, Allen, & French, 2017;
Wolever et al., 2012). Moreover, initial studies have focused primarily on negative outcomes
such as stress (Wolever et al., 2012) and job burnout (Krasner et al., 2009). There have been
comparatively few mindfulness training RCT studies that have measured employee well-being
outcomes in the workplace, such as job satisfaction, productivity, work-life conflict, and
attentional control at work. These outcomes are important to study because previous research
indicates that poor employee well-being is associated with physical and mental health problems,
high turnover, and lower job performance (Hammig, Gutzwiller & Bauer, 2009; Judge,
Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Williams & Skinner, 2003). To address this, we conducted a
well-controlled RCT of a high dose mindfulness training program (HDMT; 6-week training)
versus a low dose mindfulness training program (LDMT; half-day training) on employee well-
being outcomes in the workplace.
Due to increased workloads, employees are experiencing psychological and physical
health problems, which negatively effects organizations in the form of higher turnover and
increased sick days (Van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, & Van Dijk, 2001). Organizations have
recently turned to behavioral interventions in hopes of fostering positive well-being outcomes at
work (Van der Klink et al., 2001). Initial RCTs found positive effects from a variety of
interventions, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, an Innovation Promotion Program,

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 4
and a team-based, problem-solving intervention on employee well-being outcomes such as
employee mental health, work-related variables, and job performance (Bond & Bunce, 2000;
Tsutsumi, Nagami, Yoshikawa, Kogi, & Kawakami, 2009). Indeed, a meta-analysis of forty-
eight studies found cognitive-behavioral interventions to be effective for improving perceived
quality of work life and enhancing psychological resources (Van der Klink et al., 2001).
One especially promising type of cognitive-behavioral intervention are mindfulness-
based interventions (MBIs; Creswell, 2017). Initial studies suggest that MBIs can foster well-
being outcomes in non-workplace settings, such as improvements in psychological well-being,
mental and physical health outcomes, and cognitive outcomes (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Jha et
al., 2015; Hoge et al., 2013; Morone et al., 2016). By incorporating mindfulness training into the
workplace, theorists predict an improvement in employee well-being, among other workplace
outcomes (Good et al., 2016). Specifically, it has been posited that mindfulness may cultivate
resilience in the workplace by decreasing emotional and physiological reactivity after adverse
events, enhancing an employee’s ability to recover from toxic events, and through growth
following adversity. Initial work suggests that mindfulness training can be beneficial to
employee well-being outcomes (e.g., Kiburz et al., 2017; Hulsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang,
2013; Michel et al., 2014), however, further well-controlled research is needed.
The present study makes a number of important contributions to the mindfulness
intervention and employee well-being literature. First, by rigorously testing two forms of
mindfulness interventions (HDMT vs LDMT) in a RCT design, the present study addresses the
question of how much mindfulness training is necessary to improve worker well-being
outcomes. Second, the present study investigates the effects of mindfulness training interventions
on employee well-being outcomes, an area of research that is relatively understudied. Scholars

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 5
have called for an increase of research in this area, as many believe mindfulness training has the
potential to improve employee well-being outcomes (Good et al., 2016).
Third, the present study measures employee well-being through experience sampling,
which consists of brief surveys distributed to participant’s smartphones at four quasi-random
times during the workday and once regularly in the evening over consecutive days. Experience
sampling methods are advantageous because they have been shown to be higher in ecological
validity (e.g., Anestis et al., 2010), reduce memory biases associated with retrospective reporting
(Stone & Broderick, 2007), and are more sensitive for detecting change (e.g., Moore, Depp,
Wetherell, & Lenze, 2016; Solhan, Trull, Jahng, & Wood, 2009). Global subjective judgments
are vulnerable to overweighing extreme or recent experiences. Research has shown that well-
being outcomes are influenced by manipulations such as current mood or immediate context
(Shiffman, Stone, Hufford, 2008). Through experience sampling methods, data can be averaged
to reflect actual daily experiences. Another notable strength of experience sampling methodology
is that it samples individuals in their natural environments. By surveying employees in their
natural setting (e.g., at work during the workday), data is collected in real time, which makes it
less likely to be biased by mental heuristics compared to data collected in non-natural
environments (e.g. lab setting; Shiffman, et al., 2008). To our knowledge, no mindfulness
research has used experience sampling methods in the workplace during the workday.
The study of well-being in the organizational behavior literature has taken many forms
(e.g., Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). The present study operationalized employee well-
being to include employee engagement (a combination of cognitive and emotional antecedent
variables) as a factor that generates greater positive affect (job satisfaction, commitment,
fulfillment, etc.), which relates to improved efficiency of work (Harter, et al., 2003). Because of

