The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0262-1711.htm

Developing leaders through Mindful leader

development
mindfulness practice
Megan Reitz and Lee Waller
Hult International Business School - Ashridge Executive Education Campus,
Berkhamsted, UK
Michael Chaskalson Received 6 September 2018
Hult International Business School - Ashridge Executive Education Campus, Revised 30 May 2019
Accepted 9 January 2020
Berkhamsted, UK and
Mindfulness Works, Cambridge, UK
Sharon Olivier
Hult International Business School - Ashridge Executive Education Campus,
Berkhamsted, UK, and
Silke Rupprecht
Research Consultant, Hamburg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The study’s objective was to examine whether and how mindfulness training and practice might
impact indicators of three capacities identified as critical for leading in the twenty-first century: resilience,
leading in complex contexts and collaboration.
Design/methodology/approach – We conducted a non-randomised wait-list controlled study with 57 senior
leaders (81 per cent female) who undertook an eight-week “Mindful Leader” programme.
Findings – Our findings suggest the programme was effective in developing leaders in terms of their
mindfulness, resilience and self-perceived leadership competencies such as collaboration and agility in complex
situations. The amount of mindfulness practice the leaders undertook was associated with improvements in
mindfulness, resilience and collaboration. Furthermore, participants reported that the programme was
beneficial for them as leaders and that the training format was feasible. However, objective measures of
cognitive functioning and leadership competence did not improve significantly within the mindfulness
intervention group.
Practical implications – Mindfulness practice may be a promising and effective method for leader
development. Our results suggest that mindfulness can be learnt and developed by executive leaders, as long as
they practice for at least 10 min per day.
Originality/value – This is the first study to investigate how resilience, leading in complex contexts and
collaboration can be developed through mindfulness training.
Keywords Collaboration, Leadership development, Mindfulness, Resilience, Leadership flexibility,
Leading in complexity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The context in which leaders operate has changed significantly since the turn of the century;
leaders work in conditions that are described as increasingly complex (Uhl-Bien and Arena,
2017) and paradoxical (Lavine, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015), and certainty in the new world of
work is ever more elusive. In order to thrive in this volatile and uncertain context, companies
and leaders are advised to develop new capacities which enable them to respond effectively to
challenges for which they are not able to control outcomes (Lavine, 2014). The main
objective of leader and leadership development in this context is to improve the individual
and collective capacities of being effective in leadership roles (Day and Dragoni, 2015). Journal of Management
Development
On an individual level, these capacities include self-awareness, efficacy (Day and Dragoni, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
2015), resilience and cognitive flexibility (Abbatiello et al., 2017) and self-reflection and DOI 10.1108/JMD-09-2018-0264
JMD self-regulation (Nesbit, 2012). Yet, King and Nesbit (2015) voiced concern regarding the ability
of current leader development programmes and interventions to develop critical leadership
capacities such as these, and Nesbit (2012) argued that the development of meta-skills is
especially crucial to enable leaders to continuously develop themselves.
Mindfulness may be considered such a meta-skill that has the potential to alter core
functioning such as self-awareness and emotion regulation of leaders (Good et al., 2016).
Mindfulness training has recently emerged in popular management publications as a novel
method of leader development (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005; Hougaard and Carter, 2018; Reitz
and Chaskalson, 2016). The term mindfulness is used to described a state, a trait and a method
of training the mind (Baer and Lykins, 2011). In the context of modern mindfulness definitions,
state mindfulness is defined as a state of being attentive and aware characterised by a clear
purpose and a non-judgemental attitude (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). To illustrate, a state of mindfulness
may be induced by establishing a clear focus on observing the breath and practicing awareness
of thoughts or emotions arising while simultaneously refraining from judging or engaging with
them. However, mindfulness naturally occurs in everyday life whenever a person is aware of
present moment experiences. Most operationalisations of mindfulness measure trait
mindfulness because people differ in their disposition to be mindful in daily life (Quaglia
et al., 2015). Both state and trait mindfulness can be developed through mindfulness training. A
number of mindfulness group trainings, including Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
(MBSR), have been developed which consist of psycho-educational content, formal mindfulness
practices, such as mindfulness meditations and informal practices, such as walking in a mindful
way. The consistent practice of mindfulness meditation seems to be an important element for
mindfulness trainings to be effective. For example, a recent review and meta-analysis concluded
that the amount of mindfulness practice was associated with greater training outcomes
(Parsons et al., 2017). These practices are inspired by Buddhist contemplative practices in the
Theravadan tradition but secularised for a modern context (Thera, 1975). In this article, we will
use the term “mindfulness” when referring to the construct, “trait mindfulness” when referring
to the operationalisation and “mindfulness training” (MT) or “mindful leadership training”
(MLT) when referring to the development of mindfulness through training.
While researchers have theoretically argued that leaders’ mindfulness may be beneficial
to face modern leadership challenges (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005; Hyland et al., 2015), theories
linking mindfulness and leadership are scarce (King and Badham, 2018), and very few studies
have investigated the impact of mindfulness training for leadership development (Brendel
et al., 2016). In fact, Good et al. (2016, p. 128) point out that “leadership has not been
extensively studied by mindfulness researchers”.
In this study, we investigate whether mindfulness training for leaders (The Mindful Leader
Training, MLT) can improve key leader capabilities. We will focus on three important twenty-
first-century leadership skills: leadership resilience, leading in complexity and collaboration.
In the following brief review, we highlight how trait mindfulness and mindfulness training
may contribute to developing leaders that are effective in these domains.

Leadership resilience
There are enormous personal and financial costs associated with a lack of resilience in
workplace contexts (Hassard et al., 2018). Resilience is defined in the context of organisational
behaviour as the “psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity,
uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility”
(Luthans, 2002, p. 702). Mindfulness training has been employed as a successful method to
improve indicators of resilience. For example, there is strong evidence that training
mindfulness improves the ability to cope with stress in healthy adults (Chiesa and Serretti,
2009) and a variety of psychological problems of adults including depression, anxiety and
substance abuse (Goldberg et al., 2018).
 Research in workplace settings additionally shows that mindfulness training might aid Mindful leader
participants in becoming more resilient in the face of job stress. For example, resilience development
mediated the impact of mindfulness on engagement and well-being of full-time employees
(Malinowski and Lim, 2015). Given that emotion management is a factor in the development of
resilience (Davda, 2011), emotion regulation skills might mediate the relationship between
mindfulness and resilience. For example, workplace mindfulness training decreased emotional
exhaustion (H€ulsheger et al., 2013) which may in turn equip training participants with the skills
necessary to be more resilient in the face of emotional demands. In another study, healthy adults
improved their ability to rebound from work stress through mindfulness training, thus
displaying greater resilience to stress (H€ ulsheger et al., 2015). However, the only study
conducted with a sample of leaders to investigate the link between mindfulness training and
resilience found no significant changes in leaders’ resilience following a mindfulness training
compared to an active control condition (leadership training) (Brendel et al., 2016).

