BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: Leadership style and employee well-being

Megan M. Walsh
Edwards School of Business
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK
Accepted Article
S7N 5A7
mwalsh@edwards.usask.ca

Kara A. Arnold
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John‟s, NL
A1B 3X5
arnoldk@mun.ca

Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC Insight Grant 435-2013-0509)
Our study involved human participants, and before we collected any data ethics approval was
obtained from the appropriate institutional ethics committees. All procedures followed the ethical
guidelines for research with human participants outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement on
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans 2 (TCPS2).

The authors have no conflict of

interest to declare.

Acknowledgements:
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Megan Walsh, Edwards School of
Business, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK, S7N 5A7, mwalsh@edwards.usask.ca

The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: Leadership style and employee well-being

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not
been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may
lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article
as doi: 10.1002/smi.2926

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Abstract

In this study, we use a social information processing perspective to propose that employee

mindfulness will boost the positive relationship between transformational leadership and
Accepted Article
employee well-being and will amplify the negative relationship between abusive supervision and

employee well-being. We found, using a time-lagged survey of 246 employees (controlling for

baseline well-being), that employee mindfulness strengthened the positive relationship between

transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Furthermore, employee mindfulness

intensified the relationship between abusive supervision and employee psychological well-being.

This study shows the benefits of employee mindfulness in certain contexts and reveals one

potential dark side of mindfulness at work. We conclude with a general discussion of this study

and outline future directions for research.

Keywords: mindfulness, transformational leadership, abusive supervision, employee well-being,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: Leadership style and employee well-being

Introduction

Employee well-being is a key concern for research and practice, as it is now widely
Accepted Article
recognized that psychologically healthy employees are more productive and less likely to quit

their jobs (Wright & Huang, 2012). Given the importance of employee well-being, a wealth of

research has sought to understand its antecedents. Overall, this research suggests that leadership

is a central antecedent in promoting and maintaining employee well-being. For instance, leaders

affect a broad range of outcomes related to employee health such as employee alcohol use,

psychological well-being, and employee stress (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). We define well-

being in the current study as a broad, positive affective state experienced at work (Shraga &

Shirom, 2009).

The majority of this research, however, has overlooked the boundary conditions that

might support or negate leadership‟s impact on employee well-being (Arnold, 2017). Taking a

situational leadership lens is critical to better understand the conditions that support or negate

these relationships. The work that has been done in this area has tended to focus on

organizational or job-related variables as moderators of the leadership – employee well-being

relationship, such as receipt of mentoring functions (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000) and employee

status (Kanste, Kyngas, & Nikkila, 2007). Very few studies, however, have examined how

individual employee differences interact with leadership style to influence employee well-being.

This an important research gap to fill given that followers are not merely passive recipients of

leadership behavior; rather, they are active participants in receiving and reacting to their leaders‟

behaviors. Furthermore, some research has shown mixed findings in regard to the expected

effects of leadership style on employee well-being (Seltzer, Numerof, & Bass, 1989), which

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

suggests that further investigating boundary conditions could help explain previous inconclusive

results (Nielsen & Daniels, 2016).

In this paper, we address this gap in the research by taking a social information
Accepted Article
processing approach to understanding leadership and employee well-being. Eisenbeiss and van

Knippenberg (2015) suggest that social information processing is the “fundamental mechanism

underlying any leadership influence” (p. 182), as followers must accurately perceive and process

their leader‟s behaviors in order for those behaviors to have impact. In turn, individuals vary in

terms of how consciously they process a leader‟s behavior in the workplace. A key individual

difference that can influence social information processing is follower mindfulness, which is

defined as “a receptive attention to and awareness of present events and experience” (Brown,

Ryan & Creswell, 2007, p. 212). Mindfulness, as will be discussed throughout this paper,

involves heightened cognitive processing, which can impact follower‟s well-being in relation to

their leader. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine, using a social information processing

perspective (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), how employee mindfulness moderates the relationship

between leadership style (transformational leadership and abusive supervision) and employee

well-being. Transformational leadership and abusive supervision are chosen as the leadership

styles of interest in this study, given that they are both widely researched in the leadership

literature, and are juxtapositions of extremely positive vs. negative leader behavior (e.g., Byrne

et al., 2014).

Literature Review

Leadership style and employee well-being

Transformational leadership theory suggests that this leadership style translates to

increased levels of employee psychological well-being (Bass & Riggio. 2006). Transformational

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

leadership is typically defined in terms of its dimensions: idealized influence, individualized

consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985). The dimension

of idealized influence includes role modeling behaviors for followers to identify with.
Accepted Article
Individualized consideration occurs when leaders give special attention to followers, developing

and supporting them on an individual level. Inspirational motivation requires motivating

followers through an inspiring vision. Finally, intellectual stimulation occurs when leaders

encourage creativity in followers by encouraging them to think in new and innovative ways.

These dimensions combine to form a positive leadership style that motivates employees to

achieve more than previously thought possible (e.g., Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Considering the dimensions of transformational leadership in more detail, it is evident

that transformational leaders convey important information that can help to improve follower

well-being. By „walking the talk‟ within the dimension of idealized influence, leaders provide

information to followers in terms of what is expected of them in their own work roles. Enacting

individualized consideration shows followers that they are recognized and cared about by their

leader. Behaviors included within the intellectual stimulation dimension, such as encouraging

followers to develop new ways of solving problems, gives followers cues that stimulate them to

assimilate information new ways. Using a vision within the inspirational motivation dimension

further gives followers critical information about what to strive for and where the organization is

going. With this information conveyed by their leader, followers are able to perform well, in line

with expectations, and are able to feel supported during the process (Barling, 2014). Thus,

transformational leaders give followers important information to maintain well-being.