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 6
previously reported cognitive and emotional benefits, mindfulness interventions might be
uniquely suited to influence employee well-being. Mindfulness is commonly described as an
awareness of the present moment with an open and accepting attitude (Brown, Ryan, &
Creswell, 2007). Mindfulness interventions aim to improve one’s ability to self-regulate thoughts
and emotions, which is believed to influence behavioral and physiological responses (Brown &
Ryan, 2003; Creswell & Lindsay, 2014).
Attentional focus is one form of self-regulation that is related to employee well-being. By
resisting distractions and maintaining one’s attention directed towards a job task, attentional
focus helps employees work more efficiently and provide the resources needed for meeting work
demands. Mindfulness practice requires one to bring awareness to and keep attention anchored
on the current experience (Bishop et al., 2004). Prior research has found mindfulness training to
decrease distractibility (Tang, et al., 2007; Jha, Krompinger, & Baime, 2007) as well as mind-
wandering (Mrazek, et al., 2013). The workplace is full of distractions (e-mails, phone calls,
interpersonal issues) that challenge employee’s attentional focus, and provides a steep test for
any type of intervention; however, to our knowledge, no study has tested the effects of
mindfulness training on attentional focus during the workday. Because scholars suggest that
longer and more intense interventions lead to more effective adoption and better outcomes
(Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992), we predict that attentional focus will be enhanced in the HDMT
group more so than the LDMT group.
Hypothesis 1: HDMT will increase attentional focus at work relative to LDMT.
As noted previously, improvements in cognitive variables are expected to have
downstream effects on positive affect in the workplace. If resources adequately match work
demands, perceptions of work are increased (Edwards, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1998). Prior

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 7
research using a 2-week mindfulness intervention found that job satisfaction, a dimension of
positive affect at work, is positively affected by mindfulness training (Hulsheger et al., 2013).
The current study looks to add to the literature by uniquely testing how much mindfulness
training is sufficient for improving job satisfaction, and if there’s added benefit for extending the
training to six weeks.
Hypothesis 2: HDMT will increase job satisfaction relative to LDMT.
Mindfulness training may also affect other employee well-being outcomes such as work-
life and life-work conflict. The literature suggests that employees commonly find it challenging
to balance their work and personal lives (e.g., Houston & Waumsley, 2003; Galinsky, Aumann,
& Bond, 2011). Research suggests that strain in one’s personal life makes it difficult to fulfill job
requirements and vice versa (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), making work-life and life-work
conflict an employee well-being issue. Indeed, research has found that mindfulness training
reduces work-family conflict (Kiburz et al., 2017; Michel et al., 2014). Scholars propose that
mindfulness can help regulate one’s work and personal life dynamics by providing resources to
more effectively cope with work-related cognitions and emotions (Michel et al., 2014). The
current study answers calls from researchers to test mindfulness training on work-life conflict by
using longer daily exercises (greater than 10 minutes) on employees in mentally demanding jobs
(Michel et al., 2014). We also extend previous research on mindfulness and work-family conflict
by using a work-life conflict measure with the aim of more accurately measuring conflicts
experienced by employees who do not live within a family structure that includes caring for
children. We predict that the HDMT group will report significant decreases in work interfering
with their personal life (work-life conflict) and their personal life interfering with work life (life-
work conflict) relative to the LDMT group.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 8
Hypothesis 3A: HDMT will reduce work-life conflict relative to LDMT.
Hypothesis 3B: HDMT will reduce life-work conflict relative to LDMT.
Method
Study Participants
Enrolled participants were 60 (roughly 50% of the company) adults (mean age = 30.52,
SD = 7.80) recruited from a digital marketing company based in Ohio via an in-person
presentation and internal mass emails for a study testing mindfulness training in the workplace.
The sample was 66.7% female and 95.0% white (see Tables 1 and 2 for full demographics).
Primary study analyses are reported using all available baseline and post-intervention data. Of
the 60 total participants, 58 completed their allocated intervention, 54 completed post-
intervention experience sampling, post-intervention diary data and the post-intervention
assessment. See Figure 1 for CONSORT flow chart.
Eligible participants were English-speaking smartphone owners (Android or iPhone) over
the age of 18 who were available to participate for the duration of the study and had no recent
mindfulness experience (daily practice within the previous 3 months). Of those screened, one
potential participant was excluded for reporting significant prior mindfulness experience. Written
informed consent was obtained from all participants, and all study procedures were approved by
the institutional IRB. Study data was collected between September 2016 and November 2016.
Procedure
Overview. Briefly, interested participants were pre-screened for eligibility via an online
questionnaire. Eligible participants signed an online informed consent, completed the baseline
assessment and completed three consecutive days of pre-intervention experience sampling and

