Mindfulness and Leadership: Communication As A Behavioral Correlate of Leader Mindfulness and Its Effect On Follower Satisfaction

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 29 March 2019

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00667
Mindfulness and Leadership:

Communication as a Behavioral
Correlate of Leader Mindfulness and
Its Effect on Follower Satisfaction
Johannes F. W. Arendt1*, Armin Pircher Verdorfer2 and Katharina G. Kugler1
1
Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2 TUM School of
Management, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
In recent years, the construct of mindfulness has gained growing attention in

psychological research. However, little is known about the effects of mindfulness on
interpersonal interactions and social relationships at work. Addressing this gap, the
purpose of this study was to investigate the role of mindfulness in leader–follower
relationships. Building on prior research, we hypothesize that leaders’ mindfulness is
reflected in a specific communication style (“mindfulness in communication”), which is
positively related to followers’ satisfaction with their leaders. We used nested survey
data from 34 leaders and 98 followers from various organizations and tested mediation
Edited by:
Susanne Braun, hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling. Our hypotheses were confirmed by our
Durham University, United Kingdom data in that leaders’ self-reported mindfulness showed a positive relationship with
Reviewed by: several aspects of followers’ satisfaction. This relationship was fully mediated by leaders’
Mai Vu,
mindfulness in communication as perceived by their followers. Our findings emphasize
Durham University, United Kingdom
Iris Katharina Koch, the potential value of mindfulness in workplace settings. They provide empirical
University of Bamberg, Germany evidence for a positive link between leaders’ dispositional mindfulness and the wellbeing
*Correspondence: of their followers, indicating that mindfulness is not solely an individual resource but also
Johannes F. W. Arendt
[email protected]
fosters interpersonal skills. By examining leaders’ mindfulness in communication as an
explanatory process, we created additional clarification about how leaders’ mindfulness
Specialty section: relates to followers’ perceptions, offering a promising starting point for measuring
This article was submitted to
Organizational Psychology, a
behavioral correlates of leader mindfulness.
section of the journal
Keywords: leadership, mindfulness, communication, mindfulness in communication, listening, leader–follower
Frontiers in Psychology
relationship
Received: 17 July 2018
Accepted: 11 March 2019
Published: 29 March 2019 INTRODUCTION
Citation:
Arendt JFW, Pircher Verdorfer A and In the last decades, the construct of mindfulness, an open, non-judging awareness of the current
Kugler KG (2019) Mindfulness and experience (Baer, 2003), has received growing attention in psychological research (for overviews see
Leadership: Communication as a
Brown et al., 2015; Creswell, 2017; Good et al., 2016). While the bulk of research on mindfulness has
Behavioral Correlate of Leader
been conducted in the field of health sciences, less attention has been devoted to the work context. In
Mindfulness and Its Effect on Follower
Satisfaction. Front. Psychol. 10:667. recent years, however, a number of researchers have started to explore whether, how, and to what
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00667 degree individuals can benefit from mindfulness in the work environment (for an overview
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Arendt et al. Mindfulness and Leadership
see Good et al., 2016). This research has mostly focused on of effective leader communication repertoires (Sager,
positive intrapersonal effects (i.e., effects within individuals) of 2008; de Vries et al., 2010).
mindfulness, for instance on employee wellbeing (Roche et
al., 2014; Schultz et al., 2014; Reb et al., 2015a; Malinowski Mindfulness
and Lim, 2015), emotion regulation (Hülsheger et al., 2013), Given the heterogeneous strands of research on mindfulness,
psychological detachment from work (Hülsheger et al., 2014), definitions of the construct vary. However, most definitions share
and job performance (Dane, 2011; Dane and Brummel, 2013; two key elements: attention and acceptance (Bishop et al.,
Reb et al., 2015a), while studies on interpersonal effects (i.e., 2004). Specifically, with regard to these key elements,
effects between individuals) are just beginning to emerge. mindfulness means fully paying attention to what is happening in
This is reflected in the recent call by Good et al. (2016), the present moment, both to internal (i.e., emotions and
stating that “research in neuropsychology, cognitive thoughts) and external stimuli with an open, non-judging attitude.
psychology, medicine, and related disciplines has laid the Accordingly, Baer (2003) defined mindfulness as “the non-
groundwork for developing and testing theory about how judgmental observation of the ongoing stream of internal and
mindfulness might affect relational processes, such as external stimuli as they arise” (p. 125). At this point, however, it is
teamwork and leadership, but management scholars have not important to emphasize that the non-judgmental aspect of
yet seriously undertaken that challenge” (p. 127). mindfulness does not imply that mindful individuals do not make
The present research attempts to address this call by focusing any judgments at all. It rather refers to the ability to pay attention
on the relationship between leaders and followers. While some and to equanimously observe the current experience instead of
theoretical work has addressed the potential role of mindfulness getting carried away by the own immediate reactions (Dreyfus,
in the leadership process (e.g., Glomb et al., 2011; Sauer and 2011). Thus, the non-judgmental attitude should not be
Kohls, 2011; Sauer et al., 2011), empirical evidence is scant. Two misunderstood as being indifferent or aloof, but it describes a
studies reported by Reb et al. (2014) provided first evidence for a form of equanimity which allows individuals to act cautiously
positive effect of leaders’ mindfulness on follower wellbeing and instead of react reflexively. In connection with this, a key process
work performance. Similarly, Reb et al. (2018) found a positive of mindfulness, postulated by various scholars, is the ability to
relationship between leader mindfulness and followers’ reports of mentally “step back” from one’s own experiences which allows
leader–member (LMX) quality. These studies, however, did not an individual “to observe rather than to identify with thoughts and
investigate how leaders’ mindfulness manifests in actual emotions” (Hülsheger et al., 2014, p. 2). This process has been
behaviors that influence their interactions. Thus, the specific labeled as reperceiving (Shapiro et al., 2006) or decentering
mechanisms and “behavioral correlates” of leaders’ mindfulness (Hayes et al., 2004), both referring to a shift of perspective
as well as its effects remain unclear and are yet to be explored. leading to the experience of thoughts and emotions as transient
Against this backdrop, the main purpose of the present research mental states and not as aspects of the self.
is to enhance our understanding of the underlying behavioral The conceptual roots of mindfulness are usually ascribed to
mechanisms linking leaders’ mindfulness to follower outcomes. centuries-old eastern and Buddhist contemplative traditions (Baer,
We adopt a communication-centered view of leadership (de Vries 2003; Brown and Ryan, 2003) and a large body of research is still
et al., 2010; Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014; Ruben and influenced by a Buddhist understanding of mindfulness. Some
Gigliotti, 2016) and propose that leaders’ mindfulness relates to a scholars (e.g., Dreyfus, 2011; Grossman, 2011; Quaglia et al., 2015;
specific communication style of leaders that we term Purser and Milillo, 2015) even doubt whether it is suitable, in general,
“mindfulness in communication.” This communication style, in to investigate mindfulness detached from mindfulness practice and
turn, is assumed to predict followers’ interaction satisfaction as its cultural roots. They object that the current approaches in Western
well as their overall satisfaction with the leader. psychology and the conceptualization of mindfulness as a bare, non-
judgmental awareness of the current experience do not fully live up to
Overall, there are several reasons why exploring the the true nature and complexity of the “original” Buddhist concept of
interpersonal effects of leaders’ mindfulness in more detail is mindfulness (for a reply to Grossman, 2011, see Brown et al., 2011).
enriching and worthwhile, thus offering valuable contributions However, this criticism is countered by a growing body of research
to the pertinent literature. First, we contribute to the emerging that views mindfulness as “an inherent human capacity” (Kabat-Zinn,
literature on mindfulness at work, especially with regard to its 2003, p. 146) varying between and within individuals (Brown et al.,
interpersonal qualities. By examining the relationship between 2011), which can be investigated detached from Buddhism and
leader mindfulness and actual leader behaviors, we identify mindfulness practice (Brown and Ryan, 2004; Brown et al., 2007,
interesting and compelling relations that help us better 2011). Related to this, it is helpful to know that mindfulness has been
understand the mechanisms that carry the effects of leader studied from both a state- and a trait-perspective, depending on the
mindfulness to employees (Good et al., 2016; Sutcliffe et al., research focus (Hülsheger et al., 2014). Scholars have used the term
2016). Second, we contribute to the literature on leader state mindfulness for the extent to which an individual is paying
communication by exploring the assumption that mindfulness attention to what is happening in the present moment with an open,
may serve as a determinant of a more successful non-judging attitude. At the same time, however, research has
communication style. Related to this, by introducing a consistently recognized that the average frequency and intensity with
behavioral measure of mindfulness in communication, we add which
to a more thorough understanding