A wealth of empirical research has supported the relationship between transformational

leadership and employee well-being. Transformational leadership is associated with many

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

positive outcomes, including employee psychological well-being, and physical health (Arnold,

2017). Research also indicates that the information conveyed by transformational leaders can

help explain these outcomes. Transformational behaviors encourage followers to find meaning in
Accepted Article
their work which helps to explain the relationship between transformational behaviors and

employee well-being (Arnold et al., 2007). In turn, finding meaning in a job environment is

considered an information processing activity that helps followers to adapt in the workplace

(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Taken together, this illustrates that transformational behaviors

provide information that allow followers to thrive psychologically.

In contrast to transformational leadership, abusive supervision is a source of negative

information, which impairs employee well-being. Abusive supervision occurs when followers

perceive leaders to “engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors,

excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Examples of abusive behavior include giving

employees the silent treatment and putting them down in front of others. Abusive behavior from

a leader sends negative information to followers that could have detrimental impacts on their

psychological well-being. For example, putting an employee down in front of others sends

negative information to the employee about their level of respect and value within the

organization.

Not surprisingly, abusive supervision has been empirically associated with many negative

outcomes for employees such as diminished job satisfaction, workplace deviance, emotional

exhaustion, lower commitment, well-being, and increased psychological distress (Mackey,

Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2015; Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervisors also provide negative

information to followers in various ways. For instance, abusive supervisors lead followers to feel

socially unsupported at work and increase feelings of injustice in followers (Mackey et al., 2015;

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Tepper, 2000). These findings illustrate that abusive leader behaviour can send negative

messages to followers that increase perceptions of unfairness and isolation at work. In turn, this

promotes follower outcomes such as burnout (Mackey et al., 2015).

Accepted Article
Leadership style, mindfulness, and employee well-being

Overall, it is well known that transformational leaders promote psychological well-being

(Arnold, 2017) and that abusive behaviors are detrimental to follower well-being (Mackey et al.,

2015). But do these relationships hold for all followers? We suggest that a critical boundary

condition to consider is the way followers process social information. A social information

processing approach suggests that humans adapt to their work environment by developing

individual attitudes and beliefs from their own social interactions in the workplace. This

perspective also suggests that employees are particularly attuned to cues from salient sources

within their work environment, such as how individuals with power and influence (e.g., leaders)

behave (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). As outlined in the previous section, leader behaviors provide

many types of information to followers, such as how much they are valued and respected in their

workplace.

However, the information communicated through leaders‟ behaviors may not always be

processed exactly the same by every follower. Followers will vary in terms of how closely they

are paying attention and consciously processing this information. In turn, this variation in social

information processing can impact how strongly a leaders‟ behavior predicts employee well-

being. Eisenbeiss and van Knippenberg (2015) suggest that trait mindfulness is a prototypical

individual difference that can make followers more sensitive to the information conveyed to

them through leader behaviors. Conceptualizations of mindfulness vary across studies and

disciplines; some have defined mindfulness as multi-dimensional, including several related

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

facets of observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judgement of inner experience and

non-reactivity to inner experience (e.g., Baer et al., 2006). Others have focused on the attention

and awareness components of mindfulness, defining trait mindfulness as a “receptive attention to

Accepted Article
and awareness of present events and experience” (Brown et al., 2007, p. 212). We adopt the

latter definition of mindfulness for two reasons. First, Brown and Ryan‟s (2003) definition of

mindfulness has been most widely used by organization scholars. Past research has validated this

measure of mindfulness with both clinical and non-clinical populations, which suggest that is

appropriate for general work populations (Choi & Leroy, 2015; MacKillop & Anderson, 2007).

Second, given that we draw upon social information processing to conceptualize mindfulness, we

suggest that the awareness and attention components are most relevant to the breadth and depth

of attention that followers will pay to their leaders‟ behaviors (Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg,

2015).

Furthermore, mindfulness can often be cultivated through meditation, which includes

focusing attention and broadening awareness (Brown et al., 2007). Mindfulness can be

conceptualized as a state that fluctuates throughout the day, or as a disposition that varies

naturally between people (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Given our focus on individual differences in

the current study, we focus on trait mindfulness in this study, which is an overall tendency or

propensity toward mindful awareness.

Mindfulness has been studied in-depth within clinical psychology and has received

comparatively less attention in management. In clinical studies both trait mindfulness and

mindfulness training programs have been shown to have a broad range of positive outcomes. For

instance, mindfulness has been shown to treat depression, anxiety, and general stress (e.g.,

Khoury et al., 2013). Mindfulness research in management is growing rapidly, as the benefits of

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

mindfulness for employee wellness, leadership, and stress management have been demonstrated

in several studies (e.g., Glomb et al. 2011). Overall, research in both management and clinical

psychology suggest that mindfulness has many cognitive and emotional benefits.
Accepted Article
However, a smaller number of studies have shown that mindfulness can also have

negative effects, particularly when considering mindfulness meditation in particular (Farias et al.,

2016). In a study of 342 individuals who had at least two months of meditation experience, 25%

of them reported having unwanted effects from meditation such as pain, dizziness and anxiety

symptoms (Cebolla et al., 2017). Other studies have shown that mindfulness meditation can

induce stress, anxiety, hallucinations, twitching/numbness, and false memory susceptibility

(Farias & Wikholm, 2015; Farias et al., 2016; Lindahl et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2015). In

interviews with individuals who currently practice meditation it was found that regular

mindfulness meditation could exacerbate existing psychological issues such as low self-esteem

or depression (Lomas et al., 2015). Interestingly, these types of negative effects have been shown

for both meditation novices and experienced practitioners (Lindahl et al., 2017), which suggests

that it may be mindful awareness itself, rather than the stress of practicing a „new‟ meditation

technique, that could be predicting negative outcomes.