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 9
diary assessments. Then, participants who were still interested in participating in the study
attended one of three in-person mindfulness workshops (whichever day was available in their
schedule) and were randomly assigned to either the high or low dose group at the end of the
workshop. After, participants completed either the 6-week training or wait period, three
consecutive days of post-intervention experience sampling and diary assessments, and the
follow-up assessment. Participants in the high dose group received standardized study reminder
texts and emails throughout the 6-week training period, and were able to call or text the study
hotline or mindfulness instructor to ask questions or schedule individual meetings with the
instructor.
Ecological momentary assessment. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) involves
intensive sampling of participant experiences in real time during a typical day. Here we used a
two-pronged sampling approach consisting of experience sampling assessments used to collect
snapshots of attentional control in real time throughout the workday, and daily diary assessments
used to capture participant’s overall impressions of job productivity, job satisfaction, work-life
and life-work conflict.
Both experience sampling and daily diary assessments were administered via
participant’s personal smartphones using MetricWire (Kitchener, Ontario). Participants were
prompted to complete experience sampling surveys at four quasi-random times throughout the
workday (24 experience sampling assessments total across baseline and post-intervention
periods). Text links were sent during each of four 2-hour blocks distributed between 9:00 am and
5:00 pm, with links expiring after 45 minutes. Participants were also prompted to complete daily
diary surveys at 8:00 pm each day (6 daily diary assessments total across baseline and post-
intervention periods); links were sent at exactly 8:00 pm and remained active until 11:30 pm that

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 10
day. The experience sampling periods at both baseline and post-intervention spanned from
Tuesday to Thursday.
Study Intervention
All participants completed a one-half day live mindfulness workshop (2 participants
listened in via video chat) taught by a senior mindfulness trainer with over 18 years of teaching
experience. During this workshop, participants learned the Unified Mindfulness system, and in
addition to seated meditation, they were taught how to implement mindfulness techniques during
conversations, eating, and while listening to music. Upon completion of the workshop,
participants were randomized to one of 2 conditions: low dose (6-weeks of a waiting period) or
high dose (6-weeks of daily mindfulness practice). During the 6-week training period,
participants in the high dose group were expected to complete one 25-minute guided mindfulness
meditation audio recording each day for 5 days per week. This intervention was developed by
one of the co-authors, an experienced (18 years) mindfulness trainer who incorporated principles
from the Unified Mindfulness system into the training. In the first week, five techniques were
introduced with didactic explanation at the beginning of the guided audio sessions. For the
remaining 5 weeks, participants were allowed to choose which technique they would like to
practice. Following each guided meditation, participants were asked to complete a brief, 2-
minute Internet-based questionnaire regarding which technique they chose and a comprehensive
list of daily life situations in which participants could indicate when they may have applied
mindfulness techniques within the past 24-hours. The questionnaire included the following
situations: Golden Times (e.g., exercising, eating), Down Times (e.g., waiting in line, waiting for
a meeting to start), Connection Times (e.g., with friends, family) Stress Times (e.g., prepping for
an important meeting, facing or thinking about a challenging situation), Physical Times (e.g.,

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 11
brushing teeth, washing dishes), and Mind Times (e.g., analyzing yourself or your life, problem-
solving a client issue).” Participants completed the post-practice survey 427 times out of 466
total practiced meditations (91.6%). Weekly group phone conferences offered further instruction
on practice applications in daily life and enabled participants to receive feedback on their
experiences. Between 8 and 16 members of the high dose group participated in the weekly calls
each week (M = 12.33). Additionally, 93.5% of the group completed a 10 video training series at
the beginning of the program, which outlined the principles underlying the practice approach.
Each video was approximately 5 – 10 minutes in length and included interactive quizzes lasting
approximately 10 to 15 minutes each. These were designed to test participants’ knowledge and
understanding of key principles, with the assumption that having conceptual clarity about how to
practice mindfulness increases one’s ability to practice effectively. The mindfulness instructor
also contacted each participant in the high dose group during the course of the 6-week training
period, inviting them to discuss their experiences in the training program over a 15-minute one-
to-one call (54.8% of participants accepted this invitation). Guided meditation tracking was done
through the website, Wistia, the video series was tracked on the website, Thinkific, and the
mindfulness instructor tracked participation in the individual and group meetings.
Measures
Attentional control was assessed via beeped assessments four times daily for three days
before and three days after the intervention. See Table 3 for the specific items used to assess this
construct. Due to concerns about participant response fatigue, job satisfaction, job productivity,
work-life conflict, and life-work conflict were assessed at the end of the day using daily diaries
for three days at baseline and three days post-intervention. See Table 4 for the specific items