individuals experience states of mindfulness varies between to perceived fair treatment, Reb et al. (2018) conceptualized
individuals, suggesting that there is a trait-like tendency toward and measured it as a rather subjective assessment and
mindful states (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Glomb et al., 2011; therefore, the question of what behaviors mindful leaders
Hülsheger et al., 2013; Jamieson and Tuckey, 2017; Mesmer- actually show remain largely unanswered in their studies.
Magnus et al., 2017). Accordingly, it is well-established in the
pertinent literature to use the terms dispositional mindfulness or Leadership and Communication
trait-mindfulness to describe this tendency (e.g., Chiesa, 2013; In the present study, we expand prior research by investigating
Good et al., 2016; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017) and to employ how leader mindfulness may be reflected in visible leader
self-report measures for its assessment (Bergomi et al., 2013; behaviors, which, in turn, are expected to positively affect
Sauer et al., 2013b). Longitudinal studies revealed a significant employee satisfaction. Specifically, we draw on a communication
and positive association between individuals’ overall dispositional perspective of leadership (Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014;
mindfulness scores and state mindfulness scores, assessed in Ruben and Gigliotti, 2016) and propose that the answer can be
their regular day-to-day lives (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Hülsheger partly found in how leaders communicate, as perceived by
et al., 2013, 2014, 2015). Also, there is solid evidence that followers. In fact, leadership is inherently about influencing others
dispositional mindfulness can be increased by mindfulness (Yukl, 2010; Northouse, 2013) and accordingly, the notion that
practice such as mindfulness meditation or other mindfulness- communication is central to leadership is well established in
based interventions (for meta-analytic evidence see Eberth and leadership research. Organizational behavior researchers
Sedlmeier, 2012; Cavanagh et al., 2014; Quaglia et al., 2016). typically study leadership communication from a transmissional
perspective [see Fairhurst and Connaughton (2014) for a
Against this background, the focus of our study is on detailed discussion of this issue], describing it in terms of “the
self-reported dispositional mindfulness and its effects on intentional creation of messages with particular influence
the outcome variables under investigation. This is in line outcomes in mind” (Ruben and Gigliotti, 2016, p. 470). In
with previous research on leader–employee relations that particular, approaches of transformational and charismatic
“reflect experiences and behaviors over extended time leadership have portrayed effective leaders as effective
periods, making a state-level approach less suitable” (Reb communicators, who convey an inspiring vision and high
et al., 2018, p. 2). For the sake of simplicity, we herein use performance expectations to their followers (Antonakis, 2012). At
the term mindfulness (or mindful leaders) to describe the same time, research in this field has emphasized that the
those higher in self-reported dispositional mindfulness. nature of leadership as an influencing process is neither leader-
centric nor follower-centric but relational (Uhl-Bien et al., 2012;
Mindfulness and Leadership Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014). That means that
In organizational research, scholars have mainly focused on communication in leadership is not adequately conceptualized as
intrapersonal effects of mindfulness and mindfulness-based a linear process, in which intentional messages simply flow in a
interventions (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2014, 2015; Roche et al., straight and predictable line from the leader to the follower.
2014; Shonin et al., 2014), whereas the effects of mindfulness on Rather, leaders and followers continuously interact and
interpersonal interactions and relationships have been largely communicate reciprocally. This is also reflected in the literature
neglected (Good et al., 2016). However, it is the interpersonal on LMX quality. Whereas high-quality relationships are
relationship between the leader and the followers which is at the characterized by cooperative communication, lower quality
core of leadership (Northouse, 2013) and thus, especially relationships reflect more traditional supervision with one-sided
interesting for research in this area. Yet, only a few theoretical top-down communication, including higher levels of interpersonal
papers have so far addressed the role of mindfulness in leader– dominance and autocratic decision-making (Sparrowe et al.,
follower relationships (Glomb et al., 2011; Sauer and Kohls, 2006). That being said, and given the inherent power differential
2011), examining the possibility that mindfulness generally helps associated with most leader–follower relationships (Dulebohn et
leader better deal with various demands of leadership. Yet, as al., 2012), the way leaders shape their communication with
mentioned at the outset of this article, empirical evidence in this followers is pivotal for fostering relationship quality and relevant
area is at a rather early stage. In two studies, Reb et al. (2014) work outcomes, such as followers’ satisfaction, commitment, and
found that followers of leaders scoring high on dispositional performance (Penley et al., 1991; Fix and Sias, 2006; Abu Bakar
mindfulness reported higher levels on different aspects of et al., 2010). Based on this, we below develop the argument that
wellbeing and job performance. These studies identified mindfulness enables leaders to engage in a more successful
psychological need satisfaction as a mediator in the relationship communication style.
between self-reported dispositional mindfulness of the leader and
follower outcomes. In a similar vein, in a very recent study, Reb Mindfulness and Leader Communication
et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between leader Following de Vries et al. (2010) a leader’s communication style
mindfulness and follower reports of LMX quality. This effect was represents a “distinctive set of interpersonal communicative
mediated by reduced employee stress and perceptions of behaviors” (p. 368). Mindfulness, with its inherent focus on being
increased interpersonal justice. Importantly, psychological need present and non-judgmental, seems particularly suitable for
satisfaction and reduced stress describe internal states of promoting the quality of communication. Specifically, we assume
followers. Also, while interpersonal justice refers mindfulness to be related to specific communication

behaviors that we term mindfulness in communication. Drawing (Dreyfus, 2011, p. 47). In this understanding, mindful leaders
on the mindfulness literature, we propose that mindfulness in are not free of making judgments and evaluations. However,
communication consists of three facets: (a) being present and before doing so, they give their followers the opportunity to
paying attention in conversations, (b) an open, non-judging fully communicate their message and let their attention not be
attitude, and (c) a calm, non-impulsive manner. These features influenced by automatic reactions and rash interpretations.
inherently reflect interpersonal attunement (Parker et al., 2015) The third rationale refers to research linking mindfulness to
and thereby fit well with a relational view of communication in effective emotion regulation (Chambers et al., 2009; Heppner et
leadership, in which influence is understood to result from al., 2015). Accounting for this effect, scholars have consistently
interaction (Ruben and Gigliotti, 2016). In what follows, we referred to the process of reperceiving (Shapiro et al., 2006) or
provide a detailed rationale for our assumption that leader decentering (Hayes et al., 2004) and argued that mindfulness
dispositional mindfulness is reflected in these three facets of permits individuals to disidentify from their emotions and
mindfulness in communication. experience them as transient cognitive events rather than
First, an inherent element of mindfulness is presence, referring to aspects of their self and thus as less threatening. There is robust
“the bare awareness of the receptive spaciousness of our mind” empirical evidence that mindfulness is associated with lower
(Siegel, 2007, p. 160). With this, the link to communication is levels of negative affect and higher levels of positive affect (Baer
straightforward: bare awareness, or the conscious and “direct et al., 2006; Luberto et al., 2014; Pepping et al., 2014; Prakash et
experience of here-and-now sensory information” (Parker et al., 2015, al., 2015). Accordingly, mindfulness enables leaders to better
p. 226) is expected to result in a high level of attention in interactions. deal with negative affective states and stressful events. In terms
Individuals who are able to focus on the immediate now are not of communication, better emotion regulation should be reflected
distracted by thoughts and rumination concerning past or future in an increased ability to maintain composure in tense situations
events. This, in turn, is an important prerequisite for effective listening instead of being overwhelmed by emotions.
(Brownell, 1985). The importance of listening for effective leader– Empirical support for the assumed relation of mindfulness and
follower communication has been stressed by several scholars communication behavior comes from marital and family research
(Bechler and Johnson, 1995; Johnson and Bechler, 1998; Alvesson (O’Kelly and Collard, 2012). Several studies in this area found a
and Sveningsson, 2003; van Vuuren et al., 2007). In a survey of van positive relationship between mindfulness and outcomes
Vuuren et al. (2007), for example, listening was shown to be the pertaining to communication quality among couples, such as
second most important factor of leader communication style for perspective taking and empathic concern (Block-Lerner et al.,
follower commitment. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that 2007), constructive conflict (Barnes et al., 2007), and mutual
careful listening is associated with transformational leadership acceptance (Carson et al., 2004). Moreover, Krasner et al.
(Berson and Avolio, 2004) and effective interpersonal influence (2009) designed and evaluated a communication training for
(Ames et al., 2012). Also, a qualitative study conducted by Alvesson primary care physicians that included mindfulness meditation
and Sveningsson (2003) revealed that leaders themselves consider (see also Beckman et al., 2012). After the training, participants
listening a central feature of their role. Empirical support for the notion demonstrated improvements in dispositional mindfulness and,
that leaders’ dispositional mindfulness may translate into improved importantly, perspective taking when relating to patients.
listening skills comes from several studies linking dispositional Taken together, we propose that leaders’ dispositional
mindfulness and mindfulness trainings to reduced rumination and mindfulness is positively related to specific communication
improved attentional performance (e.g., Chambers et al., 2008; behaviors (mindfulness in communication), as perceived
Jensen et al., 2012; Flook et al., 2013; Roeser et al., 2013). by their followers.
Moreover, an intervention study conducted by Beckman et al. (2012)
Hypothesis 1: Leaders’ dispositional mindfulness is
showed that physicians who participated in a communication training,
positively related to specific communication behaviors –
which included mindfulness meditation, reported that mindfulness
improved their abilities to be attentive and to better listen to their
i.e., “mindfulness in communication.”
patients.
Leader Mindfulness, Mindfulness
The second rationale for linking leader mindfulness to leader in Communication, and Follower
communication style is based on the second essential feature of Satisfaction
mindfulness, namely acceptance. Acceptance refers to “being In this section, we develop the argument that leaders’
experientially open to the reality of the present moment” (Bishop dispositional mindfulness has positive effects on followers’
et al., 2004, p. 233), “without being swept up by judgments” outcomes mediated by mindfulness in communication. Most
(Parker et al., 2015, p. 226). This non-judgmental, present- notably, as a very proximal outcome, we explore the degree to
centered awareness may help leaders to keep an open mind in which followers are satisfied with the communication with their
interactions with their followers and to be open to other leader. Thereby, we assume all three components of mindfulness
perspectives and opinions without rashly evaluating and in communication (i.e., paying attention, being open and non-
categorizing incoming information. By paying attention in a non- judgmental, and a calm, non-impulsive manner) to be important
judgmental manner, mindful individuals (i.e., leaders) are better for how followers perceive the communication with their leaders.
able “to retain information and thus see their true significance According to Thayer (1968), individuals experience
rather than being carried away by their reactions” satisfaction with the communication when communication