One of the key outcomes of mindfulness of interest for the current research is the

increased quality of attention and information processing it entails. Trait mindfulness allows

individuals to process information deeply and consciously (Brown & Ryan, 2003). For instance,

highly mindful people have more elaborate information processing networks in the brain (Brown

et al., 2007). In contrast, individuals with lower levels of trait mindfulness are more likely to be

preoccupied with thoughts about future plans and past experiences (Langer, 1989), which

suggests that they do not process information in their present environments as carefully and

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

intensely as individuals with high levels of trait mindfulness. Research also demonstrates that

highly mindful individuals experience external events more intensely due to careful and

conscious information processing (Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010). While this often predicts positive
Accepted Article
outcomes, research also suggests that this intense processing of information can produce

unwanted effects when individuals experience unpleasant events or situations (Lomas et al.,

2015). Overall, these studies suggest that the heightened, open awareness indicative of

mindfulness allows mindful individuals to process information thoroughly, which subsequently

predicts changes in outcomes.

In addition to deeper information processing, research has also found that mindfulness

predicts less distraction from less-important sources of information. In other words, mindfulness

predicts better attentional control within one‟s environment. For example, studies have found

that individuals with higher levels of mindfulness allocate attention more intentionally, and less

habitually (Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011). In addition, individuals who cultivate mindfulness

through meditation are able to tune out distractions (Tang et al., 2007). Applying these findings

to a workplace context would suggest that mindful followers would be able to focus closely on

their leader and place less priority on potential distractions from their leaders‟ messaging.

In relation to leadership specifically, a recent study of leader-follower dyads found that

follower mindfulness strengthened the relationship between ethical leadership and follower

behaviors such as extra effort and helping (Eisenbeiss & van Knippenberg, 2015). The authors

speculated that mindful followers were more attuned to ethical information conveyed by their

leaders, and that this allowed them to process ethical information consciously. As a result, the

conscious processing of this ethical information predicted followers‟ extra effort (Eisenbeiss &

van Knippenberg, 2015). Overall, theory and initial empirical results support the hypothesis that

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

employee mindfulness is an important boundary condition to consider in relation to leadership

and employee outcomes.

Although Eisenbeiss and van Knippenberg (2015) examined follower behavior, the
Accepted Article
heightened processing that occurs for mindful individuals should similarly predict greater

benefits for employee well-being. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) suggest that individuals‟ level of

social information processing can impact many variables such as job attitudes, which are closely

related to well-being (Wright & Cropanzo, 2000). Furthermore, stress and well-being research

widely recognizes the importance of environmental and social variables in predicting

psychological well-being (e.g., Lazarus, 1984). For instance, several meta-analyses and

systematic reviews have identified the centrality of leader behavior in predicting employee well-

being, which suggests that the information gained from these leader behaviors is critical for

employees‟ psychological health (e.g., Arnold, 2017; Kuoppala et al., 2008). Thus, we propose

that heightened information processing for mindful followers would similarly predict amplified

relationships between leadership behavior and follower well-being.

Given the wide-ranging positive benefits of transformational leadership, mindful

followers should be thoroughly attuned to a transformational leader‟s positive behaviors. In

terms of social information processing, employee mindfulness would make employees more

receptive and sensitive to the information gained from transformational behaviors. As discussed

above, transformational leaders give direction in terms of providing a vision and being a role

model for followers, which has a positive relationship with employee well-being. Mindful

employees are likely to be particularly attentive to this information and would derive an even

greater benefit from transformational leadership. Overall, employee mindfulness would „boost‟

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

the relationship between transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being due

to enhanced social information processing. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Employee mindfulness will moderate the positive relationship between

transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being such that higher
Accepted Article
mindfulness will intensify the positive relationship between transformational leadership
and employee psychological well-being

While mindfulness may improve positive employee well-being outcomes when

experiencing transformational behaviors, we also investigate the potentially dark side of how

mindfulness may intensify the effects of abusive supervisors. The outcomes of mindfulness in

work contexts, as outlined above, are generally positive. Because of the many studies

demonstrating the utility of mindfulness, many organizations and individuals have adopted

mindful practices through training and self-direction (e.g., Glomb et al., 2011).

However, there has been some criticism that mindfulness has become a commercialized

„fad‟ and that its potential negative effects need to be sought out and examined more rigorously.

Van Dam et al., (2018), in a critical review of the mindfulness literature, note that some adverse

effects of mindfulness have been reported in clinical studies where mindfulness is often used as a

treatment for individuals with anxiety and depression. Some studies, for example, have shown

that mindfulness training interventions can increase anxiety, panic and re-experiencing of

traumatic memories (Miller, 1993). As discussed above, other studies have suggested that

mindfulness meditation can predict negative outcomes such as pain, hallucinations, fatigue, and

false memories (Cebolla et al., 2017; Faris & Wikhom, 2015; Farias et al., 2016; Lindahl et al.,

2017; Wilson et al., 2015). Although these studies focus on mindfulness-based interventions

rather than on trait mindfulness (as in the current study), this does bring forward important

questions for the benefits of mindfulness at work.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

First, trait mindfulness does correlate strongly with mindful practice (Brown & Ryan,

2003), which suggests that literature showing adverse effects of mindfulness interventions are

also of interest when considering mindfulness as an individual difference. Second, research

Accepted Article
evidence of the benefits of mindfulness at work is much less developed in comparison to clinical

psychology. Despite the overwhelming evidence for the positive impacts of mindfulness at work

and rapid growth of research in this area (e.g., Good et al., 2016), it is crucial to consider its

potential downsides as well (e.g., Allen & Paddock, 2015). Given that psychologists suggest that

the benefits of mindfulness may be exaggerated and that “vulnerable patients with serious

diseases may be mislead” (Briggs & Killen, 2013), it is important to approach mindfulness at

work with the same caution and evidence-based rigor.