Leading in complexity
A core leadership capacity today is the ability to adapt to and act flexibly in increasingly
volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) contexts (Rodriguez and Rodriguez,
2015). This skill has been emphasised in complexity leadership theories (Uhl-Bien and Arena,
2017) and leadership theories emphasising performance during change and ambiguity
(Boyatzis, 2006). To prepare leaders for leading in complexity, the development of a greater
amount of (mental) agility may be necessary for them to thrive in changing environments.
There is emerging evidence that mindfulness may support leaders to navigate complex
systems by unleashing greater choicefulness in emotionally tense situations that typically
prime automaticity. For example, leaders with higher trait mindfulness displayed greater
leadership flexibility, the ability to adapt their leadership style according to the demands of a
situation (Baron et al., 2018). Moreover, Kirk et al. (2011) showed experimentally that long-
term meditators uncoupled negative reactions to unfair behaviour in the Ultimatum game
from their behaviour more often compared to controls. While accepting an unfair offer is the
rationally best choice in this game, non-meditators accepted these kind of offers in one-
quarter of the trials compared to meditators who accepted these offers in more than half of the
trials. Long-term meditators displayed a greater ability to make a rational decision in a
complex situation rather than being swayed by their emotions.
A mechanism that increases the capability to lead in complexity may be the ability to
process, filter and control a stream of information to be used for decision-making (Uhl-Bien
and Arena, 2017). It can be argued that mindfulness training is particularly suited to respond
to this need because it is essentially about training attention and awareness. The evidence
base for improving cognitive functioning, such as working memory capacity, through
mindfulness training is accumulating (Chiesa et al., 2011; Jha et al., 2007). To illustrate, one
study showed that through mindfulness training participants achieved greater attentional
control showcased by a greater ability to redirect and sustain their attention on an object of
their choice (Hasenkamp et al., 2012), and a four-week training was effective in improving
working memory of elite military forces (Zanesco et al., 2019).

Collaboration
Ninety per cent of companies are redesigning to become more dynamic and team-centred
(Abbatiello et al., 2017), and as such, leaders’ capacity to enable collaboration and innovation
in increasingly complex organisations is an important area of leader development (Uhl-Bien
and Arena, 2017). Rather than giving out orders, leaders are advised to create resonance
(Boyatzis and McKee, 2005), engage and relate with followers (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011) and
indeed adopt a humble attitude of serving others (Greenleaf and Spears, 1998; van
Dierendonck et al., 2014) with the objective of providing a collaborative-friendly work
JMD environment. Whilst collaboration requires the development of collective capacities in a team
such as a shared mind-set and a team oriented towards team learning (Day and Dragoni,
2015), there are also important aspects in the development of leaders that contribute to
collaboration. For example, leaders that effectively regulate their emotions, “leading with
emotional labor” (Ashkanasy and Dorris, 2017, p. 78), may prevent negative emotions from
spilling over to a team which in turn negatively affect collaboration.
Mindfulness training can improve emotion regulation skills (Good et al., 2016). Relatedly, it
may improve collaboration through an increased relationship quality and awareness of
others. Mindfulness has been associated with greater other-orientation, such as a greater pro-
sociality (Donald et al., 2018) including compassionate behaviour (Condon et al., 2013). A
number of additional mechanisms may mediate the relationship between mindfulness and
collaboration. Reb et al. (2018) found that mindfulness was positively related to leader–
member exchange which in turn mediated follower performance. While the authors did
not investigate this, we argue that the greater respect experienced by followers may
additionally pave way to improved collaboration. In fact, Yu and Zellmer Bruhn (2018)
showed that relationship conflict is associated with deviant behaviour undermining
collaboration and the level of mindfulness in a team buffered relationship conflicts.
Mindfulness may enable leaders to become more aware of followers’ needs, emotional
states or motivations, which may facilitate relationship building and ultimately collaboration.
Followers of more mindful leaders give higher ratings of experienced need satisfaction (Reb
et al., 2014). In couples, the feelings of connection improved following mindfulness training
mediated by the partners’ day-to-day attentiveness and their emotion regulation skills
(Quaglia et al., 2015). Collaboration might also improve through a greater communication
quality enhanced by mindfulness which is related to a greater presence in interactions
(Beckman et al., 2012), less hostile communication (Krishnakumar and Robinson, 2015) and a
more positive emotional tone (Beach et al., 2013).
In summary, mindfulness training may be beneficial for the development of leaders’
resilience and their effectiveness in enabling collaboration and lead in complexity. To date,
studies investigating the impact of mindfulness training on leadership-specific outcomes are
scarce. Furthermore, more objective measures of leadership behaviour, such as 3608
instruments, have rarely been employed to complement self-report outcomes.

Objectives of this study

Our objectives in this study were to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a MLT to improve
mindfulness and leadership skills in a leader sample. We addressed the following research
questions: (1) Is an eight-week MLT feasible in terms of leaders’ ability to do and sustain the
home practices and to complete the programme and are participants satisfied in terms of their
perception that the training delivers professional benefit in developing leadership capacities?
(2) Do MLT group participants show greater improvements in mindfulness, resilience,
interpersonal reactivity and cognitive functioning post-programme than those in a wait-list
control group? (3) Do MLT participants, their peers, colleagues and direct reports notice
greater improvements in a 3608 tool assessing key leadership competences compared to those
allocated to the control group? (4) Is home practice associated with positive outcomes of the
training?

Methods
Study design
We conducted a mixed-methods non-randomised wait-list controlled trial with a convenience
sample of senior leaders interested in participating in a mindful leader programme. We
advertised the course to alumni of a private business school in England, through local
business connections, personal networks and social media. The intervention took place at the Mindful leader
university from 2015 to 2016. Inclusion criteria for this study were (1) no previous development
participation in a mindfulness or meditation training; (2) currently holding a leadership
position, defined as holding a management or supervisory position with responsibility for at
least two people; and (3) ability to attend all of the programme workshops. While
randomisation of participants was not possible, participants signed up blindly for either
condition based on their availability. We used a mix of qualitative and quantitative data to
assess a variety of outcomes. Participants completed baseline assessments before the
beginning of the programme (t1) within two weeks after the intervention (t2) and qualitative
questionnaires at three months’ follow-up (t3). To complete a 3608 instrument, participants
were asked to nominate 2 line managers, defined as people that the leader reports to, 2–10
peers and 2–10 direct reports. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the
research and paid £250 to participate in the programme, which is the average cost of a
commercial mindfulness course. Our rationale was that a small financial contribution may
increase the motivation to complete the course and home practices.