is perceived as successful. Following Ruben and Gigliotti (2016), Fully present, non-judging leaders who keep calm even in
who state that, “leadership communication always has both intense situations are likely to elicit positive affective reactions in
content and relational consequences” (p. 476), successful their followers due to an immediate satisfaction of basic
communication refers to the quality and accuracy of information psychological needs. Reversely, non-listening, rashly judging
transmission (i.e., content consequences) as well as to the leaders, who easily get worked up are likely to elicit negative
fulfillment of personal needs, aspirations, and expectations of the affective reactions from their followers. According to affective
involved agents (i.e., relational consequences). Leaders’ events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996), such affective
mindfulness in communication is likely to foster followers’ reactions, especially if experienced repeatedly, likely result in
satisfaction on the content level because less information gets generalized satisfaction judgments about the leader. Notably, this
lost between “sender” and “receiver” and the information is notion is reflected in prior research, positioning the way leaders
processed in a less biased manner. This assumption is supported listen and pay attention to what employees have to say as an
by various empirical findings, linking mindfulness to increased important facet of employees’ satisfaction with their leader
attention focus and less attentional biases (e.g., Chambers et al., (Scarpello and Vandenberg, 1987). In a similar vein, two studies
2008; Flook et al., 2013; Roeser et al., 2013). With regard to the by Bechler and Johnson (1995) and Johnson and Bechler (1998)
relational level, we follow Reb et al. (2014) and draw on self- showed that the evaluation of leadership skills is positively
determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, related to perceived listening skills. Taken together, we predict:
2000), implying that leaders who communicate mindfully can help
Hypothesis 2: Leaders’ mindfulness in communication
satisfy the basic needs of followers, which results in increased
satisfaction (Deci et al., 2017).
mediates the positive relationship between leaders’
dispositional mindfulness and (a) their followers’
The need for autonomy describes the desire to be in
control of one’s environment. One way for leaders to help
satisfaction with the communication with the leader and
ensure that followers experience some level of control is to (b) the satisfaction with the leader in general.
provide voice, listen attentively, and treat requests seriously Figure 1 shows the hypothesized theoretical model.
(Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). By paying full attention and
listening to their followers, leaders signalize that they are
open to the input of their followers and are serious about what MATERIALS AND METHODS
they have to say (Ashford et al., 2009). Furthermore, by
showing an open and non-judgmental attitude, leaders signal We certify that the research presented in this manuscript has been
that they are willing to see things from their followers’ conducted within the DGPs (German Psychological Society) ethical
perspective and offer them voice-opportunities (Ashford et al., standards regarding research with human participants and scientific
2009; Lloyd et al., 2015), which enables followers to address integrity. We adhere to the ethical standards of the DGPs, since in
and openly speak about organizational problems. Germany there is no legal regulation for approval of research through
In a similar vein, mindfulness in communication is likely to a research ethics committee for the social sciences, but ethics
satisfy followers’ need of competence, which refers to feelings of questions are addressed within a framework by professional
growth, ability, and achievement. Specifically, through paying full associations. Participants were free to not participate and to
attention and a high degree of acceptance and calmness, leaders terminate participation at any time without any consequences or any
show their followers that their opinion and viewpoints are loss of benefits that the subject was otherwise entitled to receive. All
regarded as important and worthwhile to consider, reflecting subjects have given written informed consent in accordance with the
genuine appreciation of their strengths and unique abilities (Van Declaration of Helsinki.
Quaquebeke and Felps, 2016; Deci et al., 2017).
Finally, individuals, who have their relatedness need met, feel Sample and Procedures
secure and safe in their environment and in their relationships with In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted a multilevel field
others. When leaders are fully paying attention with an accepting, study. Online surveys were sent to leaders as well as their
non-judging attitude, they are likely to generate a feeling of being followers. We assessed leaders’ self-rated dispositional
valued and respected in of their followers (Reb et al., 2014). mindfulness on the one hand and followers’ perceptions of
Furthermore, this kind of leader communication behavior may foster a leaders’ mindfulness in communication as well as followers’ self-
feeling of psychological safety and intimacy in their followers (Ashford reported satisfaction with the leader (i.e., satisfaction with the
et al., 2009; Lloyd et al., 2015) as well as a feeling of being cared leader–follower communication and general satisfaction) on the
about (Van Quaquebeke and Felps, 2016) which has empirically other hand. The study had a cross-sectional design. Given this
been linked with relatedness (Reis et al., 2000). Thus, leaders’ design, no causal conclusions can be drawn from our study,
mindfulness in communication is likely to result in an enhancement of which has to be taken into account when interpreting the results.
followers’ experience of relatedness. Followers and their leaders were recruited from various
Given that communication is central to leadership (Alvesson organizations of different industries in Germany, Austria, and the
and Sveningsson, 2003; Yukl, 2010; Ruben and Gigliotti, 2017) German speaking part of Switzerland by using three different
this satisfaction is likely to correspond to an increase in overall strategies. First, individuals from our personal and professional
satisfaction with the leader (Miles et al., 1996). This claim can networks were contacted. Second, we contacted HR departments of
also be deduced from theory on human affective experiences. various organizations and third, the study was advertised in

FIGURE 1 | Hypothesized theoretical model.
social networks (mainly XING). Individuals who were Measures

interested in participating received a link to the online Dispositional Mindfulness
questionnaire in addition to instructions on how to forward a Leaders’ dispositional mindfulness was measured with the
separate link to their supervisor or followers, respectively. short-version of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (Walach
Anonymous identification codes generated by the participants et al., 2004, 2006). The scale consists of 14 items assessing
were used to match the data of leaders and followers. the frequency of mindful states. A sample item is “I am open
A total of 351 participants (147 leaders and 204 followers) to the experience of the present moment”. The items were
completed the questionnaires. Out of the 204 followers, 141
answered on a 6-point frequency scale (ranging from 1 =
could be matched to 77 leaders. For 43 leaders, we received
never to 6 = almost always). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90.
responses from one follower only; for 34 leaders, we received
responses from more than one follower (ranging from two to six Followers’ Satisfaction With Leader–Follower
followers, M = 2.88, SD = 1.17). Since we were interested in a Communication
general assessment of leaders by their followers, independent of In order to measure followers’ satisfaction with leader–follower
specific biases of single followers, we used only those leaders for communication, we used two items from the questionnaire for
our final analysis, for which we had responses of multiple communication in organizations developed by Sperka (1997).
followers (i.e., at least two followers). Thus, the final sample The two items were “I am content about how the communication
consisted of 98 followers nested in 34 leaders. with my leader takes place” and “I would like to have a better
In our final sample, 50% of the participants were female, the communication with my leader” (reverse coded). Each follower
average age was 37.21 years (SD = 9.86), and 64% of the was asked to rate their own level of satisfaction. Again, a 6-point
participants had a university degree. The sample consisted of response scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 =
individuals from Germany (64%), Austria (28%), Switzerland strongly agree) was employed. The reliability of this measure
(5%), and other nationalities (3%). The participants’ average was estimated by using the Spearman–Brown formula (see the
tenure in the organizations was 7.93 years (SD = 7.52), their recommendations for the use of two-item scales by Eisinga et al.,
average weekly working hours were 42.91 h (SD = 10.33). 2013), and was 0.66.
Followers’ average tenure with their leaders was 3.18 years (SD
= 3.18), the average interaction frequency between leaders and Followers’ General Satisfaction With Their Leaders
followers was 11.05 h (SD = 11.78) per week. Because we were Followers’ general satisfaction with their leaders was measured
interested in leaders’ mindfulness, we also assessed if they with two items taken from Felfe (2006). The two items were: “My
practiced mindfulness meditation in their daily lives: 10 of the 34 leader uses methods of leadership that are satisfying” and “My
leaders of our final sample reported practicing some form of leaders works with me in a satisfactory way.” Responses were
mindfulness meditation. However, we did not assess the amount given on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6
or the specific nature of the mindfulness practice since this was = strongly agree. The reliability of this measure was again
beyond the scope of the present study. estimated by using the Spearman–Brown formula (see the

recommendations for the use of two-item scales by 59% of the variance. The factor loadings, communalities,
Eisinga et al., 2013), and was r = 0.84. and standardized item-scale-correlations were satisfactory
(Table 1). Therefore, the final scale consists of nine items
Mindfulness in Communication and shows adequate reliability (a = 0.91) which could not
Since there was no existing scale for what we call mindfulness in be improved by deleting further items.
communication, we developed a new scale for this study. The
purpose of the scale was to assess “behavioral correlates” of Confirmatory factor analysis
leaders’ mindfulness when communicating with followers. Because a new measure of mindfulness in communication was
Followers were explicitly asked to rate their leaders’ behavior in created for this study, we collected data from a separate sample
communication situations. Below, we describe in more detail how to confirm the construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis
the measure was constructed. (CFA). Specifically, 214 employees from various organizations in
Germany completed the newly developed measure. The mean
Item development and exploratory factor analysis age of the participants was 33.36 (SD = 8.89); 47% were male
We first generated 14 items based on a review of the literature and 65% had a university degree. The majority of the participants
addressing mindfulness in leadership (Glomb et al., 2011; Sauer and worked in the for-profit sector (69%) and the average tenure in
Kohls, 2011; Sauer et al., 2011; Reb et al., 2014). The items the current position was 3.92 years (SD = 3.25).
addressed the following three facets of mindfulness in We conducted a CFA using the Lavaan package in R (Rosseel,
communication: (1) being present and paying attention in 2012) and compared the fit of two nested models. The first one was a
conversations, (2) showing an open, non-judging attitude during a single-factor model with all nine items loading on the same factor.
conversation, and (3) being calm and non-impulsive during The second one was a second-order factor model in which items
conversations, not becoming overwhelmed by emotional reactions. loaded on their respective factors (i.e., presence, openness, and
Second, the content validity was assessed by asking four experts calmness) and the three factors loaded on a second-order latent
mindfulness in communication factor. This second-order factor model
(i.e., experts on mindfulness practice) to rate the items in terms of
2
their conceptual fit. As a result of the expert rating, four items were showed a reasonable fit with $ = 58.65, df = 24, p < 0.001,
omitted. The remaining 10 items were included in the questionnaire comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96, root mean square error of
described above and were answered in total by 204 followers approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04 and was clearly
(including followers that could be matched with a leader and followers 2
preferable over the single-factor model ($ = 219.82, df = 27, p <
that could not be matched with a leader and were therefore not 2
0.001, CFI = 0.80, RMSEA = 0.18, SRMR = 0.85; 1$ = 161.17, df =
considered in the main analyses). For the analyses of the scale and
3, p < 0.001, 1CFI = 0.16). It should be noted that with three latent
the items, all followers (N = 204) were included. One item showed a
factors, the second-order model is mathematically equivalent to a
low level of communality (communality = 0.17) and was therefore first-order model (i.e., a model in which items load on their respective
excluded. With the remaining nine items, an Exploratory Factor factors and the factors are allowed to correlate) and thus, both
Analysis using a principal–axis analysis with Promax rotation was solutions produce identical fit statistics (Rindskopf and Rose, 1988;
performed. The results suggested one factor with an Eigenvalue > 1 Hoyle, 2011). Yet, since we assumed that a common latent
explaining mindfulness in communication
TABLE 1 | Items of the scale “mindfulness in communication” including their factor loadings, communalities, and corrected item-scale-correlations.
Facets and items Factor Commu- Corrected

loadings nalities item-scale
correlation
Being present by paying attention to the other