Despite significant evidence demonstrating the potential for mindfulness to build

resilience and well-being, considering mindfulness in relation to social information processing at

work does bring forward the possibility that some work contexts may not benefit from full,

conscious processing of negative social information. Experiencing abuse from a supervisor is

one situation where this may be the case. As discussed previously, social information processing

theory suggests that employees are likely to pay particularly close attention to individuals with

positions of power in an organization (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Understanding what leaders

expect, for example, allows individuals to readily adapt to their working environment. However,

when the information received from such a central individual is hurtful and negative, this can

detrimental for employee well-being.

Being increasingly in tune with the negative information conveyed by an abusive

supervisor would exacerbate the relationship between abusive supervision and well-being for

highly mindful employees. As discussed previously, mindful employees are particularly attuned

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

to their leader‟s social cues and process this information much more thoroughly than less

mindful individuals. In addition, research on negativity bias has demonstrated that individuals

tend to more quickly recognize and elaborate on negative information in a variety of contexts.
Accepted Article
For example, slightly negative information tends to influence evaluations more strongly than

extremely positive information (Ito et al., 1998) and creates more rapid brain responses than

positive information (Smith et al., 2003). Compounding individuals‟ general negativity bias with

a heightened present moment awareness through mindfulness would boost the already negative

effects of abusive supervision on employee well-being.

In terms of social information processing, employee mindfulness would make employees

more sensitive to the information gained from abusive behaviors (e.g., Eisenbeiss & van

Knippenberg, 2015). As discussed above, abusive supervisors provide negative information

through their actions, which has a negative relationship with employee well-being. Mindful

employees are likely to be particularly attentive to this information and would experience even

more harm from an abusive supervisor. Overall, employee mindfulness would exacerbate the

relationship between abusive supervision and employee psychological well-being due to

enhanced social information processing. Taken together, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Employee mindfulness will moderate the negative relationship between

abusive supervision and employee psychological well-being such that higher mindfulness
will intensify the negative relationship between abusive supervision and employee
psychological well-being,

------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
---------------------------------
Material and methods
Sample

We conducted a time lagged survey (two waves) of employees in a broad range of

industries. A broad sampling strategy was appropriate given that there is currently no evidence

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

that we are aware of to suggest differences in the outcomes of mindfulness in specific industries

(Good et al., 2016). Participants were recruited via Amazon‟s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which

is a crowdsourcing platform where participants can be recruited for survey studies. Participants
Accepted Article
were pre-screened on the basis of being a full-time employee who regularly interacts face to face

with his or her supervisor. The pre-screening question was integrated with other demographic

questions (e.g., gender, age) to ensure that participants were not indicating they were employed

just to take the survey. At Time 1, 486 employees who interacted face to face with their

supervisor on a regular basis took part. Participants were excluded based on careless responding,

which was assessed using an attention check question (“Please select strongly agree to this

question”), and survey durations that were too fast (less than 40% of the median time;

McGonagle, Huang, and Walsh (2016)). 101 participants were excluded based on these criteria,

which resulted in 385 participants at Time 1. This percentage of careless responding was found

to be acceptable based on previously published work (e.g., Liang et al., 2015). At Time 2 (two

months later), all 385 participants from Time 1 were invited to take part in another survey. 269

responded (response rate of 70%), and 23 of these were excluded based on the same criteria used

at Time 1. The final sample thus consisted of 246 participants. Participants were paid $1.50 for

each survey.

Participants had a mean age of 34.77 years (ranging from 18-70) and had a mean tenure

in their current job of 7.01 years (range 1-39). Employees had worked with their supervisor for a

mean of 4.53 years (range 0.3-26). 59% of the sample were male, and overall the sample

represented a broad range of industries. The most popular industries within the sample were:

Retail/sales (10%), IT (10%), finance (8%), manufacturing (8%) and health care (7%).

Measures

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Transformational leadership (Time 1). We measured transformational leadership using

20 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Participants

were asked to rate from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always) how frequently each
Accepted Article
statement fits their immediate supervisor/manager. Sample items are: “Talks optimistically about

the future” and “Gets me to look at problems from many different angles.” Alpha was .96.

Abusive supervision (Time 1). We measured abusive supervision using 15 items from

Tepper (2000). Participants were asked to answer questions about their boss and response scales

ranged from 1 (I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me) to 5 (he/she uses

this behavior very often with me). Sample items are “Ridicules me” and “Tells me my thoughts

or feelings are stupid.” Alpha was .96.

Mindfulness (Time 1). We measured mindfulness using 15 items from the Mindful

Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Participants were asked to rate on a scale

from 1 (almost always) to 6 (almost never), how frequently they have each experience. Sample

items are “I find it difficult to stay focused on what‟s happening in the present” and “I rush

through activities without being really attentive to them.” Alpha was .93.

Psychological well-being (Times 1 and 2). We measured psychological health using 12

items from the Shirom-Melamed Vigor scale (Shirom, 2005). Participants were asked to rate

from 1 (never or almost never) to 7 (always or almost always) how often they felt various ways

at work. Sample items are “I feel full of pep” and “I feel energetic.” Alpha was .93 (Time 1) and

.95 (Time 2).

Controls. We used the corresponding Time 1 measure of well-being to control for

baseline well-being. In addition, we controlled for negative affectivity (Watson, Clark, &

Tellgen, 1988), and the length of relationship between leader and follower given that these

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

constructs have been shown in past research to influence followers‟ perceptions of leadership,

particularly in relation to well-being outcomes (Burton, Hoobler, & Scheuer, 2012).

