Mindfulness at Work: Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Awareness and Absent

14 Pages·2013·0.45 MB·English

Mindfulness at Work: Antecedents and
Consequences of Employee Awareness and
Absent-mindedness
Jochen Reb, Jayanth Narayanan & Zhi
Wei Ho
Mindfulness

ISSN 1868-8527

Mindfulness
DOI 10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
DOI10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4
ORIGINALPAPER
Mindfulness at Work: Antecedents and Consequences
of Employee Awareness and Absent-mindedness
JochenReb&JayanthNarayanan&ZhiWeiHo
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaNewYork2013
Abstract The present study examines antecedents and con- reduce chronic pain (Kabat-Zinn et al. 1985) and anxiety
sequences of two aspects of mindfulness in a work setting: (Kabat-Zinn et al. 1992) and increase immunity (Davidson
employeeawarenessandemployeeabsent-mindedness.Using etal.2003).Inanonclinicalsetting,BrownandRyan(2003)
twosamples,thestudyfoundthesetwoaspectsofmindfulness foundmindfulnesstobepositivelyrelatedtolifesatisfaction,
to be beneficially associated with employee well-being, as self-esteem,optimism, positiveaffect, and vitalityand nega-
measuredbyemotionalexhaustion,jobsatisfaction,andpsy- tivelyrelatedtodepression,negativeaffect,andanxiety.En-
chological need satisfaction, and with job performance, as couraged by these findings, organizational scholars have
measuredbytaskperformance,organizationalcitizenshipbe- started to explore the role of mindfulness in organizations
haviors, and deviance. These results suggest a potentially (e.g., Dane 2011; Glomb et al. 2011; Weick and Putnam
important role of mindfulness at the workplace. The study 2006).However,atthispoint,mostofthisresearchhavebeen
also found that organizational constraints and organizational conceptual, and little empirical research has examined the
supportpredictedemployeemindfulness,pointingtotheim- antecedents and consequences of mindfulness at the work-
portant rolethatthe organizationalenvironment may playin place (for exceptions, see, e.g., Reb et al. 2012; Shao and
facilitating or hindering mindfulness at the workplace. The Skarlicki2009).
results further suggest that employee awareness and absent- Modern scientific research has adapted a variety of per-
mindednessare differentconstructs that have distinctnomo- spectives on mindfulness, including mindfulness as a
logical networks. Implications and future directions are (meditation)practice,mindfulnessasamodeofbeing,mind-
discussed. fulnessasastate,mindfulnessasanability,andmindfulness
asatrait.Furthermore,existinginterventions,manipulations,
Keywords Absent-mindedness .Awareness .Mindfulness . andmeasuresshowconsiderabledifferencesintheunderlying
Performance .Well-being conceptualizations of mindfulness. Processes that have been
included as aspects of mindfulness include attention, aware-
ness, intention, attitudes such as openness and acceptance,
Introduction cognitions such as judgments, and actions such as absent-
minded behaviors (e.g., Kabat-Zinn 1994; Baer et al. 2006;
Research suggests that mindfulness is associated with in- Bishop et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2007). Given this state,
creased health, well-being, and functioning (Brown et al. Chiesa (2012) recommended that rather than referring to
2007; Chiesa and Serretti 2009; Eberth and Sedlmeier mindfulness ingeneral,researchercould refertothe specific
2012). For example, mindfulness training has been found to aspectorprocessofmindfulnessthattheyarefocusingonin
theirresearch.
: One specific aspect of mindfulness is awareness.
J.Reb(*) Z.W.Ho
AccordingtoMikulas(2011,p.1),awareness“referstoone's
LeeKongChianSchoolofBusiness,SingaporeManagement
University,50StamfordRoad,178899Singapore,Singapore conscious experience of the contents [of the mind].” Brown
e-mail:[email protected] et al. (2007, p. 212) define awareness as “the conscious
registrationofstimuli,includingthefivephysicalsenses,the
J.Narayanan
kinestheticsenses,andtheactivitiesofthemind.”Tobeaware
NUSBusinessSchool,NationalUniversityofSingapore,Singapore,
Singapore means to do, feel, think, perceive, or sense something and
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
know (i.e., be aware) that one is doing so. In practice, most attempting to suppress such negative feelings, as compared
peopleappeartovaryinthe degreetowhichtheyare aware to simply observing them, may further stress employees,
andalsospendvaryingamountsoftheirtimewithoutaware- which over time may result in emotional exhaustion (Gross
nessofwhattheyaredoing,feeling,thinking,etc.Awareness 1998). Furthermore, absent-mindedness may lead to a more
iswidelyconsideredtobea fundamental aspectofmindful- reactive,ratherthanreflective,responsetochallengingsitua-
ness(Baer etal. 2006; Bishop etal. 2004; Brown and Ryan tions,furtherexacerbatingtheproblem.