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 12
used to assess each construct. Also related to response fatigue, only 2-3 items with the highest
factor loads were assessed from the following measures.
Attentional Focus. Three items from the focusing subscale of the Attentional Control
Scale (ACS; Derryberry & Reed, 2002) were used to assess attentional focus (the executive
ability to direct attention) since the last assessment. Participants were asked to indicate their level
of agreement with each item using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale.
All three items were coded prior to analysis so that higher scores reflected greater attentional
focus. Responses to these items were averaged to create a single index of attentional focus
(average reliability across days: α = .89).
Job Satisfaction. Two items were used to assess daily job satisfaction from Macdonald
& McIntyre’s (1997) Job Satisfaction Scale. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement
with each item on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(extremely) with a neutral midpoint at 3 (neither agree nor disagree). Higher scores indicated
greater work satisfaction. Responses to these items were averaged to create a single index of
work satisfaction (average reliability across days: α = .69).
Productivity. A single item was used to assess daily productivity. Participants were
asked to rate how productive they were that day on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 6 (very much). Higher scores indicated greater daily productivity.
Work-Life Conflict. Three items from the Waumsley, Houston, & Marks (2010) Work-
Life Conflict Scale were used to assess daily work-life conflict. Participants were asked to
indicate their agreement with each item ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Higher scores indicated greater work-life conflict. Responses to these items were averaged to
create single index of work-life conflict (average reliability across all days: α = .89).

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 13
Life-Work Conflict. Three items from the Waumsley et al. (2010) Life-Work Conflict
Scale were used to assess daily life-work conflict. Participants were asked to indicate their
agreement on each item ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores
indicated greater life-work conflict. Responses to these items were averaged to create a single
index of life-work conflict (average reliability across all days: α = .85).
Data Analysis.
To test daily diary predictions, 2-level multilevel models were used to test for Time
(baseline, post-intervention) x Condition (HDMT, LDMT) differences using Stata’s mixed
command. In 2-level models, observations (Level-1) are nested within individuals (Level-2). To
test experience sampling predictions, 3-level multilevel models were used to test for Time x
Condition differences using Stata’s mixed command. In 3-level models, beeped assessment
observations (Level-1) are nested within days (Level-2) which are nested within individuals
(Level-3). Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an identity covariance matrix was used
for all multilevel mixed effect linear regressions. The term of interest in all models was the Time
x Condition interaction because this term indicates whether changes in each outcome over time
differ by condition.
Although multilevel models for longitudinal studies typically include an autoregressive
term (ρ) to account for serial autocorrelation between proximal observations, we were unable to
do so here because the continuous term for time since study onset was collinear with the
categorical predictor for time (baseline, post-intervention). Moreover, because the Time x
Condition interaction was the term of interest in all models, it was not possible to omit the main
effect of time in the multilevel models. Thus, in order to account for autocorrelation between
consecutive measurements, we nested observations within days in our 3-level models and also

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 14
elected to take a conservative approach by including a fixed-effect term in the model for
observation number of the day. The nesting of observations within days in our 3-level models
accounts for autocorrelation between consecutive measurements. We also elected to take a
conservative approach by including a fixed-effect term in the model for observation number of
the day in 3-level models. For 2-level models, we included a fixed-effect term in the model for
day number. Examination of the residuals produced from the specified model indicates that these
steps were generally successful in detrending the data.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
First, success of randomization on major demographic characteristics was evaluated
using the full randomized sample (n = 60). There were no baseline differences between groups in
age, sex, or race indicating that randomization was successful (see Table 1). Next, we assessed
participant compliance with the ecological momentary assessment and daily diary sampling
procedures. The maximum possible number of completed beeped assessment responses was
1440 (60 participants x 6 days of assessments x 4 beeped assessments daily). The actual number
of beeped assessments completed was 830 (57.6% of all possible assessments). The median
number of beeped assessments completed across participants was 14. Using a median split of
experience sampling compliance, there were no age, race, or sex differences between those who
were high or low in ecological momentary assessment sampling adherence (all ps > .61). The
maximum possible number of completed daily diaries was 360 (60 participants x 6 days of
assessment). The actual number of daily diaries completed was 230 (63.9% of all possible
diaries). The median number of diaries completed across participants was 4. Using a median split
of daily diary compliance, there were no age, sex, or race differences between those high and