Analyses
Accepted Article
Means, standard deviations and correlations between all variables are outlined in Table 1.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Each hypothesis was tested using hierarchical regression analysis. In the first model, control

variables (Time 1 well-being, negative affectivity and length of relationship with leader) were

entered. In the second model, the predictors (leadership style [transformational leadership or

abusive supervision] and mindfulness) were entered, and in the third model the interaction term

(leadership style x mindfulness) was entered. Studies investigating transformational leadership

and abusive supervision have analyzed these behaviors separately (e.g., Byrne et al., 2014). In

addition, leadership theory suggests that leaders are unlikely to enact both of these leadership

styles (e.g., Hancock et al., 2018). Therefore, based on theory and past practice we conducted

separate analyses for each leadership behavior.

Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted that employee mindfulness amplifies the positive relationship

between transformational leadership and employee well-being. As can be seen from Table 2, the

interaction term is significant for the outcome of employee psychological well-being (b = 0.15, p

< .01), which supports hypothesis 1.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

To interpret the significant interaction, a graph was produced (See Figure 2). We created

subgroups based on the mean, and one standard deviation above and below the mean (average,

low and high on mindfulness). Tests of simple slopes were conducted using Bonferroni adjusted

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

alpha levels of .0166 per test (.05/3). As can be seen from the graph, there is a positive

relationship between transformational leadership and employee well-being for employees who

are high in mindfulness (b = 0.29, t(234) = 3.48, p < .001). A simple slope analysis revealed that
Accepted Article
for employees with average (b = 0.13, t(234) = 1.76, ns) or low mindfulness (b = -0.04, t(234) = -

.39, ns), there is no relationship between transformational leadership and employee well-being.

Figure 2 also shows that when employees experience an absence of transformational leadership

their well-being is low compared to employees with average and low mindfulness.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that employee mindfulness would moderate the relationship

between abusive supervision and employee well-being. As can be seen from Table 2, the

interaction term for the outcome of employee psychological well-being was significant (b = -

0.19, p < .01), and a graph was produced to aid interpretation (Figure 3). Tests of simple slopes

were conducted using Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .0166 per test (.05/3). As expected, the

relationship between abusive supervision and well-being is negative for employees who are high

on mindfulness (b = -0.39, t(234)=-3.58, p < .001). For employees who are average (b = -0.18,

t(234)=-2.31, ns) or low on mindfulness (b = 0.03, t(234)= 0.26, ns), there is no relationship

between abusive supervision and employee well-being. Thus, the findings support hypothesis 2.

[Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here]

Discussion

This study tested how employee mindfulness moderates the relationship between

supervisory leadership style and employee well-being. We found that transformational leadership

positively predicted psychological well-being and abusive supervision negatively predicted well-

being. Employee mindfulness boosted the positive impact of transformational leadership on

psychological well-being. Employee mindfulness moderated the relationship between abusive

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

supervision and psychological well-being; however, employee mindfulness amplified abusive

supervision‟s already negative effect on well-being. Furthermore, high levels of follower

mindfulness predicted lower well-being when transformational leadership was low.

Accepted Article
Theoretical implications

This study brings forward several key theoretical contributions. First, we demonstrate

that employee mindfulness is an important individual difference to consider in relation to

leadership style and employee well-being. A wealth of research has demonstrated the positive

and negative relationships between transformational leadership and abusive supervision,

respectively. However, our research demonstrates that high employee mindfulness is one

individual difference that can potentially intensify these well-established relationships. This

contributes to the growing literature on boundary conditions within leadership style and

employee well-being (Arnold, 2017). Based on our results here and others (e.g. Eisenbeiss & van

Knippenberg, 2015) it is plausible that employee mindfulness levels play a role in the impact

leaders are able to have on well-being within the organization.

In turn, these findings contribute to social information processing perspectives of

mindfulness, leadership and employee well-being. We proposed that mindful employees would

be sensitive to the information that is gained from leader behaviors and would process this

information more thoroughly than less mindful employees. Our findings suggest that this deeper

processing can be beneficial depending on the information at hand. When experiencing

transformational leadership, mindful employees‟ awareness and attention to positive behaviors

can translate to greater rewards in terms of higher well-being. When experiencing abusive

supervision, however, the heightened information processing of mindful individuals can work

against them and exacerbate this negative treatment.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

These findings also contribute to research on mindfulness at work. Most research on

mindfulness has been conducted in clinical psychology, and interest in mindfulness at work is

growing rapidly (e.g., Good et al., 2016). We demonstrate yet another benefit of mindfulness at
Accepted Article
work in relation to transformational leadership; when leaders are performing well, employee

mindfulness can help employees to make the most of a transformational leader and ultimately

thrive in the workplace. Given that studies have shown that mindfulness can improve

transformational leadership at the leader-level (e.g., Carleton et al., 2018), our study suggests

that mindfulness may be complementary at various levels of organizations. As mindful leaders

tend to be more transformational, the potential for employee mindfulness to boost the positive

effects of transformational leadership suggests that leader and follower mindfulness can go hand

in hand in ensuring healthy, productive workplaces.