2003;Grabovacetal.2011;Kabat-Zinn2003;Mikulas2011; Second, research also suggests that mindfulness leads to
Teasdaleetal.2002).Forexample,Brownetal.(2007)argue moreskilfulemotionalrelatingtoothers(WachsandCordova
thatclearawarenessoftheinternalandexternalworldinthe 2007)andisassociatedwithbetterinterpersonalrelationships
present moment is the first and foremost aspect of (Barnesetal.2007).Relatednessisconsideredafundamental
mindfulness. psychological need; having good relationships with col-
Mikulas (2011) notes that attention and awareness are leaguesisanimportantdeterminantofemployeesatisfaction
distinct but are understandably often confused because they andwell-being(Decietal.2001).Poororunpleasantrelation-
aresocloselyintertwined.VanDametal.(2010,pp.808–809) shipsatworkcanbeamajorcauseofstressandamotivation
observe that “attention and awareness [are] interacting, but to seek employment elsewhere (Gerstner and Day 1997).
arguablydistinctcomponentsofconsciousness.”Thedistinc- Inasmuch awareness and absent-mindedness are aspects of
tionbetweenattentionandawarenessisempiricallysupport- mindfulness,andonecouldexpecttheformertobepositively
ed, for example, in research on mind wandering (a state and the latter to be negatively associated with relationship
lacking attention) with awareness and without awareness qualityandwell-being.
(Smallwoodetal.2007). Furthermore, Kiken and Shook (2011), in a laboratory
Absent-mindedness is another prominent aspect of (lack study, found that a brief manipulation of mindfulness led to
of) mindfulness (Brown and Ryan 2003). To be absent- areductioninnegativitybiasorthetendencytoweighnega-
mindedistobeneither aware nor pay attention while trying tive information more heavily than positive information as
toperformatask,suchashavingaconversation,listeningtoa wellasmorepositivejudgmentsandincreasedoptimism.This
lecture, or reading a paper. The mind is absent and one mayallowemployeestomaintainhigherlevelsofoptimism,
performs the task on autopilot or not at all, for example, self-efficacy, and positive affect, contributing to employee
becausethemindwandersorgoesentirelyblank(e.g.,Brown well-being. Inasmuch as their manipulation of mindfulness
and Ryan 2003; Smallwood and Schooler 2006). Absent- overlaps with awareness and absent-mindedness, one might
mindedness, thus, refers to an aspect of mindlessness (e.g., expect the same relations to hold for awareness and absent-
Mrazek et al. 2012). Being absent-minded appears to be a mindedness.
fairly common experience (Smallwood and Schooler 2006). Employeeawarenessandabsent-mindednessmightalsobe
Note that absent-mindedness is conceptually not the direct relatedtoemployeeperformance(cf.Glombetal.2011;Shao
opposite of awareness as it implies both lack of awareness andSkarlicki2009).Researchhasfoundthatmindwandering
andlackofattention.Inotherwords,onemaylackawareness reduces task performance (Smallwood and Schooler 2006).
evenwhilepayingattention.Forexample,onemaypayatten- Awareness,ontheotherhand,shouldenableindividualstobe
tiontoamovie,butnotbeawarethatoneisdoingso. more receptive to developments in their environments,
Thereareseveralreasonstobelievethatemployeeaware- allowing them to respond more effectively to challenging
ness and absent-mindedness may be associated with well- and changing situations (Dane 2011; Salvato 2009; Weick
beingattheworkplace.First,amajorcauseofreducedwell- andSutcliffe2006).Furthermore,Bealetal.(2005)arguethat
being in the workplace is emotional exhaustion. Emotional affective processes, such as rumination and arousal, take
exhaustionisconsideredthecentralaspectofjobburnoutand attentional resources away from the task at hand, thus nega-
iscommonlydefined asdepletion inemotional energytoan tively influencing performance. Mindfulness is associated
extent that people fail to meet job demands (Maslach et al. with better emotion regulation and reduced rumination
2001).Emotionalexhaustionmanifestsitselfasreluctanceto (Brown and Ryan 2003), thus potentially reducing the inter-
go to work and, in extreme cases, a total dreading of work ferenceofaffectiveprocesseswithperformance.