I have my supervisor’s full attention when I am speaking 0.70 0.49 0.66
In conversations, my supervisor is impatient (R) 0.68 0.46 0.65
My supervisor is only half-listening when I am talking (R) 0.72 0.52 0.69
Showing an open, non-judging attitude
In conversations my supervisor first listens to what I have to say, before forming his/her own opinion 0.81 0.66 0.76
Before I have finished talking, my supervisor has already formed his/her own opinion (R) 0.77 0.59 0.73
My supervisor has a preconceived opinion about many topics and holds on to this opinion (R) 0.71 0.50 0.67
Being calm and non-impulsive during conversations
My supervisor stays calm even in tense situations 0.72 0.52 0.68
My supervisor gets easily worked up (R) 0.75 0.57 0.72
When my supervisor does not like something, emotions can easily boil over (R) 0.74 0.54 0.71
Items were assessed on 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. An Exploratory Factor Analysis was calculated (principle-
axis-analysis with a promax rotation) with N = 204 employees using SPSS. The original version of the scale, which we used in our study, was in German. For this
publication, the scale was translated by two individuals, who then agreed on a final version: a native German speaker, who is fluent in English and a native English
speaker, who is fluent in German.

factor accounts for the relation between the three subscales and 4). Taken together, these results provide evidence that
(i.e., presence, openness, and calmness), the second-order our follower reported measures captured distinct constructs.
model represents a more parsimonious and meaningful
approach (Rindskopf and Rose, 1988; Chen et al., 2005).
This supports the use of the combined mindfulness in RESULTS
communication scale (comprising the three sub-facets) in the
analysis presented below (McGartland Rubio et al., 2001). Descriptive Statistics
Correlations, means, and standard deviations of all variables are
Discriminant validity
shown in Table 3 [calculated in R using psych (Revelle, 2016);
To examine the discriminant validity among the follower-related
apaTables (Stanley, 2015)]. Neither tenure with the leader nor
outcome measures that we used in our main study (i.e., perceived
perceived interaction frequency was related to our main
mindfulness in communication, satisfaction with the communication
with the leader, and general satisfaction with the leader), we again
variables1. In turn, leaders’ dispositional mindfulness was
used CFA. For mindfulness in communication, we used parcels as positively correlated with followers’ perceptions of leaders’
indicators (i.e., the three sub-dimensions, which is in line with the mindfulness in communication as well as with the two satisfaction
content-based algorithm of parcel building, see Matsunaga, 2008). ratings. Also, the correlations between followers’ perceptions of
For the two satisfaction constructs, items were used as indicators. leaders’ mindfulness in communication and the two satisfaction
Table 2 reports the models we tested. To compare the fit for different
measures were in the expected direction.
models, we used the chi-square difference test. However, given that
chi-square tests are very sensitive to sample size and non-normality,
Analytic Strategy
Our dataset had a multilevel structure, given that we asked leaders
even small differences may become statistically significant (Brannick,
1995; Kline, 2011). Thus, in line with the recommendations of Chen about their level of mindfulness (i.e., independent variable on Level-
(2007), we also relied on the change in CFI and RMSEA. Specifically, 2), and we asked at least two followers of those leaders
for small samples (i.e., N < 300) a change of 0.005 in CFI, 1
For exploratory purposes, we examined the difference between leaders who
supplemented by a change of 0.010 in RMSEA indicates that the indicated practicing some form of mindfulness meditation (n = 10) and leaders who
models are significantly different. As shown in Table 2, the proposed reported not practicing any form of mindfulness meditation (n = 24) with regard to
their average dispositional mindfulness scores. Results showed that there was a
three-factor model (Model 1) fitted the data reasonably well and was significant difference with higher scores in the meditation group (M = 4.56, SD = 0.73)
preferable over all alternative models (Models 2, 3, compared to the non-meditation group (M = 3.87, SD = 0.81), t(32) = 2.34, p < 0.05,
d = 0.88.
TABLE 2 | Test of measurement models.
Model 2 CFI RMSEA 2 1CFI 1RMSEA

$ (df) 1$ (df)
Model 1: three factors (mindcom, leadsat, and comsat) 17.96 (11) 0.99 0.07
Model 2: two factors (leadsat and comsat treated as 1 factor) 27.63 (13) 0.97 0.09 9.66.2/ 0.01 0.02
Model 3: two factors (mindcom and leadsat treated as 1 factor) 86.76 (13) 0.86 0.20 68.79.2/ 0.12 0.13
Model 4: two factors (mindcom and comsat treated as 1 factor) 56.94 (13) 0.92 0.15 38.98.2/ 0.07 0.09
p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001. Mindcom = mindfulness in communication, Leadsat = satisfaction with leader in general, Comsat = satisfaction with communication,
2
1$ , 1CFI, and 1RMSEA are in comparison to the three factor model. Regarding the mindcom measure, the same pattern of differences was revealed, when items
were used as indicators instead of parcels.
TABLE 3 | Means, standard deviations, ICC(1), ICC(2), and correlations.
Variable M SD ICC(1) ICC(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Level 1 variables
1. Tenure with leader in years 3:18 3:19
2. Interaction frequency between leader and follower in 11:05 11:79 0:02
hours per week
3. Followers’ perception of the leaders’ mindfulness in 4:87 0:94 0:25 0:50 0:02 0:08 .0:91/
communication
4. Followers’ satisfaction with leader–follower 4:54 1:14 0:24 0:48 0:03 0:08 0:60 .0:66/
communication
5. Followers’ general satisfaction with the leader 4:00 0:89 0:29 0:54 0:01 0:06 0:60 0:64 .0:84/
Level 2 variables
6. Leaders’ dispositional mindfulness 4:05 0:79 0:09 0:03 0:31 0:32 0:28 .0:90/
p < 0.05. p < 0.01. Reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha or, in case of two-item-scales, Spearman–Brown coefficient) are indicated on the diagonal in parenthesis. N =
98. For cross level correlations, the level 2 variable was disaggregated by assigning each member of a group the same value.

about their leaders’ mindfulness in communication and their own effect. In line with these recommendations, we included our
satisfaction (i.e., mediator and dependent variable on Level-1). mediator variable (i.e., perceived leaders’ mindfulness in
Thus, we first examined the nested structure of our data (Bliese, communication) at both levels (i.e., group mean centered at
2000; LeBreton and Senter, 2008) using R (R Core Team, 2017); Level 1 and aggregated for the followers of a particular leader
multilevel (Bliese, 2016). First we examined the variance at Level 2). Because mindfulness in communication was
between the groups of followers reporting to one leader. An thought to be a characteristic of each leader, we were
ANOVA showed significant differences between the groups of especially interested in the effect between followers of
followers. The ICC(1), which is reported in Table 3, indicated that different leaders and thus, the effect at Level 2.
24–29% of the variance resided between groups. Second, we
Consequently, the effects within followers (i.e., Level 1) were
treated as control variable “only.” Nevertheless, we report the
examined the agreement within groups of followers reporting to
coefficient for both effects (within-groups effects and
one leader. The ICC(2), which is also shown in Table 3, indicated
between-groups effects). Given that we used the aggregated
an agreement between 0.48 and 0.54. It is helpful to note that
values of mindfulness in communication as our mediator, we
ICC(2) is dependent on the group size (Bliese, 1998). In our
study, the average group size was 2.8 and ICC(2) values ranging calculated the rwg statistic (James et al., 1984) to assess the
from 0.48 to 0.54 correspond with Bliese’s (1998) estimates appropriateness of aggregating [in addition to relying on the
about what can be statistically expected. ICC(2) value, which was reported above]. The mean rwg for
To test our hypotheses within the multilevel framework, we perceived mindfulness in communication was 0.74, indicating
followed the suggestions for multilevel mediations suggested by strong interrater agreement (LeBreton and Senter, 2008).
(Zhang et al., 2009). Our mediation model reflects a 2–1–1 The results of the multilevel analysis are reported in Table 4.
design (Zhang et al., 2009) with leaders’ dispositional All calculations were conducted in R using the packages:
mindfulness representing the Level-2-predictor, perceived multilevel (Bliese, 2016), nlme (Pinheiro et al., 2017),
leaders’ mindfulness in communication representing the Level-1 sjmisc/sjstats (Lüdecke, 2017), and reghelper (Hudghes, 2008).
mediator, and followers’ satisfaction ratings representing Level-1
outcomes (Figure 1). In 2–1–1 models the within-group effects Hypothesis Tests
and between-group effects are confounded (Zhang et al., 2009) – Supporting Hypothesis 1, leaders’ dispositional mindfulness was
in our case the effect between followers of different leaders on positively related to followers’ perceptions of leaders’
the one hand and within followers of a particular leader on the mindfulness in communication (see Table 4, Model 1). In line
other hand. To address this problem, Zhang et al. (2009) with Hypotheses 2 and 3, we found that leaders’ dispositional
suggested to differentiate the between and the within group mindfulness was also positively related to both followers’
effects by inserting the mediator at both levels in the following satisfaction with the leader–follower communication and
way: At Level 1, the mediator is centered around the group mean, followers’ general satisfaction with their leaders (see Table 4,
specifying the within-group effect. At Level 2, the mediator is Model 2 and Model 5). In addition, we predicted that these two
aggregated for each group using the group mean in order to positive relationships were mediated by leaders’ mindfulness in
specify the between-group communication as perceived by the followers. When followers’
TABLE 4 | Results of multilevel mediation analyses.
Mediator: Followers’ Dependent variable 1: Dependent variable 2:

perceptions of leader’s Followers’ satisfaction with Followers’ general
mindfulness in the leader–follower satisfaction with the leader
communication communication (level 1)
(aggregated; level 2) (level 1)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
IV: Leaders’ dispositional 0:44 .0:16/ 0:32 .0:11/ 0:15 .0:10/ 0:27 .0:11/ 0:07 .0:11/
mindfulness (level 2)
Mediator: Followers’ 0:46 .0:09/ 0:39 .0:10/ 0:48 .0:10/ 0:45 .0:11/
perceptions of leader’s
mindfulness in communication
(aggregated; level 2)
Control variable: Followers’ 0:41 .0:07/ 0:41 .0:07/ 0:40 .0:07/ 0:40 .0:07/
perceptions of leader’s
mindfulness in communication
(group mean centered; level 1)
2 0.20 0.33 0.57 0.56 0.42 0.61 0.61
Explained variance R
p < 0.05. p < 0.01. Standardized coefficients are shown; standard errors are included in parenthesis. Model 1 (i.e., single level relationship on level 2) was
calculated as linear regression (N = 34 on level 2). Models 2–7 (i.e., multilevel relationships) were calculated as multilevel linear models with random intercepts (N
2
= 34 on level 2 and N = 98 on level 1). For multilevel linear models an R approximation was computed based on the correlation between the fitted and observed
values as suggested by Byrnes (2008).