Sample
A total of 57 leaders were recruited for this study: 27 assigned to the intervention group and
the remaining 30 took part in the control group (Table I). Females were over-represented with
81 per cent in the combined sample, but there were no significant differences in the gender
distribution between the two groups. The age of participants ranged from 30 to 63 with a
mean age of 46.8 years (SD 5 8.2). Compared to the control group, participants in the MLT
were significantly younger (F(1,53) 5 5.7, p 5 0.02)). The majority (N 5 42) worked in the
private sector across a wide range of industries including consulting (N 5 7), food (N 5 6),
finance (N 5 4), manufacturing (N 5 3) and insurance (N 5 3). Those working in the public
sector were predominantly working in education (N 5 9) or government (N 5 6). There were
no significant differences in the sector distribution between groups.

Intervention
The MLT employed in this study was an eight-week intervention consisting of three half-day
workshops every two weeks, one full day workshop at week 6 and one small group conference
call at week 8. The programme builds on MBSR and MBCT, as described by Chaskalson
(2014), but was adapted for a leadership context (Table II). For example, we added a framing
on leadership complexity based on the work of Stacey and Griffin (2005). Participants were
encouraged to apply their learning in their professional environment. The programme
provided a variety of resources and practices that were aimed at training the core
mindfulness capacities of observing, awareness and nonjudgement both within their
meditation practice and applied to their work lives. Participants learnt mindfulness
meditation practices and were asked to practice them every day for 20 min. Mindfulness
practices included breathing, body scan, mindfulness of sounds and thoughts, mindful
walking and movement and mindful sitting with difficulty. These practices are described in
Chaskalson (2014). Other key components of each mindfulness workshop included: small
group inquiry about home practice, presentation of leadership models and frameworks and

Participant characteristic Mindful leader intervention Wait-list control

Number of senior leaders (N 5 57) N 5 27 N 5 30 Table I.

Age in years (mean, SD) 44.2 (7.6) 49.3 (8.2) Participant
Gender (% female) 81.5 80.6 characteristics by
Sector (% private sector) 77.8 67.7 condition
JMD Key features Mindful leader Typical MBIs

Duration Eight weeks Eight weeks

Group based Yes Yes
Average total intervention Appr. 22 h (3 3 4.75 h sessions þ 1 3 7 h Appr. 31 (8 3 3 h sessions þ
hours retreat day þ 1 h conference call) 1 3 7 h retreat day)
Number of trainers 2 1
Daily required formal home 20 min or more 40 min or more
practice
Daily required informal 1–2 practices per week, e.g. eating meal 1–2 practices per week, e.g. eating
home practice mindfully, doing an everyday activity meal mindfully, doing an everyday
mindfully activity mindfully
Participant contact Yes – “buddy” system where No
between workshops participants paired up and had weekly
conversations
(at the sessions and in between)
Yoga/mindful movement Yes Yes
exercises
Body scan and breath Yes Yes
awareness exercises
Meditation on compassion No No, optional
and loving kindness
Guided meditation Yes, mp3 downloads Yes, recordings on CD or mp3
Table II. recordings and other
Distinguishing supporting materials
features of mindful Theoretical input about Yes No
leader training mindful leadership
compared to Practical exercises for Yes Sometimes
typical MBIs mindful listening

reflection on leadership challenges in small groups or pairs. To support the home practice,
training participants were provided with a mindfulness and course book, online practice
audio recordings and emails from the course tutors. In addition to that, participants formed
buddy pairs which included a weekly conversation outside of the group setting about a
leadership challenge they were most interested in applying their learning on mindfulness to
(Table II).
Two facilitators led the training: a mindfulness teacher with over 40 years’ personal
experience of mindfulness approaches, including significant experience of teaching in
organisational and leadership contexts; and a business school professor with extensive
experience of facilitating leadership development programmes and a personal daily
mindfulness practice.
Measures
Five-Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire is a widely used and validated measure of
mindfulness (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006). This 39-item questionnaire is composed of five sub-
scales: observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience and
non-reactivity to inner experience. Items were rated on a five-point metric of frequency (1,
almost never – 5, almost always), and scales were computed as sum scores across all items.
Cronbach’s alpha for sub-scales ranges from 0.78 to 0.88.
The Ashridge Resilience Questionnaire is a novel measure of resilient attitudes in
workplaces (ARQ; Davda, 2011). This 65-item measure has five sub-scales derived by factor
analysis. These are emotional control, self-belief, purpose, adapting to change, awareness of
others, balancing alternatives. Additionally, a total resilience score is calculated combining
all 65 items. Items were rated on a seven-point metric (1, strongly disagree – 7, strongly agree)
and scales were computed as sum scores. Reliability was high with Cronbach’s alpha > 0.90 Mindful leader
for all sub-scales. development
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980) is a widely used psychometric designed
to assess empathic tendencies. The 28-item questionnaire has four sub-scales: perspective
taking, fantasy, empathic concern and personal distress (Davis, 1983). Items were answered on a
five-point Likert scale (1, does not describe me well – 5, describes me very well. Internal
reliability for these sub-scales is satisfactory with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.68 to 0.79).
Competence Questionnaire is a 3608 questionnaire created specifically for this programme
composed of 65 items capturing the management skills the programme was designed to
develop. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with statements on a five point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 – not skilled to 5 – extremely skilled. Negatively framed items
were reversed so a higher score on this measure represents a greater level of skill. Scores on
these questions were used to reduce data to five factors on the basis of high inter-item
correlations (>0.35). Principal components analysis was used to determine composite
factors from these questions resulting in a five-factor model with Cronbach’s alpha
reliabilities ranging from 0.95 to 0.97 across the five scales which were: collaboration
(sample item: develops a culture of open communication within their team); resilience
(appears calm in the face of challenges); care and concern for self and others (enables other
team members to take care of their well-being); perspective taking (able to view things from
the perspective of others); and agility in complexity (able to make decisions by working
with contradictory ideas).
The Automated Operation Span Task (OSPAN; Turner and Engle, 1989; Conway et al.,
2005) was used to assess working memory capacity, a measure of cognitive functioning.
Participants were presented with visual sequences of letters ranging from 3 to 7 letters that
need to be recalled at the end. Letter recall is tested by asking participants to select letters
from a provided letter matrix. Two scores were calculated in this study: the total score
indicating the number of correctly recalled letters and the total number of correct letters
recalled in the correct position.
Program feasibility was measured with the participants’ ability to complete the home
practices and the programme. The programme was regarded as completed when attending at
minimum of three out of four workshops. We asked participants to practice 20 min of formal
mindfulness practices every day during the course. To assess the feasibility of home practice,
participants were asked to log the amount of practice minutes during the MLT. Out of the
received logs, a total number of practice minutes for each person was calculated.
Program satisfaction was assessed qualitatively at three months’ follow-up. Participants
were asked to rate the programme’s effect on the development of key leadership capacities:
resilience, collaboration and leading in complexity. Questions were asked in this style: To
what extent do you think the programme developed your collaboration skills? Answer
choices ranged from 1 – not at all to 5 – to a very great extent.