itself and is associated with lower job performance (Wright Finally,performingwellnotonlyrequirespayingattention
andCropanzano1998). tothe hereand now but alsorequiresactivelyimplementing
Awarenessallowsemployeestobeawareoftheirthoughts one's plans and intentions into action (Ajzen 1991). Recent
andfeelings,withoutnecessarilyreactinguponthem(Brown research suggests that mindfulness may facilitate the imple-
and Ryan 2003). Such awareness encourages a “stepping mentationofintentionsintoaction(ChatzisarantisandHagger
back”(WeickandPutnam2006)oradoptingofawitnessing 2007).In thisway, moremindful employees may beableto
stance.Suchastancemayhelpmindfulemployeestoreduce better achieve intended work-related goals. Thus, inasmuch
the impact of potentially stressful situations. In contrast, awarenessandabsent-mindednessareaspectsofmindfulness,
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
onecouldexpecttheformertobepositivelyandthelattertobe organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and deviance
negatively associated with relationship quality and well- were used to assess different aspects of employee perfor-
being. mance,withdeviancebeingaformornegativeperformance.
Todate,littleisknownaboutorganizationalantecedentsto Organizationalconstraints and taskroutineness wereusedto
aspects of mindfulness. Partly, this is because of the lack of assessdifferentaspectsoforganizationalconstraints.Finally,
researchonmindfulnessattheworkplaceingeneral.Howev- job autonomy and supervisor support were used to assess
er, partly, this is arguably also because most existing scales differentaspectsoforganizationalsupport.
conceptualizemindfulnessasarelativelystabletrait(withthe
TorontoMindfulnessScaleofLauetal.(2006),whichexists
inbothstateandtraitversions,beinganoteworthyexception). Method
This approach de-emphasizes questions about antecedents.
Furthermore, that has examined antecedents of mindfulness Design,Procedure,andSamples
hastypicallylookedatmindfulnessmeditationpractice.
Wearguethatmindfulnessmaybeinfluencednotonlyby Weusedafieldsurveyapproachtocollectdataonallvariables
personalfactors,suchasmindfulnesspracticeorgeneticfac- from employees and their supervisors. To avoid common
tors, but also by environmental or situational variables. In methodvarianceduetopredictorandcriterionvariablesbeing
particular, we posit that organizational constraints will lead measuredatthesamepointintime,datawerecollectedover
to lower levels of workplace awareness and higher levels of threewaves,withapproximately2weeksbetweensubsequent
absent-mindedness. When employees are constrained by the waves. An overview of all measures and the wave in which
routineness of their task, a lack of resources, ambiguity of theywerecollectedisgiveninTable1.
their work role, or other such factors, they will experience Measuresrelatedtoemployeeperformancewereprovided
morestressandhighernegativeaffect.Theywillthenalsouse bytheemployees'supervisors,asisstandardinorganizational
more of their mental energy to deal with this constrained research. Using supervisor ratings helps to avoid common
situationand,asaresult,willhavelittleresourcesleftattheir source bias in which observed relationships may be, at least
disposal to perform their work mindfully. In contrast, when partly, due to common method variance of the same person
there is greater organizational support, employees will have providingbothindependentanddependentvariables.Further-
theresourcestobemoreawareandwilltendtobelessabsent- more,inpractice,supervisorsrateemployeeperformancefor
minded. various purposes, suchaspay increase, promotion,ortermi-
The purpose of the present research was to examine how nation,andsupervisorsmaybebetterableatjudgingperfor-
two aspects of mindfulness—awareness and absent- mance due to their knowledge, experience, and expertise
mindedness—relate to different dimensions of well-being (CampbellandLee1988).Finally,whilenotperfect,supervi-
and performance at the workplace. The second purpose was sorratingsmaybelessaffectedbycertainbiases,suchasself-
toprovideexplorepossibleantecedentsofemployeemindful- servinginflationofratings(CampbellandLee1988).
nessinordertobetterunderstandtheconditionsthatfacilitate Datawerecollectedusingonlinesurveys.Onlyparticipants
mindfulness at work. Based on the discussion above, we whoagreedtoparticipatewereallowedtocompletetheonline
hypothesizeasfollows: survey. Working adult participants were recruited by trained
studentswhoreceivedcoursecreditfordoingso.Eachstudent
Hypothesis 1: Employee awareness is positively related to
recruiter could recruit up to two participants only. This is a
employee well-being (H1a) and employee
commonlyusedmethod,andseveralstudiessuggestthatdata
performance(H1b).
qualityusingthismethodiscomparabletousingmoretradi-
Hypothesis 2: Employee absent-mindedness is negatively
tional procedures (e.g., Hazer and Highhouse 1997; Reeve
related to employee well-being (H2a) and
andSmith2001).Thestudywasapprovedbythefirstauthor's
employeeperformance(H2b).
ethicalreviewboard.