satisfaction with the leader–follower communication was by Reb et al. (2018), in which leader mindfulness predicted
regressed on both mindfulness in communication and leaders’ follower reports of enhanced LMX quality. With this, our study
dispositional mindfulness, the relationship with mindfulness in also contributes more generally to the perennial interest in
communication was significant whereas the relationship with leadership research regarding the effects of leaders’ affect
leaders’ dispositional mindfulness was no longer significant (see and emotions on their followers (for reviews see Gooty et al.,
Table 4, Model 4). Using the Monte-Carlo method for assessing 2010; Rajah et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2011). Mindfulness,
indirect effects with 20,000 replications [cf., Selig and Preacher, which is assumed to play an important role in emotion
2008), we found that the mediation was significant (95% bias- regulation, affect, stress, and well-being (cf.,Good et al.,
corrected bootstrap CI (0.07, 0.52)]. Similarly, when followers’ 2016; Lomas et al., 2017; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017),
general satisfaction with their leaders was regressed on both constitutes a concept that is likely to offer new and fruitful
mindfulness in communication and leaders’ dispositional insights for research in this area, where the emotional states
mindfulness, the relationship with mindfulness in communication of individuals have wide-ranging consequences on others.
was significant, whereas the relationship with leaders’ Second, by examining leaders’ communication style as an
dispositional mindfulness was no longer significant (see Table 4, underlying mechanism, we take a step forward in clarifying
Model 7). Using again the Monte-Carlo method for assessing how leaders’ mindfulness may affect their followers. More
indirect effects with 20,000 replications, we found that the specifically, we identify a behavioral mechanism –
mediation again was significant [95% bias-corrected bootstrap CI mindfulness in communication – which explains the
(0.06, 0.45)]. In sum, when leaders scored high on dispositional interpersonal effect of leaders’ mindfulness. The high
mindfulness their followers perceived them as showing agreement of multiple followers in their ratings of the leaders’
mindfulness in communication, which in turn was positively mindfulness in communication that we found in our data (as
related to both followers’ satisfaction regarding their indicated by the mean rwg) suggests that mindfulness fosters
communication with the leader and satisfaction with the leader in a specific communication style, which is relatively stable
general. across situations and followers. This is in line with emerging
evidence that leader mindfulness is reflected in specific
leadership styles, as perceived by others. Specifically,
DISCUSSION Pircher Verdorfer (2016) conducted a study which found a
positive relationship between leaders’ mindfulness and
The aim of the present study was to enhance the
followers’ perceptions of specific servant leader behaviors,
understanding of whether and how leaders’ dispositional that is, humility, standing back, and authenticity. Interestingly,
mindfulness may translate into leader behaviors that relate to our notion of mindfulness in communication fits well with
follower’s perceptions and satisfaction with their leaders. We these features. In fact, it is plausible that leaders who are
hypothesized that leaders’ mindfulness would be positively mindfully present, accepting, and calm when communication
linked to specific communication behaviors, which we labeled with others signal humility (e.g., being open to different views
“mindfulness in communication.” In turn, perceived and opinions of others), the ability to stand back (e.g., not
mindfulness in communication was hypothesized to mediate chasing recognition or rewards), and authenticity (e.g., being
the relationship between leaders’ dispositional mindfulness open about own limitations and weaknesses).
and followers’ satisfaction regarding the communication with Third, our results indicate that mindfulness in communication
the leader and the leader in general. The results of our is a useful approach that meaningfully adds to previous
empirical study supported our hypotheses. perspectives in the field of leader communication style.
Established instruments, such as the Communication Styles
Contributions and Inventory (CSI) by de Vries et al. (2011) have a strong focus on
Theoretical Implications how information is conveyed (e.g., in terms of preciseness or
Research on mindfulness in the workplace in general and expressiveness) and whether one is generally supportive versus
mindfulness of leaders in particular is still at an early stage aggressive or tense when communication with others. With a
and, so far, mainly consists of theoretical considerations behavioral measure of mindfulness in communication, we gain a
(e.g., Glomb et al., 2011). By empirically confirming better understanding of genuine interpersonal attunement of
interpersonal effects of mindfulness, the results of the leaders that goes beyond the transmission of leadership
present research have several theoretical implications. messages (Parker et al., 2015). Related to this, an interesting
First, our findings provide additional evidence for a positive implication of our results refers to the relationship between
link between an individual’s (the leader’s) dispositional individual dispositions or personality traits and communication
mindfulness and the wellbeing of other people (their followers), styles. de Vries et al. (2011) found support for the notion that a
suggesting that mindfulness is not only an internal capital but person’s communication style is, partially, a function of his/her
also aids individuals in interpersonal relations. These results are personality traits. They found, for instance, expressiveness in
in line with the findings of Reb et al. (2014) who first provided communication to be strongly related to extraversion, while
scientific evidence for such interpersonal effects of mindfulness in verbal aggressiveness in communication was, not surprisingly,
leader–follower relationships. Also, our results expand evidence negatively related to agreeableness. Our results add to this
that has been provided in a very recent study picture by showing that mindfulness, as a distinct disposition

(Rau and Williams, 2016), likely translates into a distinct (Drollinger et al., 2006) and interpersonal communication
communication pattern. style (de Vries et al., 2010). Such studies would benefit from
considering additional, more diverse outcomes, at both the
Limitations and Future Research individual and the interpersonal level. In terms of individual
Despite its contributions, our work is not without limitations, outcomes, it would be particularly fruitful to capture followers’
offering interesting directions for future research. Most notably, basic need satisfaction, as we used this in our theoretical
due to the cross-sectional design, causal conclusions cannot be framework but did not include it in our measurement strategy.
drawn from our data and the direction of the revealed effects are At the interpersonal level, it would be interesting to see
based on theoretical deliberations. Accordingly, alternative whether mindfulness in communication has a unique effect
explanations and common underlying antecedents of all on the relationship quality between leaders and followers,
examined variables cannot be entirely excluded. For instance, reflected in LMX and trust (Dulebohn et al., 2012) as well as
research has started to explore socio-contextual factors at work, integrative conflict resolution (Rahim and Magner, 1995).
such as managerial need support, as antecedents of mindful A fourth limitation of our study refers to the role of emotion
states (Olafsen, 2016). While contextual factors may facilitate or regulation and how it is thought to translate into leaders’
inhibit the experience of mindful states, they may also affect the communication behaviors. Specifically, we exclusively referred to
well-being and communication behavior of leaders and followers. the regulation of unpleasant emotions, while ignoring positive
Hence, future research would benefit from using longitudinal data emotions. However, even though research on mindfulness and
and controlling for more context variables. This would also permit emotion regulation (for an overview, see Ostafin et al., 2015) has
to shed further light on potential moderating effects. For instance, a strong focus on unpleasant emotions, such as anger, fear, or
it is plausible that the beneficial effects of mindfulness in avoidance, from the perspective of Buddhism, also pleasant
communication may best unfold in fast-paced and volatile high emotions, such as pride or desire, can be disturbing (Chambers
performance contexts, where the quality of leadership et al., 2009). That said, mindful leaders should not only stay calm
communication is particularly important for organizational when unpleasant emotions arise but also in the presence of
adaption and functioning (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). In contrast, in pleasant emotions. Thus, it will be interesting in future research
highly bureaucratic organizations with strict regulations and on mindfulness in communication to give a stronger focus on the
protocols for decision-making, communication is usually interplay and regulation of both pleasant and unpleasant
organized and formal and thus, mindfulness may be less emotional states. Such studies could include direct measures of
relevant. specific emotion regulation strategies, most notably expressive
A second limitation refers our sample size, in that we were suppression and cognitive reappraisal (Gross and John, 2003),
able to recruit, on average, only a few followers per leader. While and test whether and to what extent they may exert differential
our sample size is in line with similar studies in this field, we effects on mindfulness in communication.
nonetheless hope that future studies will address this limitation In terms of more general directions for future research, it will
and gather more data from multiple raters assessing mindfulness be useful to replicate our results in different settings, such as
in communication. Importantly, high agreement among multiple mentoring or coaching relationships. In such studies it would be
raters will further corroborate our notion of mindfulness in interesting to include alternative, more differentiated mindfulness
communication as a stable communication pattern. scales which assess different facets of mindfulness (for a review
A third issue, one that is both a limitation and, we believe, a see Sauer et al., 2013b). Although the Freiburg Mindfulness
strength, refers to our mindfulness in communication measure, which Inventory is a well-established instrument which is currently
we developed for this study. It is a strength because it allowed us to available in various languages (Sauer et al., 2013a), the use of
capture very proximal behavioral correlates of core aspects of other instruments such as the Five Factors Mindfulness
mindfulness in a person’s communication behavior, while similar Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Bohlmeijer et al., 2011; de Bruin et al.,
measures in this field tend to be much wider. For instance, measures 2012) or the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness
of active listening or general communication style typically focus on Experiences (CHIME) (Bergomi et al., 2014), which measure
being generally sensitive to the feelings and concerns of others different sub-facets of mindfulness, may help to further clarify the
(Drollinger et al., 2006; Bodhi, 2011; de Vries et al., 2011). Also, such effects of mindfulness on communication behaviors. Notably, by
measures usually include skills pertaining to information processing further investigating the utility of the newly developed
(i.e., remembering, summarizing, and clarifying points) and mindfulness in communication measure across different samples
responding (i.e., asking for feedback, nonverbal signals). At the same and contexts, and by comparing it to more nuanced measures of
time, however, given the constitutive nature of our work, the construct dispositional mindfulness, future research may address the call
of mindfulness in communication requires further exploration and for alternative, “indirect” measures of a person’s level of
validation. Although we substantiated the psychometric properties of mindfulness, which is grounded in the ongoing criticism of self-
our newly developed measure in a separate sample, there remains assessment questionnaires (e.g., Grossman, 2008). Although the
room for further scrutiny with regard to its nomological network as validation of our newly developed instrument is still at an early
well as its discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity. stage, our study offers a promising basis for such indirect
Concretely, it would be useful in future research to test our measure measures of dispositional mindfulness. In other words,
against the above mentioned measures of active listening measuring mindfulness in communication may aid future
research in addressing the question of whether there are