Statistical analyses
Paired samples t-tests were conducted on outcome measures to examine within-group change
over time from pre- to post-test. To provide a metric for between-group comparisons, Cohen’s
(1988) d effect sizes were computed using change scores and pooled post-test standard
deviations. Change scores capturing change over time (post-test minus pre-test) were
calculated for all measures. We used change scores to account for potential differences in pre-
test scores. One-tailed Pearson’s correlations were used to examine relationships between
total amount of home practice and changes across various measures. Plots of statistically
significant correlations were inspected visually for normality of distributions and to identify
any outliers. To investigate our question, what is the amount of required practice to achieve
effects, we conducted mixed ANOVAs for all outcome variables with two factors: time (T1 vs
JMD T2) and group (control group, high practice group, low practice time). The practice sub-
groups were determined by performing a median split of participant practice times.

Results
Our first research question was whether the MLT was feasible and whether participants were
satisfied in terms of their perception that the training delivered professional benefit in developing
leadership capacities. To report programme feasibility, we documented programme completion
and average amount of home practice. All MLT participants met our programme completion
requirement of attending at least three of the four workshops. Intervention group participants
spent a median total of 554 min of home practice which equates to an average of 10 min per day
over the eight-week course. 24 out of 27 intervention group participants completed the
programme satisfaction survey. Of these, 92 per cent reported that the programme improved
their collaboration skills and their ability to deal with complexity, and 94 per cent agreed that
their resilience improved. To summarise, MLT feasibility and satisfaction were high.
Our second research question asked whether self-report measures of mindfulness,
resilience, interpersonal reactivity and a cognitive task measuring working memory
capacity (OSPAN) improved in the intervention group compared to the control group. The
intervention was effective in improving leader’s mindfulness and resilience with Cohen’s
d effect sizes ranging from small to large (Table III). There were moderate intervention effects
on IRI sub-scales perspective taking, empathic concern and personal distress. Furthermore, we
found a negative intervention effect on the IRI fantasy sub-scale, indicating that the
intervention did not improve participants’ ability to make up stories in their mind. Finally, there

Intervention Control
Measure T1 T2 T1 T2 Cohen’s d

ARQ emot ctrl 3.43 (0.93) 4.19 (0.71)*** 4.06 (0.87) 4.17 (0.69) 0.92
ARQ self-belief 4.42 (0.77) 4.88 (0.42)** 4.61 (0.52) 4.17 (0.27)* 0.37
ARQ purpose 4.24 (1.09) 4.80 (0.80)** 4.57 (0.72) 4.96 (0.50)* 0.22
ARQ adapt 4.25 (0.74) 4.72 (0.61)** 4.67 (0.64) 4.81 (0.56) 0.64
ARQ others 4.48 (0.75) 4.93 (0.53)* 4.97 (0.62) 5.18 (0.49) 0.30
ARQ balance alt 3.33 (1.24) 4.61 (0.89)*** 4.41 (0.71) 4.77 (0.68)** 1.20
IRI fantasy 19.88 (5.08) 20.67 (4.57) 19.97 (4.92) 22.07 (4.28)** -0.33
IRI perspective 21.92 (5.02) 26.50 (4.58)*** 23.48 (4.16) 26.38 (4.74)*** 0.41
IRI pers distr 15.96 (3.12) 13.68 (3.28)** 16.34 (3.30) 15.52 (4.17) 0.41
IRI empath con 23.13 (3.44) 26.29 (3.97)*** 25.85 (3.13) 28.04 (2.81)*** 0.45
FFMQ observe 3.26 (0.75) 3.77 (0.54)*** 3.36 (0.57) 3.24 (0.53) 1.14
FFMQ describe 3.49 (0.62) 3.99 (0.39)*** 3.61 (0.55) 3.55 (0.66) 0.61
FFMQ aware 3.06 (0.58) 3.55 (0.56)** 3.08 (0.62) 3.17 (0.62) 1.06
FFMQ non-judge 3.18 (0.80) 4.00 (0.58)*** 3.31 (0.82) 3.45 (0.83) 1.01
FFMQ non-react 2.79 (0.64) 3.43 (0.57)*** 3.08 (0.43) 3.11 (0.48) 1.44
OSPAN total 50.32 (16.45) 52.84 (16.57) 50.89 (14.57) 52.61 (16.11) 0.05
OSPAN correct 62.37 (10.27) 64.89 (7.79) 64.67 (7.93) 65.67 (9.42) 0.16
Notes: Standard deviations reported in parentheses: ARQ 5 Ashridge resilience questionnaire, Emot
Ctrl 5 Emotional control, Adapt 5 Adapting to change, Others 5 Awareness of others, Balance
Alt 5 Balancing alternatives, IRI 5 Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Perspective 5 Perspective
taking, Pers Distr 5 Personal distress, Empath Con 5 Empathic concern, FFMQ 5 Five-facet mindfulness
Table III. questionnaire, OSPAN 5 Automated operation span tasks, Total 5 The number of correctly recalled letters,
Pre- and post-test mean Correct 5 The total number of correct letters recalled in the correct position. Cohen’s d was calculated to
scores, standard indicate effect size of intervention using the following formula: difference in mean change scores/pooled within-
deviations and Cohen’s group standard deviation. Directions of Cohen’s d were modified so that larger positive d’s indicate superiority
d effect size self-report of the intervention group over the control group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, p-values based on paired
outcomes pre-post t-tests within groups
were no significant improvements in the OSPAN task in either groups. Thus, the second Mindful leader
research question was partially confirmed. development
Our third research question was whether key leadership competencies improved through
participating in the Mindful Leader programme. Using a self-developed 3608 feedback
instrument, participants, their line managers, peers and direct reports completed the
questionnaire. The significance of changes within groups and the effect size of the training
are summarised in Table IV. Self-reported leadership competencies improved significantly in
the intervention group across all five factors (collaboration t(2,24) 5 3.86, p < 0.001; resilience
t(2,24) 5 4.38, p < 0.001; care and concern for others t(2,24) 5 4.66, p < 0.001; perspective taking
t(2,24) 5 3.83, p < 0.001; agility in complexity t(2,24) 5 3.02, p 5 0.006). In the control group,
collaboration improved significantly (t(2,26) 5 2.61, p 5 0.02) as did care and concern for others
(t(2,26) 5 2.09, p 5 0.046). No significant changes in any of the other scales were observed here. In
regard to objective competence ratings, no significant changes were found within the
intervention group’s objective ratings of leadership competence. However, small intervention
effects were observed in the resilience and care and concern for others’ sub-scales by line
managers, and small-to-medium intervention effects were observed across all sub-scales by
peers. Contrary to our assumption, the direct reports’ assessment of leaders improved
significantly in the control resulting in a negative training effect for direct reports. To
summarise, while the training effectively improved leadership capacities assessed by the
leaders themselves, peers and line managers partially supported and direct reports did not
support these findings.
Our final research question was regarding the association of home practice with positive
outcomes of the training. Correlating the change scores of all outcome measures with the total