Hypothesis3: Organizationalconstraintsarenegativelyrelat-
Wecollected datafromtwo samples.Table2providesan
edtoemployeeawareness(H3a)andpositively
overview of sample characteristics. Sample 1 consisted of a
relatedtoemployeeabsent-mindedness(H3b).
totalof124workingadultparticipants,andsample2,ofatotal
Hypothesis4: Organizationalsupportispositivelyrelatedto
of107 working adult respondents.Because the two samples
employeeawareness(H4a)andnegativelyre-
weredrawnfromthesamegeneralpopulationandaresimilar
latedtoemployeeabsent-mindedness(H4b).
(see Table 2), they were combined to increase the power of
Inthepresentstudy,emotionalexhaustion,jobsatisfaction, analyses (total sample size of 231). However, several mea-
and psychological need satisfaction were used to assess dif- sureswereincludedinonesampleonly(seeTable1),andnot
ferent dimensions of employee well-being, with emotional everyrespondentinthesesamplesparticipatedinallthethree
exhaustionindicatingalackofwell-being.Taskperformance, waves of the survey and had a supervisor response as well,
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
Table1 Overviewofmeasures
Sample Typeofvariable Measure Reference Ratingsource Wave
1 Employeeawarenessandabsent-mindedness Self 1,2
Employeewell-being Emotionalexhaustion MaslachandJackson(1981) Self 2
Jobsatisfaction Cammannetal.(1979) Self 3
Employeeperformance Taskperformance MotowidloandScotter(1994) Supervisor 3
Deviance BennettandRobinson(2000) Supervisor 3
Antecedentsofemployeemindfulness Organizationalconstraints SpectorandJex(1998) Self 1
Jobautonomy HackmanandOldham(1975) Self 1
Supervisorsupport Eisenbergeretal.(2002) Self 2
2 Employeeawarenessandabsent-mindedness Self 2
Employeewell-being Jobsatisfaction Cammannetal.(1979) Self 3
Needsatisfaction Decietal.(2001) Self 3
Employeeperformance Taskperformance MotowidloandScotter(1994) Supervisor 3
OCBs MoormanandBlakely(1995) Supervisor 3
Antecedentsofemployeemindfulness Organizationalconstraints SpectorandJex(1998) Self 1
Jobautonomy HackmanandOldham(1975) Self 1
Taskroutineness Witheyetal.(1983) Self 1
resulting in smaller effective sample sizes depending on the never;7,almostalways)scale,threeitemsmeasuredawareness
specific analysis (the actual degrees offreedom are reported atwork,andfouritemsmeasuredabsent-mindednessatwork.
withtherespectiveanalysis). Respondentswereinstructedtoratetheitemsspecificallywith
respecttotheirbehaviorsandexperiencesatworkratherthan
Measures theirbehaviorsandexperiencesingeneraloroutsideofwork.
The items measuring awareness were “I am aware of my
All measures used a seven-point (1, strongly disagree; 7, experiences at work,” “I am aware of my actions and their
stronglyagree)scaleunlessotherwisenoted. motiveswhenIamworking,”and“Iamawareofmyfeelings
oremotionsatwork.”Theitemsmeasuringabsent-mindedness
EmployeeAwarenessandAbsent-mindedness Employeeaware- were “I find myself thinking about non-work matters while I
nessandabsent-mindednessweremeasuredwithitemsselected amworking;”“IdaydreamorthinkofotherthingswhenIam
and adapted from the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire working on simple tasks such as photocopying documents;”
(Baeretal.2006)tofittheworkcontext.Usinga1–7(1,almost “insteadoffocusingonthetaskathand,Iampreoccupiedwith
Table2 Characteristicsof
samples Characteristic Sample1 Sample2
N 124workingadults 107workingadults
Location Singapore Singapore
Female(%) 58 56
Agerange(years) 20to58 20to62
Agemean(years) 36 36
Meantenureincurrent 5.6 6.2
organization(years)
EthnicallyChinese(%) 77 86
Twomostfrequentindustries(%) Service(24) Service(22)
Manufacturing(14) Financial(19)
EthnicitiesotherthanChinesein-
Managementlevel(%) Non-manager(47) Non-manager(56)
cludeMalayandIndian;responses
Firstlevel(15) Firstlevel(18)
weredistributedacrossalarge
rangeofself-reportedethnicities Midlevel(33) Midlevel(17)
withnosingleonemakingup Toplevel(5) Toplevel(9)
morethan4%
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
thoughtsaboutthefutureorthepast;”and“atworkIfidgetor relatedtodevianceattheworkplace.Supervisorsratedemploy-
engageinnon-workactivitiessuchaschattingorsnacking.” eedevianceattheworkplaceonBennettandRobinson's(2000)
Bothawarenessandabsent-mindednessshowedsatisfacto- 19-itemscale.Thescaleincludestwocomponentsofdeviance:
ryinternalconsistencyreliabilityasindicatedbyCronbach'sα organizationalandinterpersonal.Bothcomponentswerecom-
values above the 0.7 norm. For awareness, Cronbach's α binedintoasinglescore,α=0.96.Exampleitemsinclude“this
values were 0.85 in wave 2 and 0.87 in wave 1 (sample 1 employee publicly embarrassed someone at work” and “this
only).Forabsent-mindedness,Cronbach'sαvalueswere0.90 employeehastakenpropertyfromworkwithoutpermission.”