“objective and observable criteria of mindfulness” impression management with selfish or unhealthy goals in
(Grossman, 2008, p. 407). mind (Reb et al., 2015b). An ethically informed view on
Another interesting avenue for future research could be to corporate mindfulness, as advocated by several scholars
examine the cognitive processes behind mindfulness in in the last years (Purser and Milillo, 2015), may help to
communication in more detail. This is particularly true for the prevent potential dark side-effects of mindfulness.
role of the capacity to disengage the self from the event, as As a general note of caution, it should be noted that
reflected in the notion of reperceiving (Shapiro et al., 2006) or mindfulness interventions in the workplace are not without
decentering (Hayes et al., 2004). Future studies could include risks. Several studies have shown that some participants may
a separate decentering measure (Fresco et al., 2007) and experience mindfulness interventions and related outcomes
explore whether there are distinct relationships with the as challenging and distressing (Cebolla et al., 2017; Lindahl
features of mindfulness in communication. Such studies may et al., 2017). One should generally not see mindfulness as a
also benefit from more thoroughly disentangling the process panacea for all sorts of challenges and problems leaders
of decentering. Recent research suggests that this kind of (and followers) are facing in their organizational practice.
perspective shifting may be better understood as a process, Mindfulness interventions can be useful if they are conducted
including meta-awareness, disidentification from inner by experts and carefully tailored to the needs and individual
experience, and reduced reactivity to thought content (see requirements of the participants. Furthermore, as Purser
Bernstein et al., 2015). (2018) pointed out, the trend of mindfulness interventions at
Finally, mindfulness research in general could benefit from work can also be problematic because it tends to focus
taking up the reflections and criticisms of several scholars exclusively on the individual when it comes to cope with
(Bodhi, 2011; Dreyfus, 2011; Purser and Milillo, 2015) who stress, instead of changing tasks or thinking about job design.
advocate a notion of mindfulness that goes beyond its current
conceptualization in Western psychology.
CONCLUSION
Practical Implications
Our focus on interpersonal benefits of mindfulness points to By identifying mindfulness in communication as a behavioral
several practical implications, especially with regard to leadership manifestation of leaders’ dispositional mindfulness which
development. While a large body of research on mindfulness- mediates the latter’s relationship with followers’ satisfaction,
based interventions provides evidence that mindfulness can be our study provides a valuable contribution to the increasing
trained (for meta-analyses see Grossman et al., 2004; Chiesa body of literature on mindfulness in the workplace. Hopefully,
and Serretti, 2009; Cavanagh et al., 2014), research on it will stimulate more research on the role of mindfulness in
mindfulness interventions in the workplace is still in its infancy. communication behavior and in organizational contexts in
However, in practice, there is already a growing interest in general.
mindfulness-based training programs, and many organizations
presently use mindfulness-based trainings in personnel and
leadership development (for examples see Marturano, 2010; Tan,
ETHICS STATEMENT
2012). This interest of practitioners is accompanied, and partly
The authors certify that the research presented in this
caused, by a growing body of non-scientific, popular literature,
manuscript has been conducted within the DGPs (German
and a number of articles in newspapers and magazines, praising
Psychological Society) ethical standards regarding
the benefits of a “mindful leadership style” (e.g., Caroll, 2008;
research with human participants and scientific integrity.
Boyatzis and McKee, 2014). However, such reports are often
grounded in anecdotal evidence and more rigorous research is
needed to explore the role of mindfulness in the leadership AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
context and to provide evidence-based approaches for
practitioners in organizations. The findings of our study provide JA and APV contributed conception and design of the study. JA
preliminary empirical support for the potential value of fostering contributed the acquisition of participants and data collection,
mindfulness in organizations and suggest that mindfulness may and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. JA, APV, and
not just promote personal wellbeing and resilience, as it has been KK performed the statistical analysis, wrote sections of
shown by other scholars before, but also may have positive the manuscript, and contributed to manuscript revisions,
effects on interpersonal skills and communication behavior. Thus, read, and approved the submitted version.
since communication competencies are key to effective
leadership, mindfulness-based interventions and training may
represent a promising tool for effective leadership development. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Despite the promising value of such leadership trainings, it is,
however, important to consider potential pitfalls of mindfulness The authors thank Felix C. Brodbeck for his insightful comments
too. For instance, it is conceivable that a leader may use mindful on earlier versions of this manuscript. An earlier version of this
communication for the mere purpose of paper has been presented at the 49th Congress of the DGPs
(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie), Bochum, Germany.

REFERENCES Boyatzis, R. E., and McKee, A. (2014). Resonant Leadership: Renewing

Yourself and Connecting with Others Through Mindfulness, Hope, and
Abu Bakar, H., Dilbeck, K. E., and McCroskey, J. C. (2010). Mediating role Compassion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader- Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comment on applying covariance structure
member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. modeling. J. Organ. Behav. 16, 201–213. doi: 10.1002/job.4030160303
Commun. Monogr. 77, 637–656. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2010.499104 Brown, K. W., Creswell, J. D., and Ryan, R. M. (2015). Handbook of Mindfulness.
Alvesson, M., and Sveningsson, S. (2003). Managers doing leadership: New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
the extra-ordinarization of the mundane. Hum. Relat. 56, 1435–1459. Brown, K. W., and Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
doi: 10.1177/ 00187267035612001 mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc.
Ames, D., Maissen, L. B., and Brockner, J. (2012). The role of listening in Psychol. 84, 822–848. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
interpersonal influence. J. Res. Pers. 46, 345–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.010 Brown, K. W., and Ryan, R. M. (2004). Perils and promise in defining and
Antonakis, J. (2012). “Transformational and charismatic leadership,” in The Nature of measuring mindfulness: observations from experience. Clin. Psychol.
Leadership, eds D. V. Day and J. Antonakis (Thoasand Oaks, CA: Sage 11, 242–248. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bph078
Publications), 256–288. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., and Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness:
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Christianson, M. K. (2009). “Sepaking up theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychol.
and speaking out: the leadership dynamics of voice,” in Voice and Silence in Inq. 18, 211–237. doi: 10.1080/10478400701598298
Organizations, eds J. Greenberg and M. S. Edwards (Bingley: Emerald). Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., Loverich, T. M., Biegel, G. M., and West, A. M.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: a conceptual and (2011). Out of the armchair and into the streets: measuring mindfulness
empirical review. Clin. Psychol. 10, 125–143. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg015 advances knowledge and improves interventions: reply to Grossman (2011).
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., and Toney, L. Psychol. Assess. 23, 1041–1046. doi: 10.1037/a0025781
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of Brownell, J. (1985). A model for listening instruction: management applications.
mindfulness. Assessment 13, 27–45. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283504 Bull. Assoc. Bus. Commun. 48, 39–44. doi: 10.1177/108056998504800312
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., and Rogge, R. Byrnes, J. (2008). Re: Coefficient of determination (Rˆ2) When Using lme. Available
D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction at: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-mixed-models/2008q2/000713.html
and responses to relationship stress. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 33, 482– Caroll, M. (2008). The Mindful Leader: Awakening Your Natural Management Skills
500. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606. 2007.00033.x Through Mindfulness Meditation: Ten Principles for Bringing Out the Best in
Bechler, C., and Johnson, S. D. (1995). Leadership and listening: a study of member Ourselves and Others. Boston, MA: Trumpeter.
perceptions. Small Group Res. 26, 77–85. doi: 10.1177/1046496495261004 Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., and Baucom, D. H. (2004).
Beckman, B. H., Wendland, S. M., Mooney, E. C., Krasner, L. M., Quill, Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behav. Ther. 35, 471–
M. T., Suchman, M. A., et al. (2012). The impact of a program in 494. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80028-5
mindful communication on primary care physicians. Acad. Med. 87, Cavanagh, K., Strauss, C., Forder, L., and Jones, F. (2014). Can mindfulness
815–819. doi: 10. 1097/ACM.0b013e318253d3b2 and acceptance be learnt by self-help?: a systematic review and meta-
Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., and Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of analysis of mindfulness and acceptance-based self-help interventions. Clin.
mindfulness with self-report measures: existing scales and open Psychol. Rev. 34, 118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.01.001
issues. Mindfulness 4, 191–202. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0110-9 Cebolla, A., Demarzo, M., Martins, P., Soler, J., and Garcia-Campayo, J. (2017).
Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., and Kupper, Z. (2014). Konstruktion und erste Unwanted effects: Is there a negative side of meditation? A multicentre survey.
Validierung eines Fragebogens zur umfassenden Erfassung von PLoS One 12:e0183137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183137
Achtsamkeit. Diagnostica 60, 111–125. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000109 Chambers, R., Gullone, E., and Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion
Bernstein, A., Hadash, Y., Lichtash, Y., Tanay, G., Shepherd, K., and regulation: an integrative review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 29, 560–572. doi:
Fresco, D. M. (2015). Decentering and related constructs: a critical 10.1016/j.cpr.2009. 06.005
review and metacognitive processes model. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, Chambers, R., Lo, B. C. Y., and Allen, N. B. (2008). The impact of intensive
599–617. doi: 10.1177/ 1745691615594577 mindfulness training on attentional control, cognitive style, and affect. Cogn.
Berson, Y., and Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the Ther. Res. 32, 303–322. doi: 10.1007/s10608-007-9119-0
dissemination of organizational goals: a case study of a telecommunication Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
firm. Leadersh. Q. 15, 625–646. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.003 invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., and West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance
Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational of second-order factor models. Struct. Equ. Model. 12, 471–492. doi:
definition. Clin. Psychol. 11, 230–241. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bph077 10.1207/ s15328007sem1203_7
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: a Chiesa, A. (2013). The difficulty of defining mindfulness: current thought and
simulation. Organ. Res. Methods 1, 355–373. doi: 10.1177/109442819814001 critical issues. Mindfulness 4, 255–268. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0123-4
Bliese, P. D. (2000). “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and Chiesa, A., and Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for
reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis,” in Multilevel stress management in healthy people: a review and meta-analysis. J.
Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, Altern. Complement. Med. 15, 593–600. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0495
and New Directions, eds K. J. Klein, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. J. Klein, and S. Creswell, J. D. (2017). Mindfulness interventions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68,
W. J. Kozlowski (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 349–381. 491–516. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139
Bliese, P. D. (2016). multilevel: Multilevel Functions (Version 2.6.) [R package]. Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task
Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=multilevel performance in the workplace. J. Manag. 37, 997–1018. doi: 10.1177/
Block-Lerner, J., Adair, C., Plumb, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., and Orsillo, S. M. 0149206310367948
(2007). The case for mindfulness-based approaches in the cultivation Dane, E., and Brummel, B. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness
of empathy: does nonjudgmental, present-moment awareness increase and its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Hum. Relat.
capacity for perspective-taking and empathic concern? J. Marital Fam. 67, 105–128. doi: 10.1177/0018726713487753
Ther. 33, 501–516. doi: 10.1111/ j.1752-0606.2007.00034.x de Bruin, E. I., Topper, M., Muskens, J. G., Bögels, S. M., and Kamphuis,
Bodhi, B. (2011). What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical perspective. J. H. (2012). Psychometric properties of the five facets mindfulness
Contemp. Buddhism 12, 19–39. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564813 questionnaire (FFMQ) in a meditating and a non-meditating sample.
Bohlmeijer, E., ten Klooster, P. M., Fledderus, M., Veehof, M., and Baer, Assessment 19, 187–197. doi: 10.1177/1073191112446654
R. (2011). Psychometric properties of the five facet mindfulness de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E., and Schouten, B. (2011).
questionnaire in depressed adults and development of a short form. The communication styles inventory (CSI): a six-dimensional behavioral.
Assessment 18, 308–320. doi: 10.1177/1073191111408231 The communication model of communication styles and its relation