However, our findings also contribute to the literature by demonstrating one potential

dark side of employee mindfulness. Despite the wide-ranging positive effects of mindfulness in

clinical psychology and management, there is potential for mindful awareness to be harmful (van

Dam et al., 2018). As discussed in our introduction, mindfulness meditation can predict negative

outcomes for individuals such as stress and anxiety, and can potentially exacerbate existing

issues for individuals (e.g., Cebolla et al., 2017; Farias & Wikholm 2015; Farias et al., 2016;

Lindahl et al., 2017). While potential downsides of mindfulness have been discussed in clinical

psychology, to our knowledge our study is the first to reveal a negative outcome of mindfulness

at work. Our findings reveal that being more mindful heightened the negative effects of having

an abusive supervisor on psychological well-being. This is important to consider given that

mindfulness is often positioned as a useful way to build resilience and positive resources at work

(e.g., Glomb et al., 2011). Despite the positive outcomes of mindfulness in many other work

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

contexts, it does appear that there may be situations where cognitively disengaging or distracting

oneself could be psychologically beneficial for employees. As Lomas et al. (2015) note,

mindfulness can “sometimes bring people into contact with troubling thoughts and feelings that
Accepted Article
can be difficult to manage” (p. 858). In relation to our study, it is likely trait mindfulness

similarly predicts deeper processing of the thoughts and feelings arising from abusive

supervision.

Our findings also demonstrated that mindful followers may also be sensitive to a lack of

transformational leadership. In Figure 2, it is shown that followers high on mindfulness and who

were experiencing low levels of transformational leadership had very low levels of psychological

well-being in comparison to employees with low and average levels of mindfulness. This finding

suggests that an additional „dark side‟ of mindfulness may be the absence of positive leadership.

It is evident that highly mindful employees are paying close attention to what is happening in

their workplaces, whether they are experiencing negative leader behaviors or a lack of positive

behaviors. Given the positive outcomes we found in relation to high levels of transformational

leadership, it is evident that the onus is on organizations and leaders to ensure that leaders are

behaving in positive, motivating ways to allow employees to gain the full benefits of mindful

awareness.

Overall, the bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness found in our study bring

forward many fruitful areas for future research to further understand how and why mindfulness

impacts employees‟ social information processing. First, it is important to note that we

investigated trait mindfulness and not mindfulness training initiatives. Although practice and trait

mindfulness tend to be highly correlated (e.g. Brown & Ryan, 2003), this remains a critical area

for future research. Our findings regarding abusive supervision reveal that mindful awareness

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

may be detrimental to employees in specific situations; however, there may be differences

observed when training programs are implemented that focus on specific practices associated

with mindfulness. Our measure of mindfulness includes heightened awareness and attention to
Accepted Article
the current moment but does not include other factors that are included in other

conceptualizations of mindfulness practice such as observation of thoughts and emotions (e.g.,

Choi & Leroy, 2015). Thus, it is critical to further explore potential differences in how various

conceptualizations of mindfulness could differentially impact employees in relation to their

perceptions of leadership behavior.

Given that mindfulness predicts increases in related positive constructs such as resilience,

hope and self-efficacy (e.g. Roche et al., 2014), it would also be fruitful to measure these

constructs in future to studies to better understand these negative findings. For example, it could

be the case that in this study participants may have been low in self-efficacy, which could have

affected how they process the information received from an abusive supervisor. Being highly

aware of the mistreatment, while simultaneously lacking self-efficacy, could result in detrimental

impacts on well-being by creating feelings of hopelessness. Furthermore, a lack of hope in

combination with this heightened awareness could promote feelings of helplessness and

vulnerability.

Furthermore, studies should explore these findings over a longer time frame to

understand whether the benefits or downsides of mindfulness are ongoing, or whether these

findings shift over time. Methods such as experience sampling over a longer time frame would

be particularly helpful to more fully understand the within-person processes that underlie these

findings (e.g., Hulsheger et al., 2013). It would be interesting, for example, to examine whether a

mindful employees‟ day-to-day interactions with their leader differ from employees who are less

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

mindful, and whether that explains the subsequent relationships with psychological well-being.

For instance, do mindful employees ruminate more on their interactions with an abusive

supervisor while at work or at home?

Accepted Article
It would also be fruitful for future studies to replicate these findings in relation to other

forms of workplace mistreatment to see if other forms of mistreatment at work interact

negatively with mindfulness, and if the source of mistreatment plays a role. For example, would

mindfulness similarly exacerbate abuse from a co-worker or customer? In contrast, abuse from a

customer may be more fleeting allowing mindfulness to act as a positive resource as it most often

does. Furthermore, less extreme forms of mistreatment would be worth exploring. Given the high

incidence of incivility, for example, it would be helpful to understand whether mindfulness

would similarly intensify the effect of this type of mistreatment (Cortina, Magley, Williams, &

Langhout, 2001). It could be the case, for instance, that mindful employees process social

information from their leaders more thoroughly than social information from other sources (e.g.,

Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

In addition, future studies might also consider different types of leader behaviors that

might interact in either a positive or negative way with employee mindfulness. Other forms of

destructive leadership may be worth investigating, given the high occurrence of destructive

leadership behaviors experienced by employees (Aasland et al., 2010). Passive leadership, for

example, would be interesting to compare and contrast with the overtly abusive behaviors

examined in our study. Passive leadership is characterized by a lack of involvement and clear

decision making (Avolio, 2011). Passive behavior may send negative signals to employees and

has been shown to predict negative employee outcomes increased role conflict and ambiguity,

high conflict among co-workers, psychological distress, and workplace bullying (Skogstad,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007; Doucet, Poitras & Chênevert, 2009). For

instance, employees would likely feel ignored or that their individual work is not important to a

leader who is passive. In turn, employee mindfulness might similarly exacerbate the relationship
Accepted Article
between passive leadership and employee well-being as it did in relation to the leaders‟

behaviors in our study. In contrast, the lack of action by a passive leader could be more

ambiguous to followers than overtly positive or negative behaviors (i.e. transformational and

abusive supervision), which may have implications for how these behaviors might be processed

by followers. Given the potentially varying impacts of passive behavior in relation to follower

mindfulness, this would be a fruitful area for future exploration.