Intervention Control
Leaders’ self-perception T1 T2 T1 T2 d

Collaboration 3.30 (0.45) 3.59 (0.50)*** 3.22 (0.50) 3.39 (0.50)* 0.34
Resilience 3.04 (0.39) 3.40 (0.52)*** 3.19 (0.50) 3.21 (0.54) 0.85
Care and concern 2.90 (0.44) 3.33 (0.52)*** 2.92 (0.51) 3.09 (0.57)* 0.62
Perspective taking 3.12 (0.52) 3.54 (0.51)*** 3.15 (0.68) 3.30 (0.62) 0.57
Agil in complexity 3.20 (0.52) 3.44 (0.55)** 3.18 (0.53) 3.26 (0.49) 0.42
Line manager
Collaboration 3.91 (0.45) 3.91 (0.43) 4.08 (0.65) 4.10 (0.66) 0.11
Resilience 3.66 (0.42) 3.70 (0.39) 3.86 (0.64) 3.87 (0.65) 0.20
Care and concern 3.70 (0.44) 3.74 (0.43) 3.92 (0.64) 3.91 (0.63) 0.41
Perspective taking 3.81 (0.50) 3.83 (0.49) 3.90 (0.65) 3.92 (0.66) 0.01
Agil in complexity 3.66 (0.52) 3.68 (0.51) 3.80 (0.65) 3.84 (0.67) 0.09
Peers
Collaboration 3.77 (0.38) 3.78 (0.39) 3.98 (0.47) 3.94 (0.51) 0.40
Resilience 3.64 (0.35) 3.68 (0.33) 3.88 (0.39) 3.83 (0.43) 0.58
Care and concern 3.57 (0.36) 3.61 (0.36) 3.82 (0.46) 3.78 (0.49) 0.48
Perspective taking 3.65 (0.41) 3.69 (0.42) 3.96 (0.49) 3.92 (0.55) 0.50
Agil in complexity 3.70 (0.41) 3.74 (0.41) 3.92 (0.47) 3.87 (0.51) 0.59
Direct reports
Collaboration 3.95 (0.49) 3.94 (0.50) 4.11 (0.52) 4.18 (0.51)** 0.61
Table IV.
Resilience 3.86 (0.40) 3.84 (0.38) 3.99 (0.47) 4.05 (0.46)** 0.71
Pre- and post-test mean
Care and concern 3.73 (0.48) 3.72 (0.49) 3.88 (0.59) 3.96 (0.57)* 0.53 scores, standard
Perspective taking 3.83 (0.49) 3.83 (0.48) 3.98 (0.55) 4.06 (0.54)** 0.61 deviations and Cohen’s
Agil in complexity 3.94 (0.46) 3.91 (0.42) 4.03 (0.50) 4.07 (0.51)* 0.65 d effect sizes for 3608
Notes: Complete scale names are: Care and concern for others, agility in complexity performance feedback
JMD amount of home practice in minutes for each participant of the intervention group, we found
that the amount of home practice was positively associated with mindfulness, resilience and
two leadership capacities assessed with the 3608 instrument: collaboration and resilience.
There was a negative correlation between practice time and the fantasy sub-scale of the IRI
(Table V and Figure 1).
Additionally, we assessed what amount of practice is required to achieve a positive
training outcome. To address this question, we performed a median split at 554 total practice
minutes and divided participants in a low practice (less than 10 min daily) and high practice
group (more than 10 min daily). For this analysis, we included the control groups with a pre-
set practice time at zero minute. The “high practice group” had a significantly greater
difference between pre- and post-results compared with the control group and the “low
practice group” in relation to the FFMQ total score (f(2, 38) 5 7.53, p < 0.01) and the ARQ total
score (f(2, 38) 5 7.53, p < 0.01) as well as the competence scale total score (f(2, 49) 5 10.02,
p < 0.001). Results therefore indicated that whether a participant practiced for more than
10 min per day on average significantly predicted the increased results they obtained for
mindfulness, resilience and leader competence.

Discussion
This study sought to test the potential of MLT for the development of key leadership
capacities using both self-report and objective measures. The goal of leader development is
the improvement of core individual capacities like self-awareness which in turn may result in
greater leader resilience, agility in complexity and collaboration (Day and Dragoni, 2015).

Feasibility and satisfaction

Attending an eight-week Mindful Leader training was feasible for senior leaders: All
participants attended three out of four bi-weekly workshops, and they practiced on average
10 min per day. Programme satisfaction was high: Over 90 per cent of the leaders agreed that
the programme offered professional benefits in terms of improving their leader capacities
such as resilience, collaboration and thriving in complexity.

Trait mindfulness and cognitive functioning

Our results show moderate-to-large training effects on all dimensions of trait mindfulness
indicating that participants improved their capacity to become aware of emotions and
thoughts and to develop a non-judgmental attitude towards them. Additionally, an objective
measure of cognitive functioning, working memory capacity, did not improve through MLT.
This is not in line with findings which showed that teachers’ and military personnels’
working memory capacity improved through a mindfulness training (Jha et al., 2010; Roeser
et al., 2013). The practice requirement was higher in both of these studies which may be
related to an increased training impact on cognitive functioning.