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 15
low in daily diary sampling adherence (all ps > .27). We also assessed adherence to the study
intervention among HDMT participants (LDMT participants were not assigned home practice).
HDMT participants were asked to complete a total of 750 minutes of mindfulness meditation
home practice during the intervention period (25 minutes daily x 5 days per week x 6 weeks) and
completed 303.07 minutes (SD = 236.11; median = 247) on average. There were no demographic
differences between those high and low in home practice compliance (all ps > .10). Finally, we
checked whether the intervention improved job perceptions in addition to our primary analyses
on employee well-being outcomes. We used 2-level multilevel models to test if HDMT
participants would increase in daily productivity from baseline to post-intervention relative to
LDMT participants. There was no main effect of condition across time points (χ2(1) = 0.01, p =
.94) but there was a marginally significant main effect of time across conditions (χ2(1) = 3.49, p
= .0617), such that all participants increased in self-reported daily productivity from baseline to
post-intervention. However, there was no interaction between time and condition (χ2(1) = 0.09, p
= .76).
Attentional Focus
We predicted that High Dose participants would increase in momentary attentional focus
from baseline to post-intervention relative to LDMT participants. To test this, we used 3-level
multilevel models to evaluate the Study Condition x Time interaction. There was no main effect
of condition across time points (χ2(1) = 0.37, p = .54) but there was a main effect of time across
conditions (χ2(1) = 7.20, p = .0073). This was qualified by an interaction between time and
condition (χ2(1) = 30.28, p <.0001) such that HDMT participants increased in momentary
attentional focus from baseline (M = 3.94, SE = .19) to post-intervention (M = 4.63, SE = .20),

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 16
while LDMT participants decreased in attentional focus from baseline (M = 4.24, SE = .20) to
post-intervention (M = 4.01, SE = .21) (see Figure 2).
Job Satisfaction
We predicted that HDMT participants would increase in daily job satisfaction from
baseline to post-intervention relative to LDMT participants. To test this, we used 2-level
multilevel models to evaluate the Study Condition x Time interaction. There was no main effect
of condition across time points (χ2(1) = 0.19, p = .67) and no main effect of time across
conditions (χ2(1) = 0.60, p=.44). There was a marginally significant interaction between time and
condition (χ2(1) = 2.75, p = .0972) such that HDMT participants experienced an increase in daily
job satisfaction from baseline (M = 3.35, SE = .15) to post-intervention (M = 3.59, SE = .16),
while LDMT participants experienced a decrease in satisfaction from baseline (M = 3.42, SE =
.15) to post-intervention (M = 3.34, SE = .17) (see Figure 3).
Work-Life Conflict
We predicted that HDMT participants would decrease in work-life conflict from baseline
to post-intervention relative to LDMT participants. To test this, we used 2-level multilevel
models to evaluate the Study Condition x Time interaction. There was no main effect of
condition across time points (χ2(1) = 2.59, p = .11) and no main effect of time across conditions
(χ2(1) = 0.27, p = .60). However, there was an interaction between time and condition (χ2(1) =
6.00, p = .0143), such that HDMT participants decreased in work-life conflict from baseline (M
= 2.06, SE = .28) to post-intervention (M = 1.71, SE = .30), while LDMT participants increased
in work-life conflict from baseline (M = 2.21, SE = .28) to post-intervention (M = 2.76, SE = .31)
(see Figure 4).

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 17
The other direction of the work-life conflict measure evaluates life-work conflict. We
used 2-level multilevel models to evaluate the Study Condition x Time interaction on the effects
of mindfulness training on life-work conflict. There was no main effect of study condition across
time points, no main effect of time across conditions, and no interaction between time and
condition (all ps > .37).
Discussion
This study makes a significant contribution to the field by testing the efficacy of a
mindfulness training intervention on employee well-being outcomes. Furthermore, this study is
the first mindfulness intervention RCT to report well-controlled, experience sampling data
collected during the workday. Consistent with predictions, HDMT participants increased
attentional focus and job satisfaction, and reduced work-life conflict relative to LDMT. Overall,
these findings indicate that 6-week mindfulness training carries significant benefits over a brief
mindfulness seminar for fostering multiple measures of employee well-being.
As predicted, attentional focus significantly increased in the HDMT group relative to the
LDMT group. Although mindfulness has been found to enhance attention in previous lab
experiments (Jha et al., 2007; Mrazek et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2007), this study is the first to find
beneficial effects of mindfulness training on attentional focus in the workplace. Perhaps due to
the attention monitoring mechanism of mindfulness training (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017),
employees in the HDMT were better able to focus on a job task, detach from distractors, and
redirect their focus back to the job task. One interesting question raised by this finding is whether
these improved attentional focus effects at work reflect a more general improvement in sustained
and executive attention networks following mindfulness training, as has been shown in previous
research studies (Jha et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2007).