with personality. Commun. Res. 40, 506–532. doi: Heppner, W. L., Spears, C. A., Vidrine, J. I., and Wetter, D. W. (2015).
10.1177/009365021141 3571 “Mindfulness and emotion regulation,” in Handbook of Mindfulness and
de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., and Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership Self-Regulation, eds B. D. Ostafin, M. D. Robinson, B. P. Meier, B. D.
= communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with Ostafin, M. D. Robinson, and B. P. Meier (New York, NY: Springer),
leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. J. Bus. 107–120. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2263-5_9
Psychol. 25, 367–380. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2 Hoyle, R. H. (2011). Structural Equation Modeling for Social and
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., and Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in Personality Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
work organizations: the state of a science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. doi: 10.4135/ 9781446287965
Organ. Behav. 4, 19–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 Hudghes, J. (2008). reghelper: Helper Functions for Regression Analysis. R Package
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ’what’ and ’why’ of goal pursuits: Version 0.3.4. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=reghelper
human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., and Lang, J. W. (2013).
227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion
Dreyfus, G. (2011). Is mindfulness present-centred and non-judgmental? regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol.
A discussion of the cognitive dimensions of mindfulness. Contemp. 98, 310–325. doi: 10.1037/ a0031313
Buddhism 12, 41–54. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564815 Hülsheger, U. R., Feinholdt, A., and Nübold, A. (2015). A low-dose
Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., and Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development mindfulness intervention and recovery from work: effects on
and validation of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychol. Mark. psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleep duration. J. Occup.
23, 161–180. doi: 10.1002/mar.20105 Organ. Psychol. 88, 464–489. doi: 10.1111/joop.12115
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., and Ferris, Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F. R.,
G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of and Alberts, H. J. (2014). The power of presence: the role of mindfulness at
leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment
future. J. Manag. 38, 1715–1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280 and sleep quality. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 1113–1128. doi: 10.1037/a0037702
Eberth, J., and Sedlmeier, P. (2012). The effects of mindfulness meditation: a James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., and Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-
meta-analysis. Mindfulness 3, 174–189. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0101-x group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl.
Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., and Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a Psychol. 69, 85–98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int. J. Public Jamieson, S. D., and Tuckey, M. R. (2017). Mindfulness interventions in
Health 58, 637–642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3 the workplace: a critique of the current state of the literature. J. Occup.
Fairhurst, G. T., and Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: a communicative Health Psychol. 22, 180–193. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000048
perspective. Leadership 10, 7–35. doi: 10.1177/1742715013509396 Jensen, C. G., Vangkilde, S., Frokjaer, V., and Hasselbalch, S. G. (2012).
Felfe, J. (2006). Validierung einer deutschen Version des “Multifactor Leadership Mindfulness training affects attention - Or is it attentional effort? J. Exp.
Questionnaire“ (MLQ Form 5 x Short) von Bass und Avolio (1995). Z. Arbeits Psychol. Gen. 141, 106–123. doi: 10.1037/a0024931
Organisationspsychol. 50, 61–78. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089.50.2.61 Johnson, S. D., and Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between
Fix, B., and Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader- listening effectiveness and leadership emergence: perceptions, behaviors,
member exchange, and employee job satisfaction. Commun. Res. and recall. Small Group Res. 29, 452–471. doi: 10.1177/1046496498294003
Rep. 23, 35–44. doi: 10.1080/17464090500535855 Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present,
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., Bonus, K., and Davidson, R. J. (2013). and future. Clin. Psychol. 10, 144–156. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg016
Mindfulness for teachers: a pilot study to assess effects on stress, burnout, and Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.
teaching efficacy. Mind Brain Educ. 7, 182–195. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12026 New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Folger, R., and Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and Krasner, M. S., Epstein, R. M., Beckman, H., Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B.,
Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Mooney, C. J., et al. (2009). Association of an educational program in
Publications, Inc. mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary
Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., van Dulmen, M. H., Segal, Z. V., Ma, S. H., care physicians. JAMA 302, 1284–1293. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1384
Teasdale, J. D., et al. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the LeBreton, J. M., and Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
experiences questionnaire: validation of a self-report measure of interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ. Res. Methods 11,
decentering. Behav. Ther. 38, 234–246. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.003 815–852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., and Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness Lindahl, J. R., Fisher, N. E., Cooper, D. J., Rosen, R. K., and Britton, W.
at work. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 30, 115–157. doi: B. (2017). The varieties of contemplative experience: a mixed-methods
10.1108/S0742-730120110000030005 study of meditation-related challenges in Western Buddhists. PLoS
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, One 12:e0176239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176239
M. K., et al. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: an integrative Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Keller, J. W., and Voelpel, S. (2015). Is my boss really
review. J. Manag. 42, 114–142. doi: 10.1177/0149206315617003 listening to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional
Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., and Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, exhaustion, turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. J.
affect and emotions: a state of the science review. Leadersh. Q. 21, Bus. Ethics 130, 509–524. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2242-4
979–1004. doi: 10.1016/ j.leaqua.2010.10.005 Lomas, T., Medina, J. C., Ivtzan, I., Rupprecht, S., Hart, R., and Eiroa-
Gross, J. J., and John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion Orosa, F. J. (2017). The impact of mindfulness on well-being and
regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J. performance in the workplace: an inclusive systematic review of the
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 348–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 empirical literature. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 26, 492–513. doi:
Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and 10.1080/1359432X.2017.130 8924
psychological research. J. Psychosom. Res. 64, 405–408. doi: Luberto, C. M., Cotton, S., McLeish, A. C., Mingione, C. J., and O’Bryan,
10.1016/j. jpsychores.2008.02.001 E. M. (2014). Mindfulness skills and emotion regulation: the mediating
Grossman, P. (2011). Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay role of coping self-efficacy. Mindfulness 5, 373–380. doi:
attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for 10.1007/s12671-012-0190-6
psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: comment on Brown et al. Lüdecke, D. (2017). sistats: Statistical Functions for Regression Models (Version
(2011). Psychol. Assess. 23, 1034–1040. doi: 10.1037/a0022713 0.13.0) [R package]. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=sjstats
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., and Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness- Malinowski, P., and Lim, H. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Positive affect, hope,
based stress reduction and health benefits: a meta-analysis. J. Psychosom. and optimism mediate the relationship between dispositional
Res. 57, 35–43. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7 mindfulness, work engagement, and well-being. Mindfulness 6, 1250–
Hayes, S. C., Follette, V. M., and Linehan, M. M. (eds) (2004). 1262. doi: 10.1007/ s12671-015-0388-5
Mindfulness and Acceptance. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Marturano, J. (2010). Mindful. Finding the Space to Lead. Available at: Rau, H. K., and Williams, P. G. (2016). Dispositional mindfulness: a critical
http://www. mindful.org/at-work/leadership/finding-the-space-to-lead review of construct validation research. Pers. Individ. Dif. 93, 32–43.
Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: a primer. doi: 10.1016/j. paid.2015.09.035
Commun. Methods Meas. 2, 260–293. doi: 10.1080/19312450802458935 Reb, J., Chaturvedi, S., Narayanan, J., and Kudesia, R. S. (2018). Leader
McGartland Rubio, D., Berg-Weger, M., and Tebb, S. S. (2001). Using mindfulness and employee performance: a sequential mediation model
structural equation modeling to test for multidimensionality. Struct. of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and employee stress. J. Bus.
Equ. Model. 8, 613–626. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0804_06 Ethics 1–19. doi: 10.1007/ s10551-018-3927-x
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Manapragada, A., Viswesvaran, C., and Allen, J. W. Reb, J., Narayanan, J., and Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: two studies on
(2017). Trait mindfulness at work: a meta-analysis of the personal and the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and
professional correlates of trait mindfulness. Hum. Perform. 30, 79–98. performance. Mindfulness 5, 36–45. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z
doi: 10.1080/ 08959285.2017.1307842 Reb, J., Narayanan, J., and Ho, Z. W. (2015a). Mindfulness at work:
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., King, W. C. Jr. (1996). Job level as a systemic antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and absent-
variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory mindedness. Mindfulness 6, 111–122. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4
communication and job satisfaction. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 69, Reb, J., Sim, S., Chintakananda, K., and Bhave, D. P. (2015b). “Leading
277–292. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325. 1996.tb00615.x with mindfulness: exploring the relation of mindfulness with leadership
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 6th Edn. Thousand Oaks, behaviors, styles, and development,” in Mindfulness in Organizations:
CA: Sage. Foundations, Research, and Applications, eds J. Reb and P. W. B.
O’Kelly, M., and Collard, J. (2012). “Using mindfulness with couples: theory and Atkins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 256–284.
practice,” in Cognitive and Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy with Couples: Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., and Ryan, R. M. (2000).
Theory and Practice, ed. A. Vernon (New York, NY: Springer), 17–31. Daily well-being: the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Pers.
Olafsen, A. H. (2016). The implications of need-satisfying work climates Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 419–435. doi: 10.1177/0146167200266002
on state mindfulness in a longitudinal analysis of work outcomes. Revelle, W. (2016). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research
Motiv. Emot. 41, 22–37. doi: 10.1007/s11031-016-9592-4 (Version 1.6.9.) [R package]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Ostafin, B. D., Robinson, M. D., and Meier, B. P. (eds) (2015). Handbook Rindskopf, D., and Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of
of Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation. New York: Springer. doi: confirmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behav. Res. 23,
10.1007/978-1-4939-2263-5 51–67. doi: 10.1207/ s15327906mbr2301_3
Parker, S. C., Nelson, B. W., Epel, E. S., and Siegel, D. J. (2015). “The Roche, M., Haar, J. M., and Luthans, F. (2014). The role of mindfulness
science of presence: a central mediator of the interpersonal benefits of and psychological capital on the well-being of leaders. J. Occup.
mindfulness,” in Handbook of Mindfulness: Theory, Research, and Health Psychol. 19, 476–489. doi: 10.1037/a0037183
Practice, eds K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, R. M. Ryan, K. W. Brown, J. Roeser, R. W., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L.,
D. Creswell, and R. M. Ryan (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 225–244. Wilensky, R., et al. (2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher
Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., and Henwood, C. I. (1991). stress and burnout: results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials.
Communication abilities of managers: the relationship to performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 787–804. doi: 10.1037/a0032093
J. Manag. 17, 57–76. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700105 Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat.
Pepping, C. A., O’Donovan, A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., and Hanisch, M. Softw. 48, 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
(2014). Is emotion regulation the process underlying the relationship Ruben, B. D., and Gigliotti, R. A. (2016). Leadership as social influence:
between low mindfulness and psychosocial distress? Aust. J. Psychol. an expanded view of leadership communication theory and practice. J.
66, 130–138. doi: 10. 1111/ajpy.12050 Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 23, 467–479. doi: 10.1177/1548051816641876
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., and R Core Team. (2017). nlme: Ruben, B. D., and Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communication: sine qua non of
Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models (Version 3.1-128) [R package]. organizational leadership. Theory Pract. 54, 12–30. doi: 10.1177/
Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme 2329488416675447
Pircher Verdorfer, A. (2016). Examining mindfulness and its relations to Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
humility, motivation to lead, and actual servant leadership behaviors. facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
Mindfulness 7, 950–961. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0534-8 Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Prakash, R. S., Hussain, M. A., and Schirda, B. (2015). The role of emotion Sager, K. L. (2008). An exploratory study of the relationships between
regulation and cognitive control in the association between mindfulness theory X/Y assumptions and superior communicator style. Manag.
disposition and stress. Psychol. Aging 30, 160–171. doi: 10.1037/a0038544 Commun. Q. 22, 288–312. doi: 10.1177/0893318908323148
Purser, R. E. (2018). Critical perspectives on corporate mindfulness. J. Manag. Sauer, S., Andert, K., Kohls, N., and Müller, G. F. (2011). Mindful Leadership: sind
Spiritual. Relig. 15, 105–108. doi: 10.1080/14766086.2018.1438038 achtsame Führungskräfte leistungsfähigere Führungskräfte? Gruppendynamik
Purser, R. E., and Milillo, J. (2015). Mindfulness revisited: a buddhist-based Organisationsberatung 42, 339–349. doi: 10.1007/s11612-011-0164-5
conceptualization. J. Manag. Inq. 24, 3–24. doi: 10.1177/1056492614532315 Sauer, S., and Kohls, N. (2011). “Mindfulness in leadership: does being mindful
Quaglia, J. T., Braun, S. E., Freeman, S. P., McDaniel, M. A., and Brown, enhance leaders’ business success?” in Culture and Neural Frames of Cognition
K. W. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for effects of mindfulness training and Communication, eds S. Han and E. Pöppel (Berlin: Springer), 287–307.
on dimensions of self-reported dispositional mindfulness. Psychol. Sauer, S., Strobl, C., Walach, H., and Kohls, N. (2013a). Rasch-analyse
Assess. 28, 803–818. doi: 10.1037/pas0000268 des freiburger fragebogens zur achtsamkeit. Diagnostica 59, 86–99.
Quaglia, J. T., Brown, K. W., Lindsay, E. K., Creswell, J. D., and doi: 10.1026/ 0012-1924/a000084
Goodman, R. J. (2015). “From conceptualization to operationalization Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing,
of mindfulness,” in Handbook of Mindfulness: Theory, Research, and A., et al. (2013b). Assessment of mindfulness: review on state of the
Practice, eds K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, R. M. Ryan, K. W. Brown, J. art. Mindfulness 4, 3–17. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0122-5
D. Creswell, and R. M. Ryan (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 151–170. Scarpello, V., and Vandenberg, R. J. (1987). The satisfaction with my
R Core Team (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. supervisor scale: its utility for research and practical applications. J.
Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Manag. 13, 447–466. doi: 10.1177/014920638701300302
Rahim, M. A., and Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of Schultz, P. P., Ryan, R. M., Niemiec, C. P., Legate, N., and Williams, G. C. (2014).
handling interpersonal conflict: first-order factor model and its invariance across Mindfulness, work climate, and psychological need satisfaction in employee well-
groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 80, 122–132. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.122 being. Mindfulness 6, 971–985. doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0338-7
Rajah, R., Song, Z., and Arvey, R. D. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Selig, J. P., and Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo Method for Assessing
taking stock of the past decade of research. Leadersh. Q. 22, 1107– Mediation: An Interactive Tool for Creating Confidence Intervals for Indirect
1119. doi: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2011.09.006 Effects [Computer Software]. Available at: http://quantpsy.org/