Outcome measure r [95% CI] p (1-tailed)

FFMQ observe 0.49 [0.12, 0.73] 0.010

FFMQ act aware 0.58 [0.25, 0.79] 0.003
FFMQ total 0.52 [0.10, 0.74] 0.008
ARQ balance alt 0.43 [0.09, 0.62] 0.020
Table V.
Correlations between IRI fantasy 0.52 [0.81, 0.09] 0.006
practice time and Comp collaboration 0.44 [0.07, 0.74] 0.018
changes in outcome Comp resilience 0.48 [0.18, 0.74] 0.011
measures Note: Comp Collaboration and Comp Resilience 5 Competence Scale, Self-report
 1,4 2,5 Mindful leader
1,2
2 development
1

FFMQ Act Aware

FFMQ Observe

0,8 1,5
0,6 1
0,4
0,2 0,5

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-0,2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-0,5
-0,4 r= 0.49* r=0.58**
-0,6 -1
PracticeTime Practice Time

(a) (b)
4 1,2
Leader Competence - Collaboration

1
3
0,8
2 0,6
ARQ BA

0,4
1
0,2
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-0,2
-1
r=0.43* -0,4 r=0.44* Figure 1.
-2 -0,6 Scatterplots of the
Practice Time Practice Time correlation between
(c) total practice time in
(d) minutes and changes in
1,4 10 outcomes for treatment
Leader Competence - Resilience

1,2 8 group only. Change

scores calculated as
1 6 post–pre values.
0,8 4 Greater practice time is
IRI Fantasy

0,6 2 associated with (a)

Increases in mindful
0,4 0 observing and (b)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Increases in acting
0,2 -2
aware (c) Increases in
0 -4 ability to balance
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-0,2 -6 alternatives (d)
Increases in
-0,4 r=0.48* -8 r=-0.52**
collaboration (e)
-0,6 -10 Increases in resilience
Practice Time Practice Time
(f) Decreases in
(e) (f) tendency to fantasize

Leader resilience
Our findings support the assumption that leader resilience may be boosted by MLT. We found
that all dimensions of leader resilience improved significantly post-training and resulted in
small-to-large intervention effects. Compared to the control group, the greatest programme
effect was observed for the sub-scale emotional control (d 5 0.92). This is a novel finding, not in
JMD line with a previous study that could not find support for the impact of MT on resilience (Brendel
et al., 2016). This may be partially explained by the use of a newly developed questionnaire, the
Ashridge Resilience Questionnaire (ARQ), which specifically targets dimensions of leader
resilience. In addition to that, we used a 3608 instrument to assess the objective improvements in
leader resilience. Participants, line managers and peers observed small-to-moderate training
effects on leader resilience, while direct reports noticed a moderate negative training effect. This
is a surprising finding, which we’ll discuss in greater detail under limitations.

Leading in complexity
Our findings partially support the hypotheses that MLT may improve leaders’ capacity to
lead in complex situations. For example, there was a large training effect on the resilience sub-
scale adaptability to change (d 5 0.62). Additionally, we assessed leaders’ adaptability to
change objectively with the subscale agility in complexity in the 3608 instrument. The leaders’
self-assessment showed significant improvements in agility within the intervention group
and a small between-group effect. While no training effect on agility was observed by line
managers, a moderate training effect was observed by participants and by their peers. Due to
significant improvements in the control group, there was again a negative training effect
perceived by direct reports. These findings are in line with a recent qualitative study that
showed that leaders noted a greater capacity to adapt to and thrive in changing and
challenging circumstances (Rupprecht et al., 2019), and a study that showed that mindfulness
is related to leader flexibility (Baron et al., 2018).

Collaboration
To assess improvements in collaboration, we measured the leaders’ empathic capacities
and used the 3608 tool to assess collaboration and perspective taking objectively. Leaders’
perspective taking and empathic concern improved significantly compared to the control
condition. Similar improvements have been observed in studies with physicians (Krasner
et al., 2009; Shapiro et al., 1998). However, the intervention had a negative effect on the
fantasy sub-scale of this instrument, indicating that this concept might be at odds with the
practice of mindfulness. This sub-scale measures the tendency to transpose oneself
imaginatively into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters (Davis, 1983).
Mindfulness trains the ability to stay present and aware while observing thoughts and
emotions, and developing this quality might decrease the inclination to daydream in this
way. In addition to that, similar improvements in perspective taking were noted by the
participants and peers with the 3608 instrument which amounted to moderate training
effects. Collaboration was separately measured with this tool, resulting in small-to-
moderate training effects from participants, peers and line managers and negative training
effects from direct reports. Finally, there was a moderate training effect on the care and
concern sub-scale through the assessment of participants, peers and line managers. Taken
together, there is a strong case for improvements in collaboration, with the exception of the
direct reports’ assessment. Here, the control group noted significant improvements in all
dimensions of the scale while the intervention group improved only marginally.

Mindfulness practice
Finally, we found that practice time was associated with improvements in mindfulness,
resilience and collaboration. In addition to that, home practice time over 10 min per day
significantly predicted greater outcomes. Similar findings were reported in other studies
(Jha et al., 2010; Parsons et al., 2017), and they highlight the importance of establishing a
consistent mindfulness practice at home in order to benefit from trainings like
this MLT.
Practical implications Mindful leader
This study supports the case for integrating mindfulness in leader development development
programmes. It showed that the leaders valued the programme highly and found large
training effects on mindfulness, leader resilience, care and concern for others and perspective
taking. However, positive outcomes were related to the amount of regular mindfulness
practice. Thus, universities and organisations who wish to develop leaders’ mindfulness
should consider providing favourable conditions to practice, which may include offering a
meditation room, regular guided mindfulness practice and support from management, such
as allowing space in the working day to practice.