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 18
The current study also contributes to the literature by demonstrating a positive marginal
effect of a longer mindfulness training program on job satisfaction. Previous research has not
investigated dosing on job satisfaction outcomes. Our findings add to the literature by
highlighting the value of an extended mindfulness training on job satisfaction above and beyond
a brief mindfulness training. Prior work suggests that the effect of mindfulness training on job
satisfaction may be due to reducing emotional labor (Hulsheger et al., 2013). It may also be the
case that the effect of mindfulness training on job satisfaction is related to reducing cognitive
load. Theorists suggest that the attention monitoring component of mindfulness improves
cognitive functioning (in affectively neutral contexts) and enhances positive experiences
(Lindsay & Creswell, 2017). By regulating one’s thoughts through extended mindfulness
training, employees may work more deliberately and experience less strain, which may improve
perceptions of work.
Our results suggest that mindfulness training reduces work-life conflict but not life-work
conflict. This pattern of directionality is consistent with previous research (Kiburz et al., 2017)
but extends the literature by including the measurement of employees who do not live within a
family structure that includes caring for children. By bringing awareness to the present-moment
experiences, mindfulness training can help employees reduce work-related mind-wandering
during off-work hours, which may strengthen the segmentation between one’s work and personal
life. The lack of significant changes in life-work conflict may be due to life-work conflict being
less prevalent (Eagle, Miles, & Icenogle, 1997). Our data found that only 13.33% of total daily
diary responses had a life-work conflict score worse than the scale midpoint. Furthermore, this
organization allows for employees to work from home 2 days/week and there is no set time to
report to the office, thus, this organization may be unusually accommodating for personal life

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 19
conflicts. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between mindfulness training and
mechanisms involved with life-to-work conflict in an organization that doesn’t utilize flex-space
and flex-time.
One surprising result of this study is that job productivity improved over time for both
HDMT and LDMT participants. These findings suggest that both low and high doses of
mindfulness training may improve perceptions of productivity, however, an extended amount of
mindfulness training may be necessary for improving employee well-being outcomes. In sum,
our findings contribute to previous theory speculating how mindfulness training effects
employee well-being. Through improvements in cognitive and affective variables, we suggest
that mindfulness training may contribute to daily levels of improvement in employee well-being.
Limitations and Future Directions
We conducted this RCT in a small digital marketing firm, which constrained this study to
a relatively small sample size. However, it is important to note that the use of experience
sampling and multilevel analyses allows for the use of all available data and thus provides
greater statistical power compared to more traditional pre-and post-treatment assessments
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Future research should include a non-active control group to
compare the effects of the brief mindfulness training to no mindfulness training at all to provide
confidence that the intervention did have an impact versus changes that may occur due to time.
The organization was experiencing a transition period during the duration of the study which
may have contributed to the directionality of change in the low dose group, and a non-active
control group would have helped clarify the impacts of the transition period on employee well-
being. One intriguing possibility is that the non-significant improvements in the high dose group
could be viewed as intervention buffering effects on well-being from the transition period.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 20
Similarly, we conducted a dosing study which has benefits in terms of evaluating whether higher
doses of mindfulness training produce larger effects relative to smaller doses but has limitations
in that the low dose control group does not effectively control for factors such as placebo
expectancies or instruction time (by design). Thus, future research would benefit from including
a well-matched active 6-week treatment control program (e.g., relaxation training) (cf. Creswell
et al., 2016). Future research involving dosing studies should also include a follow up assessment
measuring mindfulness training in the low dose group during the waiting period.
We asked the low dose group to refrain from further mindfulness training until after the
conclusion of the study, and it is worth noting that while not tracking home practice is a
limitation, any home practice done in the low dose group more conservatively tests the
hypothesis that high dose training is superior to low dose training in this study. An additional
consideration is that instructing the low dose group to refrain from practicing until the end of the
intervention period may have also changed participant behavior. Future investigations should
carefully evaluate the relative trade-offs of instructing low dose participants not to practice
during the intervention period. Also, our data were based on self-reports, which prevents us from
concluding whether our findings are based on actual or perceived change. In future studies, it
would be useful to include peer and supervisor ratings to capture behavior and performance
change, so as to reduce leniency bias (Levy & Williams, 2004). Another limitation of this study
is its generalizability due the predominately white sample. Future research should investigate
whether the effects from the high dose training are similar with a diverse sample.
Conclusion
This study answers the call for mindfulness training research investigating employee
well-being outcomes (Good et al., 2016). Through demonstrating that high dose mindfulness