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., and Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of commitment. Corp. Commun. 12, 116–128. doi:
mindfulness. J. Clin. Psychol. 62, 373–386. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20237 10.1108/1356328071074 4801
Shonin, E., Van Gordon, W., Dunn, T., Singh, N., and Griffiths, M. (2014). Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., Grossman,
Meditation awareness training (MAT) for work-related wellbeing and job P., and Schmidt, S. (2004). “Empirische Erfassung der Achtsamkeit -
performance: a randomised controlled trial. Int. J. Mental Health Die Konstruktion des Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit (FFA)
Addict. 12, 806–823. doi: 10.1007/s11469-014-9513-2 und weitere Validierungsstudien,” in Akzeptanz in der Psychotherapie -
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation Ein Handbuch, eds T. Heidenreich and J. A. Michalak (Thübingen:
of Well-Being. New York, NY: W W Norton & Co. dgvt-Verlag), 729–772.
Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., and Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders’ influence Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., and Schmidt, S.
tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the (2006). Measuring mindfulness–The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI).
relationship. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 1194–1208. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478645 Pers. Individ. Dif. 40, 1543–1555. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025
Sperka, M. (1997). Zur Entwicklung eines "Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Walter, F., Cole, M. S., and Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Emotional
Kommunikation in Organisationen" (KomminO). [Development of Fragebogen zur intelligence: sine qua non of leadership or folderol. Acad. Manag.
Erfassung der Kommunikation in Organisationen (KomminO) (Organizational Perspect. 25, 45–59. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2011.59198449
Communication Questionnaire)]. Z. Arbeits Weiss, H. M., and Cropanzano, R. (1996). “Affective events theory: a theoretical
Organisationspsychol. 41, 182–190. discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at
Stanley, D. (2015). apaTables: Create American Psychological work,” in Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical
Association (APA) Style Tables (Version 1.0.4) [R package]. Available Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 18, eds B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings, B. M.
at: https://cran.r-project.org/ package=apaTables Staw, and L. L. Cummings (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 1–74.
Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., and Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations, 7th Edn. Upper Saddle
organizations: a cross-level review. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. River: Prentice Hall.
Organ. Behav. 3, 55–81. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015- Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., and Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel
062531 mediation using hierarchical linear models: problems and solutions.
Tan, C.-M. (2012). Search Inside Yourself: The Unexpected Path to Achieving Success, Organ. Res. Methods 12, 695–719. doi: 10.1177/1094428108327450
Happiness (and World Peace). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Thayer, L. O. (1968). Communication and Communication Systems. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., and McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era.
Leadersh. Q. 18, 298–318. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 The reviewer MV and handling Editor declared their shared affiliation at
Uhl-Bien, M., Maslyn, J., and Ospina, S. (2012). “The nature of relational the time of review.
leadership: a multi theoretical lens on leadership relationships and
process,” in The Nature of Leadership, eds D. V. Day and J. Antonakis Copyright © 2019 Arendt, Pircher Verdorfer and Kugler. This is an open-access
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 289–330. article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
Van Quaquebeke, N., and Felps, W. (2016). Respectful inquiry: a BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
motivational account of leading through asking open questions and original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
listening. Acad. Manag. Rev. 43, 5–27. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0537 publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M. D. T., and Seydel, E. R. (2007). Direct and use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
indirect effects of supervisor communication on organizational

Mindfulness and Leadership: Communication As A Behavioral Correlate of Leader Mindfulness and Its Effect On Follower Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mindfulness and Leadership: Communication As A Behavioral Correlate of Leader Mindfulness and Its Effect On Follower Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mindfulness and Leadership: Communication As A Behavioral Correlate of Leader Mindfulness and Its Effect On Follower Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 29 March 2019

Mindfulness and Leadership:

In recent years, the construct of mindfulness has gained growing attention in

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

FIGURE 1 | Hypothesized theoretical model.

social networks (mainly XING). Individuals who were Measures

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Facets and items Factor Commu- Corrected

Being present by paying attention to the other

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

TABLE 2 | Test of measurement models.

Model 2 CFI RMSEA 2 1CFI 1RMSEA

TABLE 3 | Means, standard deviations, ICC(1), ICC(2), and correlations.

Variable M SD ICC(1) ICC(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

TABLE 4 | Results of multilevel mediation analyses.

Mediator: Followers’ Dependent variable 1: Dependent variable 2:

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

REFERENCES Boyatzis, R. E., and McKee, A. (2014). Resonant Leadership: Renewing

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 667

You might also like