Limitations and future research

This is an innovative study using new instruments such as the 3608 feedback instrument to
objectively assess the training outcomes. The unanticipated finding that direct reports of the
control group observed significant improvements resulting in negative training effects
highlights the difficulties of using 3608 instruments at multiple time points. The impact
reported by line managers, peers and direct reports appears considerably more muted than
the positive self-report perceptions, for example, the improvements within the intervention
group failed to become significant. This may partly be related to the small sample size.
Additionally, it is possible that a period of eight weeks may be too short for colleagues at work
to observe more defined changes in behaviour. An explanation building on this assumption
was put forward by Hansbrough and colleagues (2015), who showed that leadership ratings
often do not accurately depict change because ratings are inferred from recollections of past
behaviour. Based on the assumption that mindfulness training improves the ability to make
accurate observations in the present moment, we argue that instruments’ reliability should
improve if all participants are trained in mindfulness simultaneously.
We suggest the replication of these findings with a more rigorous design (e.g. RCT) and a
larger sample to increase the power of the study (post-hoc power calculations revealed that
the power of our study ranged from 0.9 for large effects to 0.3 for small effects). We had a
relatively homogeneous sample that self-selected to participate in this training. In future
studies, a university setting may be used to replicate the study. Students enrolled in leader
development programmes may be randomly assigned to take part in this or standard
trainings which would increase the study quality and reduce a potential sampling bias.
The practice logs of the participants were provided weekly by the participants. Objective
logs via apps and so on are favourable to ensure that measurements are correct. Moreover, the
study raised the question of what counts as “practice”? Whilst records can be taken of
informal and formal practice, as we did in this study, the quality of the practice, as determined,
for example, by the individual’s state of mind during such practice, may have an impact on
results.
We focus on the development of leaders’ capacity to be effective in a leadership role, and in
future studies it would be interesting to investigate whether mindfulness increases the
collective capacity to be effective (Day and Dragoni, 2015). We recognise that focusing solely
on leader development without taking the context into account is a limited approach
(Rupprecht et al., 2018) and suggest that it would be valuable to investigate how mindfulness
and mindfulness training affect the social construction of leaders and leadership.
Mindfulness is an increasingly important capacity because it enables leaders to develop
greater self-awareness, resilience and emotional regulation, which could then have an impact
on others in social interactions of a complex organisational system. Supporting this
argument, a recent study showed that offering mindfulness training to leaders within their
workplaces had the potential to impact team work and ignite small changes on a systemic
level (Rupprecht et al., 2019).
JMD Conclusion
This study contributes to the mindfulness, leadership and leadership development literatures
by showing that mindfulness practice may be a promising and effective method for leader
development. Our results suggest that mindfulness can be learnt and developed by executive
leaders, as long as they practice for at least 10 min per day. This implies that those responsible
for development interventions and those attending them cannot expect a training programme
to be effective that does not include home practice over a period of eight weeks. The impact of
this programme is well summarised by one of our participants:
Mindfulness is not a “silver bullet” solution as many books and courses would have one believe. Seen
in context as a gradual increase in awareness of these aspects in ones’ life, it is essential and a great
help in interacting with collaborators, managing a team, decision making and putting things in
perspective.