Practical implications

In this study we have found that mindfulness can allow employees to make the most of

their transformational leader. This shows the importance of both leadership and employee

mindsets in promoting well-being. Although employees will benefit from a transformational

leader, it is clear that with increased attention and focus they are able to gain even more

resources and thrive in their roles. To improve well-being, it would be useful for organizations to

focus on both promoting employee mindfulness and positive leadership. Furthermore, it is also

important to improve both leadership and employee mindfulness given that without positive

leaders, employee mindfulness can exacerbate decreases in employee well-being.

In relation to abusive supervision, there are implications for organizations to keep in

mind as well. Most importantly, organizations should not blindly select a mindfulness

intervention for employees based on the fact that these types of interventions tend to work in

most contexts. Indeed, mindfulness training has gained popularity in recent years and has

received criticism for being commercialized without proper understanding of its processes

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

(Safran, 2014). It is important for decision makers to keep in mind that a proper needs analysis

should precede any intervention to ensure it will be received appropriately. The findings of this

study suggest that a key part of pre-training analysis may be to understand how leaders are
Accepted Article
performing before implementing changes for employees.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study worth noting. First, self-report data was used, so it is

possible that common method bias impacted results. However, we separated predictor and

criterion measures in time, randomized question order, used well-validated scales, and ensured

anonymity to participants as recommended to mitigate for this possibility (Podsakoff et al.,

2012). Furthermore, self-report data was appropriate given that employees themselves are the

most appropriate source to assess all the constructs of interest. Second, the study relied on an

MTurk sample, which may affect generalizability and data quality (Berinsky et al., 2012).

However, we minimized these concerns by following key recommendations in the literature such

as attention checking, screening participants, and fair payment (Keith et al., 2017).

Conclusion

In summary, this study shows that mindfulness at the employee level can improve

psychological well-being when one has a transformational leader. However, if employees receive

mistreatment from their supervisor, mindfulness can exacerbate the negative impact this

leadership has on psychological well-being. Overall, this study shows the potential benefits of

mindfulness within certain leadership contexts, and contributes to the literature by showing one

potential dark side of mindful awareness at the employee level.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

References

Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence

of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21, 438-452.

Accepted Article
Allen, T. D., & Paddock, E. L. (2015). How being mindful impacts individuals' work-family

balance, conflict, and enrichment: A review of existing evidence, mechanisms and future

directions. In J. Reb & P. W. B. Atkins (Eds.), Mindfulness in organizations:

Foundations, research, and applications (pp. 213-238). New York, NY, US: Cambridge

University Press.

Arnold, K. A. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: A

review and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

22(3), 381-393.

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).

Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of

meaningful work. J Occup Health Psychol, 12(3), 193-203.

Avolio, B. J. (2011). Full range leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self‐report

assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.

Barling, J. (2014). The Science of Leadership. Oxford University Press.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Technical report for the MLQ (2nd ed.). Redwood: Mind

Garden.

Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah; New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., and Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for

experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Polit. Anal. 20, 351–368. doi:

10.1093/pan/mpr057
Accepted Article
Briggs, J., & Killen, J. (2013). Perspectives on complementary and alternative medicine

research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310, 691–692.

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, 211-237.

Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. (2012). Supervisory workplace stress and abusive

supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. J Bus Psychol, 27, 271-279.

Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R., . . . Dupré, K. (2014).

The depleted leader: The influence of leaders' diminished psychological resources on

leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 344-357.

Carleton, E. L., Barling, J., & Trivisonno, M. (2018). Leaders‟ trait mindfulness and

transformational leadership: The mediating roles of leaders‟ positive affect and leadership

self-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences

du comportement, 50(3), 185-194.

Cebolla A, Demarzo M, Martins P, Soler J, Garcia-Campayo J. (2017). Unwanted effects: is

there a negative side of meditation? A multicentre survey. Plos One, 12, e0183137.

Choi, E., & Leroy, H. (2015). Methods of mindfulness: How mindfulness is studied in the

workplace. In J. Reb & P. Atkins (Eds.), Mindfulness in Organizations: Foundations,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Research, and Applications (Cambridge Companions to Management, pp. 67-99).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
Accepted Article
workplace: Incidence and impact. J Occup Health Psychol, 6(1), 64-80.

doi:10.1037//1076-8998.6.1.64

Doucet, O., Poitras, J., & Chênevert, D. (2009). The impacts of leadership on workplace

conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(4), 340–354.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2015). On ethical leadership impact: The role of

follower mindfulness and moral emotions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2),

182-195. doi:10.1002/job.1968

Farias, M. & Wikholm, C. (2015). The Buddha Pill: Can Meditation Change You? London:

Watkins Publishing.

Farias M, Wikholm C, Delmonte R (2016). What is mindfulness-based therapy good for?

Evidence, limitations and controversies. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3, 1012-1013.

Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at Work. In M. R.

Buckley, J. R. Halbesleben, & A. R. Wheeler (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management (Vol. 30, pp. 115-157): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K. Baer, R. A.,

Brewer, J. A., & Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative

review. Journal of Management, 42(1), 114-142.

Hancock, A.J., Gellatly, I.R., Walsh, M.M., Arnold, K.A., Connelly, C. (2018). How do

followers see their leaders and does it matter?: Insights from a person-centered analysis.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2018, issue 1. Published online July 9, 2018.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.23.5

Hulsheger, U. R., Alberts, H., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at
Accepted Article
work: The rold of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310-325.

Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs

more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887-900.

Kanste, O., Kyngas, H., & Nikkila, J. (2007). The relationship between multidimensional

leadership and burnout among nursing staff. J Nurs Manag, 15, 731-739.