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 21
training can be useful for improving attentional focus, job satisfaction and work-life conflict, and
both high and low dose mindfulness training may be beneficial for job productivity, our study
underscores the salutary effects of implementing mindfulness training into the workplace. Based
on these promising findings, future research on how mindfulness-based training can help
employees and improve the workplace is warranted.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 22
References
Anestis, M. D., Selby, E. A., Crosby, R. D., Wonderlich, S. A., Engel, S. G., & Joiner, T. E.
(2010). A comparison of retrospective self-report versus ecological momentary
assessment measures of affective lability in the examination of its relationship with
bulimic symptomatology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(7), 607-613.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... & Devins, G.
(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science
and practice, 11(3), 230-241.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2000). Mediators of change in emotion-focused and problem-focused
worksite stress management interventions. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5(1), 156-163.
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(4), 822-848.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and
evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211-237.
Creswell, J. D. (2017). Mindfulness interventions. Annual review of psychology, 68, 491-516.
Creswell, J. D., & Lindsay, E. K. (2014). How does mindfulness training affect health? A
mindfulness stress buffering account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6),
401-407.
Creswell, J. D., Taren, A. A., Lindsay, E. K., Greco, C. M., Gianaros, P. J., Fairgrieve, A., ... &
Ferris, J. L. (2016). Alterations in resting-state functional connectivity link mindfulness
meditation with reduced interleukin-6: a randomized controlled trial. Biological
Psychiatry, 80(1), 53-61.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 23
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by
attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(2), 225-236.
Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of
work and family domains: Are there gender differences?. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50(2), 168-184.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-environment fit theory:
Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and directions for future research. In C.L.
Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2011). Times are changing: Gender and generation at
work and at home. Families and Work Institute 2008 National Study of the Changing
Workforce.
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., ... & Lazar, S.
W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: an integrative review. Journal of
Management, 42(1), 114-142.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of management review, 10(1), 76-88.
Hämmig, O., Gutzwiller, F., & Bauer, G. (2009). Work-life conflict and associations with work-
and nonwork-related factors and with physical and mental health outcomes: A nationally
representative cross-sectional study in Switzerland. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 435-450.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its
relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive
psychology and the life well-lived, 2, 205-224.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 24
Hoge, E. A., Bui, E., Marques, L., Metcalf, C. A., Morris, L. K., Robinaugh, D. J., ... & Simon,
N. M. (2013). Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation for generalized
anxiety disorder: effects on anxiety and stress reactivity. The Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 74(8), 786-792.
Houston, D. M., & Waumsley, J. A. (2003). Attitudes to flexible working and family life. Bristol,
UK: Policy Press.
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). 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.
Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of
attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(2), 109-119.
Jha, A. P., Morrison, A. B., Dainer-Best, J., Parker, S., Rostrup, N., & Stanley, E. A. (2015).
Minds “at attention”: Mindfulness training curbs attentional lapses in military cohorts.
PloS one, 10(2), e0116889.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127(3), 376-407.
Kiburz, K. M., Allen, T. D., & French, K. A. (2017). Work–family conflict and mindfulness:
Investigating the effectiveness of a brief training intervention. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38(7), 1016-1037.
Krasner, M. S., Epstein, R. M., Beckman, H., Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B., Mooney, C. J., &
Quill, T. E. (2009). Association of an educational program in mindful communication

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 25
with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. The Journal of the
American Medical Association, 302(12), 1284-1293.
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and
framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881-905.
Macdonald, S., & Maclntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development
and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1-16.
Michel, A., Bosch, C., & Rexroth, M. (2014). Mindfulness as a cognitive–emotional
segmentation strategy: An intervention promoting work–life balance. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 733-754.
Moore, R. C., Depp, C. A., Wetherell, J. L., & Lenze, E. J. (2016). Ecological momentary
assessment versus standard assessment instruments for measuring mindfulness, depressed
mood, and anxiety among older adults. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 75, 116-123.
Morone, N. E., Greco, C. M., Moore, C. G., Rollman, B. L., Lane, B., Morrow, L. A., ... &
Weiner, D. K. (2016). A mind-body program for older adults with chronic low back pain:
a randomized clinical trial. JAMA internal medicine, 176(3), 329-337.
Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness
training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind
wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776-781.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well‐being?. Applied
Psychology, 57(2), 173-203.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 26
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annu.
Rev. Clin. Psychol., 4, 1-32.
Solhan, M. B., Trull, T. J., Jahng, S., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Clinical assessment of affective
instability: Comparing EMA indices, questionnaire reports, and retrospective
recall. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 425-436.
Stone, A. A., & Broderick, J. E. (2007). Real‐time data collection for pain: Appraisal and current
status. Pain Medicine, 8(s3), S85-S93.
Tang, Y. Y., Ma, Y., Wang, J., Fan, Y., Feng, S., Lu, Q., ... & Posner, M. I. (2007). Short-term
meditation training improves attention and self-regulation. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104(43), 17152-17156.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual
Review of Psychology, 43(1), 399-441.
Tsutsumi, A., Nagami, M., Yoshikawa, T., Kogi, K., & Kawakami, N. (2009). Participatory
intervention for workplace improvements on mental health and job performance among
blue-collar workers: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 51(5), 554-563.
Van der Klink, J. J., Blonk, R. W., Schene, A. H., & Van Dijk, F. J. (2001). The benefits of
interventions for work-related stress. American Journal of Public Health, 91(2), 270-276.
Waumsley, J. A., Houston, D. M., & Marks, G. (2010). What about us? Measuring the work-life
balance of people who do not have children. Review of European Studies, 2(2), 3-17.
Williams, E. S., & Skinner, A. C. (2003). Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: a narrative
review, implications, and directions for future research. Health Care Management
Review, 28(2), 119-139.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 27
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: A
randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 246-258.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 28
Figure 1.
CONSORT flow chart.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 29
Figure 2
Experience-sampled attentional focus at baseline and post-intervention by study condition.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LDMT HDMT
Attentional Focus
Baseline
Post-Intervention