References
Abbatiello, A., Knight, M., Philpot, S. and Roy, I. (2017), “Leadership disrupted”, Rewriting the Rules
for the Digital Age. 2017 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends, Deloite University Press,
London, pp. 76-85.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dorris, A.D. (2017), “Emotions in the workplace”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
Baer, R.A. and Lykins, E.L.B. (2011), “Mindfulness and positive psychological functioning”, in
Sheldon, K.M., Kashdan, T.B. and Steger, M.F. (Eds), Designing Positive Psychology, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 335-348.
Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J. and Toney, L. (2006), “Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness”, Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-45.
Baron, L., Rouleau, V., Gregoire, S. and Baron, C. (2018), “Mindfulness and leadership flexibility”, The
Journal of Management Development.
Beach, M.C., Roter, D., Korthuis, P.T., Epstein, R.M., Sharp, V., Ratanawongsa, N., Cohn, J. and Eggly,
S. (2013), “A multicenter study of physician mindfulness and health care quality”, The Annals
of Family Medicine, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 421-428.
Beckman, H.B., Wendland, M., Mooney, C., Krasner, M.S., Quill, T.E., Suchman, A.L. and Epstein, R.M.
(2012), “The impact of a program in mindful communication on primary care physicians”,
Academic Medicine, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 815-819.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2006), “An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective”, The Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 607-623.
Boyatzis, R.E. and McKee, A. (2005), Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting with
Others through Mindfulness, Hope, and Compassion, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Brendel, W., Hankerson, S., Byun, S. and Cunningham, B. (2016), “Cultivating leadership Dharma: measuring
the impact of regular mindfulness practice on creativity, resilience, tolerance for ambiguity, anxiety
and stress”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1056-1078.
Chaskalson, M. (2014), Mindfulness in Eight Weeks: The Revolutionary Eight-Week Plan to Clear Your
Mind and Calm Your Life, HarperThorsons, London.
Chiesa, A., Calati, R. and Serretti, A. (2011), “Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A
systematic review of neuropsychological findings”, Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 449-464.
Chiesa, A. and Serretti, A. (2009), “Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for stress management in
healthy people: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 593-600.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. AQ : 11
Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W.B. and DeSteno, D. (2013), “Meditation increases compassionate Mindful leader
responses to suffering”, Psychological Science, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 2125-2127.
development
Conway, A.R.A., Kane, M.J., Bunting, M.F., Hambrick, D.Z., Wilhelm, O. and Engle, R.W. (2005),
“Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide”, Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 769-786.
Cunliffe, A.L. and Eriksen, M. (2011), “Relational leadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 11,
pp. 1425-1449.
Davda, A. (2011), “Measuring resilience: a pilot study”, Assessment & Development Matters, Autumn,
pp. 11-14.
Davis, M.H. (1980), “A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy”, JSAS
Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 1-19.
Davis, M.H. (1983), “Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional
approach”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 113-126.
Day, D.V. and Dragoni, L. (2015), “Leadership development: an outcome-oriented review based ontime
and levels of analyses”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 133-156, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328.
van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N. and Alkema, J. (2014), “Same
difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and
transformational leadership to follower outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 544-562.
Donald, J.N., Sahdra, B.K., Van Zanden, B., Duineveld, J.J., Atkins, P.W.B., Marshall, S.L. and
Ciarrochi, J. (2018), “Does your mindfulness benefit others? A systematic review and
meta-analysis of the link between mindfulness and prosocial behaviour”, British Journal of
Psychology, doi: 10.1111/bjop.12338.
Goldberg, S.B., Tucker, R.P., Greene, P.A., Davidson, R.J., Wampold, B.E., Kearney, D.J. and Simpson,
T.L. (2018), “Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review
and meta-analysis”, Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 59, pp. 52-60.
Good, D.J., Lyddy, C.J., Glomb, T.M., Bono, J.E., Brown, K.W., Duffy, M.K., Baer, R.A., Brewer, J.A. and
Lazar, S.W. (2016), “Contemplating mindfulness at work: an integrative review”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 114-142.
Greenleaf, R.K. and Spears, L.C. (1998), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate
Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, New York.
Hansbrough, T.K., Lord, R.G. and Schyns, B. (2015), “Reconsidering the accuracy of follower
leadership ratings”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 220-237.
Hasenkamp, W., Wilson-Mendenhall, C.D., Duncan, E. and Barsalou, L.W. (2012), “Mind wandering
and attention during focused meditation: a fine-grained temporal analysis of fluctuating
cognitive states”, Neuroimage, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 750-760.
Hassard, J., Teoh, K.R.H., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P. and Cox, T. (2018), “The cost of work- related stress to
society: a systematic review”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Hougaard, R. and Carter, J. (2018), The Mind of the Leader: How to Lead Yourself, Your People, and
Your Organization for Extraordinary Results, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston,
Massachusetts.
H€ ubold, A. (2015), “A low-dose mindfulness intervention and
ulsheger, U.R., Feinholdt, A. and N€
recovery from work: effects on psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleep
duration”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3,
pp. 464-489.
ulsheger, U.R., Alberts, H.J.E.M., Feinholdt, A. and Lang, J.W.B. (2013), “Benefits of mindfulness at
H€
work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 310-325.
JMD Hyland, P.K., Lee, R.A. and Mills, M.J. (2015), “Mindfulness at work: a new approach to improving
individual and organizational performance”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 576-602.
Jha, A.P., Krompinger, J. and Baime, M.J. (2007), “Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of
attention”, Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 109-119.
Jha, A.P., Stanley, E.A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L. and Gelfand, L. (2010), “Examining the protective
effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective experience”,
Emotion, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 54-64.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003), “Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future”, Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 144-156.
King, E. and Badham, R. (2018), “The wheel of mindfulness: a generative framework for second-
generation mindful leadership”, Mindfulness, doi: 10.1007/s12671-018-0890-7.
King, E. and Nesbit, P. (2015), “Collusion with denial: Leadership development and its evaluation”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 134-152, doi: 10.1108/JMD-02-2013-0023.
Kirk, U., Downar, J. and Montague, P.R. (2011), “Interoception drives increased rational decision-
making in meditators playing the ultimatum game”, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Vol. 5,
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2011.00049.
Krasner, M.S., Epstein, R.M., Beckman, H.B., Suchman, A.L., Chapman, B., Mooney, C.J. and Quill, T.E.
(2009), “Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout,
empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians”, JAMA, Vol. 302 No. 12, p. 1284.
Krishnakumar, S. and Robinson, M.D. (2015), “Maintaining an even keel: an affect-mediated model of
mindfulness and hostile work behavior”, Emotion, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 579-589.
Lavine, M. (2014), “Paradoxical leadership and the competing values framework”, The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 189-205.
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 695-706.
Malinowski, P. and Lim, H.J. (2015), “Mindfulness at work: positive affect, hope, and optimism mediate
the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement, and well-being”,
Mindfulness, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 1250-1262.
Nesbit, P.L. (2012), “The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self-regulation
processes in self-directed leadership development”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-226, doi: 10.1177/1534484312439196.
Parsons, C.E., Crane, C., Parsons, L.J., Fjorback, L.O. and Kuyken, W. (2017), “Home practice in
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of participants’ mindfulness practice and its association with
outcomes”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 95, pp. 29-41.
Quaglia, J.T., Brown, K.W., Lindsay, E.K., Creswell, J.D. and Goodman, R.J. (2015), “From
conceptualization to operationalization of mindfulness”, in Brown, K.W., Creswell, J.D. and
Ryan, R.M. (Eds), Handbook of Mindfulness: Theory, Research, and Practice, Guilford Press,
New York, NY, pp. 151-170.
Reb, J., Chaturvedi, S., Narayanan, J. and Kudesia, R.S. (2018), “Leader mindfulness and employee
performance: a sequential mediation model of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and employee
stress”, Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3927-x.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J. and Chaturvedi, S. (2014), “Leading mindfully: two studies on the influence of
supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance”, Mindfulness, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 36-45.
Reitz, M. and Chaskalson, M. (2016), How to Bring Mindfulness to Your Company’s Leadership,
Harvard Business Review, 1 December, available at: https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-to-bring-
mindfulness-to-your-companys-leadership (accessed 13 December 2017).
Rodriguez, A. and Rodriguez, Y. (2015), “Metaphors for today’s leadership: VUCA world, millennial Mindful leader
and ‘Cloud Leaders’”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 854-866.
development
Roeser, R.W., Schonert-Reichl, K.A., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., Oberle, E., Thomson,
K., Taylor, C. and Harrison, J. (2013), “Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and
burnout: results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 787-804.
Rupprecht, S., Falke, P., Kohls, N., Tamdjidi, C., Wittmann, M. and Kersemaekers, W. (2019), “Mindful
leader development: how leaders experience the effects of mindfulness training on leader
capabilities”, Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1081, pp. 1-15.
Rupprecht, S., Koole, W., Chaskalson, M., Tamdjidi, C. and West, M. (2018), “Running too far ahead?
Towards a broader understanding of mindfulness in organisations”, Current Opinion in
Psychology, doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.10.007.
Shapiro, S.L., Schwartz, G.E. and Bonner, G. (1998), “Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on
medical and premedical students”, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 581-599.
Stacey, R.D. and Griffin, D. (2005), “Introduction: leading in a complex world”, in Griffin, D. and
Stacey, R.D. (Eds), Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations, Routledge, Taylor
& Francis Group, London ; New York, pp. 1-16.
Thera, N. (1975), Satipaţţhana. The Heart of Buddhist Meditation. A Handbook of Mental Training
Based on the Buddha’s Way of Mindfulness, Newburyport, Weiser, San Francisco.
Turner, M.L. and Engle, R.W. (1989), “Is working memory capacity task dependent?”, Journal of
Memory and Language, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 127-154.
Uhl-Bien, M. and Arena, M. (2017), “Complexity leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 9-20.
Yu, L. and Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2018), “Introducing team mindfulness and considering its safeguard
role against conflict transformation and social undermining”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 324-347.
Zanesco, A.P., Denkova, E., Rogers, S.L., MacNulty, W.K. and Jha, A.P. (2019) “Mindfulness training
as cognitive training in high-demand cohorts: an initial study in elite military servicemembers”,
Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 244, pp. 323-354.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D.A., Han, Y.-L. and Li, X.-B. (2015), “Paradoxical leader behaviors in people
management: antecedents and consequences”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 2,
pp. 538-566.

Corresponding author
Megan Reitz can be contacted at: megan.reitz@ashridge.hult.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com