Keith, M. G, Tay, L. & Harms, P. D. (2017) Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk

for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations. Front. Psychol. 8:1359.

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359

Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in

occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 24(3), 260-279.

Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., . . . Hofmann, S. G.

(2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev,

33(6), 763-771.

Kuoppala, J., Lamminpaa, A., Liira, J., & Vainio, H. (2008). Leadership, job well-being and

health-effects: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 50(8), 904-915.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. (2015). Why are

abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management

Journal.
Accepted Article
Lindahl, J., Fisher, N., Cooper, D.J., Rosen, R.K/, Britton, W.B. (2017). The varieties of

contemplative experience: a mixed-methods study of meditation-related challenges in

Western Buddhists. PLoS One, 12, e0176239.

Lomas, T., Cartwright, T., Edginton, T., & Ridge, D. (2015). A qualitative analysis of

experiential challenges associated with meditation practice. Mindfulness, 6, 848-860.

Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive Supervision: A

Meta-Analysis and Empirical Review. Journal of Management.

MacKillop, J. & Anderson, E. J. (2007). Further psychometric validation of the mindful attention

and awareness scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29m 289-

93.

McGonagle, A. K., Huang, J. L., & Walsh, B. M. (2016). Insufficient effort survey responding:

An under-appreciated problem in work and organizational health psychology research.

Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 65(287-321).

Miller, J. (1993). The unveiling of traumatic memories and emotions through mindfulness and

concentration meditation: Clinical implications and three case reports. Journal of

Transpersonal Psychology, 25, 169–180.

Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2016). The relationship between transformational leadership and

follower sickness absence: the role of presenteeism. Work and Stress, 30, 193-208.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social

science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol, 63, 539-

569.
Accepted Article
Roche, M., Haar, J. M., & Luthans, F. (2014). The role of mindfulness and psychological capital

on the well-being of leaders. J Occup Health Psychol, 19(4), 476-489.

Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical

decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 73–87.

Safran, J. D. (2014). McMindfulness: The marketing of well-being. Psychology Today.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information approach to job attitudes and task

design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–252.

Seltzer, J., Numerof, R., & Bass, B. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more

burnout and stress? Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 12, 174–

185.

Shirom, A. (2005). Shirom-Melamed Vigor Measure (SMVM). Retrieved from

http://www.shirom.org/arie/index.html

Shraga, O., & Shirom, A. (2009). The construct validity of vigor and its antecedents: A

qualitative study. Human Relations, 62(2), 271-291.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The

destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12, 80-92.

Smith, K., Cacioppo, J., Larsen, J., & Chartrand, T. (2003). May I have your attention, please:

Electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli, Neuropsychologia, 41(2), 171-

183,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-

related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 21, 365-390.

Accepted Article
Tang, Y.-Y., Ma, Y., Wang, J., Fan, Y., Feng, S., Lu, Q., Yu, Q., Sui, D., Rothbart, M. K., Fan,

M., & Posner, M. I. 2007. Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-

regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 17152-17156

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,

43(2), 178-190.

Van Dam, N., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., . . .

Meyer, D. E. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for

research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1),

36-61.

Wadlinger, H. A., & Isaacowitz, D. M. 2011. Fixing our focus: Training attention to regulate

emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15: 75-102

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellgen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.

Wilson BM, Mickes L, Stolarz-Fantino S, Evrard M, Fantino E (2015). Increased false-memory

susceptibility after mindfulness meditation. Psychological Science, 26, 1567-1573.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as

predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84-94.

Wright, T. A., & Huang, C.-C. (2012). The many benefits of employee well-being in

organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1188-1192.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Table 1: Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Negative affectivity (T1) 1.61 0.73

Accepted Article
2. Length of relationship
4.53 3.91 .18**
with supervisor (T1)

3. Employee psychological
4.98 1.06 -.42** .17**
well-being (T1)

4. TFL (T1) 3.31 .90 -.26** .14* .56**

5. Abusive supervision (T1) 1.64 .80 .48** -.06 -.28** -.45**

6. Mindfulness (T1) 4.24 1.08 -.28** .16* .19** .06 -.20**

7. Employee psychological
4.83 1.16 -.28** .17* .68** .47** -.27** .01
well-being (T2)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed). Note: TFL = Transformational leadership; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 BRIGHT AND DARK SIDES OF EMPLOYEE MINDFULNESS

Table 2: Moderating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between predictors

(transformational leadership and abusive supervision) and employee psychological well-
being

DV: Psychological well-being (T2)

Accepted Article
Variable Step 1, b Step 2, b Step 3, b
Length of relationship with supervisor (T1) .02 .02 .02

Negative affectivity (T1) .03 .03 -.03

Psychological well-being (T1) .74*** .67*** .69***
Transformational leadership (T1) .16* -.52*
Mindfulness (T1) -.02 -.57**
TFL x Mindfulness .15**
R2 .47 .48 .50
2
ΔR .01 .02**
Note: TFL = Transformational leadership; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; DV = Dependent variable

DV: Psychological well-being (T2)

Not
Variable Step 1, b Step 2, b Step 3, b e:
Length of relationship with supervisor .02 .02 .30 AS
(T1) =
Ab
Negative affectivity (T1) .03 .09 .05 usi
ve
Psychological well-being (T1) .74*** .74*** .73***
sup
erv
Abusive supervision (T1) -.16* .63*
isio
Mindfulness (T2) -.04 .23* n;
AS x Mindfulness -.19** T1
=
R2 .47 .48 .50 Ti
ΔR2 .01 .02** me
1;
T2 = Time 2; DV = Dependent variable

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 1 R2

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.