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 30
Figure 3
Experience-sampled job satisfaction at baseline and post-intervention by study condition.
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
LDMT HDMT
Job Satisfaction
Baseline
Post-Intervention

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 31
Figure 4
Experience-sampled work-life conflict at baseline and post-intervention by study condition.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
LDMT HDMT
Work-Life Conflict
Baseline
Post-Intervention

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 32
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of randomized participants by condition (N=60)
LDMT (n=29)
HDMT (n=31)
Difference Statistic
Age
30.14 (6.61)
30.87 (8.87)
F(1,58) = .130, p = .719
Sex
χ2(1) = .534, p = .465
Male
11 (37.9%)
9 (29.0%)
Female
18 (62.1%)
22 (71.0%)
Race
χ2(1) = 2.954, p = .086
White
29 (100.0%)
28 (90.3%)
Non-White
0 (0.0%)
3 (9.7%)
Notes. For binary or categorical variables (i.e., sex and race), numbers inside parentheses represent
percentage of sample. For continuous variables (age), numbers inside parentheses represent standard
deviations. Randomization was successful for all demographic variables.
Of the 60 participants randomized, 6 dropped out before post-assessment (10.0%). Those who dropped
out did not differ in age, F(1,134) = .112, p = .740, sex, χ2(1) =.833, p=.361, or race, χ2(1) = .351, p
=.554.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 33
Table 2.
Additional baseline characteristics of randomized participants by condition (N=60)
LDMT (n=29)
HDMT (n=31)
Difference Statistic
Marital Status
X2 (2) = .076, p = .963
Married
14 (48.3%)
14 (45.2%)
Single
13 (44.8%)
15 (48.4%)
Divorced
2 (7.9%)
2 (6.5%)
Education Level
X2 (4) = 2.036, p = .729
Less than bachelor’s degree
1 (3.4%)
3 (9.7%)
Bachelor’s degree
22 (75.9%)
21 (67.8%)
Master’s degree
6 (20.7%)
7 (22.6%)
Managerial Role
X2 (1) = 2.336, p = .126
Manager
15 (51.7%)
10 (32.3%)
Subordinate
14 (48.3%)
21 (67.7%)
Works Directly with Clients
X2 (1) = .601, p = .438
Yes
22 (75.9%)
26 (83.9%)
No
7 (24.1%)
5 (16.1%)
Tenure at Organization
2.30 (2.56)
1.79 (1.66)
F (1, 58) = .844, p = .362
Notes. For binary or categorical variables (i.e., marital status and education level), numbers inside
parentheses represent percentage of sample. For continuous variables (tenure at organization), numbers
inside parentheses represent standard deviations. Randomization was successful for all demographic
variables.
Of the 60 participants randomized, 6 dropped out before post-assessment (10.0%). Those who dropped
out did not differ in marital status, χ2 (2) = 1.270, p = .530, education level, χ2(4) = 3.878, p = .423,
managerial role, χ2(1) =.190, p = .663, working directly with clients χ2(1) = .046, p = .830, or tenure at
organization F(1,58) = 1.454, p = .233.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 34
Table 3.
Items used to assess attentional focus.
Constructs
Item
Attentional Focus
1. Concentration
Since the last assessment, when I needed to concentrate and solve
a problem, I had trouble focusing my attention.
2. External Distraction
Since the last assessment, when I was working hard on
something, I still got distracted by events around me.
3. Internal Distraction
Since the last assessment, when I was trying to focus my
attention on something, I had difficulty blocking out distracting
thoughts.

MINDFULNESS AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING 35
Table 4.
Items used to assess job satisfaction, work-life conflict, life-work conflict, and job productivity.
Constructs
Item
Job Satisfaction
1. Recognition
Today, I received recognition for a job well done.
2. Feeling Good
I felt good about my job today.
Work-Life Conflict
1. Work Interference
Today, the demands of my work interfere with my life away from
work.
2. Time Demands
Today, the amount of time my job took up made it difficult to
fulfill other interests.
3. Job Demands
Today, the things I wanted to do at home did not get done
because of the demands of my job.
Life-Work Conflict
1. Personal Interference
Today, the demands of my personal life interfered with work-
related duties.
2. Time Demands
Today, I had to put off doing things at work because of demands
on my time outside work.
3. Job Demands
Today, the things I wanted to do at work didn’t get done because
of the demands of my interests outside work.
Job Productivity
1. Productivity
How productive did you feel at work today?