inwave2and0.87inwave1(sample1only).Usingwave2
measurements, employee awareness and absent-mindedness OrganizationalConstraints ParticipantsrespondedtoSpector
werenotsignificantlyrelated,r(230)=−0.08,p=0.20. andJex'(1998)11-itemorganizationalconstraintsscaleusing
afive-pointscale(1,rarelyornever;5,severaltimesaday),
Emotional Exhaustion Emotional exhaustion, as the central α=0.90. Constraints rated include poor equipment, inade-
componentofburnout,isanimportantmeasureofthecumu- quatetraining,andconflictingjobdemands,amongothers.
lativeeffectsofworkstress.Wemeasuredemotionalexhaus-
tion with Maslach and Jackson's (1981) nine-item scale, TaskRoutineness Taskroutinenesscanbeconsideredaformof
α=0.92. Example items include “I feel emotionally drained constraint, as it constraints the autonomy and variety of em-
frommywork”and“Ifeelusedupattheendoftheworkday.” ployees' experience during work. We used three items from
Withey and colleagues (1983) to measure task routineness,
Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is perhaps the most widely α=0.92. Example items include “my work is fairly routine”
studied attitude towards work. It includes both affective and and“Iperformthesametasksinthesamewayfromdaytoday.”
cognitive components. We measured job satisfaction with
Cammann and colleagues' (1979) three-item scale, α=0.80. Job Autonomy Job autonomy can be considered a form of
Exampleitemsare“allinallIamsatisfiedwithmyjob”and organizationalsupport,asitallowsemployeesmorefreedom
“ingeneral,Ilikeworkinghere.” inaccomplishingtheirwork.Thus,weexpectthatjobauton-
omypromotesmindfulnessandispositivelyrelatedtomind-
PsychologicalNeedSatisfaction Work onself-determination fulness. Job autonomy was measured with four items from
theoryemphasizestheimportanceofpsychologicalneedsat- Hackman and Oldham (1975), α=0.90. Example items are
isfactionforwell-beingandpositsthreefundamentalneedsof “myjobgivesmeconsiderableopportunityforindependence
autonomy,competence,andrelatedness(Decietal.2001).We andfreedominhowIdomywork”and“myjobprovidesthe
measured psychological need satisfaction with Deci et al.'s opportunityforindependentthoughtandaction.”
(2001)21-itemneedsatisfactionscale.Asisacommonprac-
tice(e.g.,Lianetal.2012),all21itemswereaveragedintoa SupervisorSupport Wemeasuredsupervisorsupportwiththe
singlescore,α=0.86.Exampleitemsinclude“IfeellikeIcan eight-itemperceived supervisorsupport scale ofEisenberger
make a lot of inputs to deciding how my job gets done,” “I and colleagues (2002), α=0.91. Example items are “help is
really like the people I work with,” and “I do not feel very available from my supervisor when I have a problem” and
competentwhenIamatwork.” “mysupervisorwouldforgiveanhonestmistakeonmypart.”
TaskPerformance Taskperformancereferstoperformingthe Control Variables We controlled for the demographic vari-
essentialaspectsofone'sjob.Taskperformancewasratedby ablesofageandgenderinallregressionanalyses.
employees' supervisors on three items from Motowidlo and
Scotter(1994)ona1–5scale,α=0.92.
OrganizationalCitizenshipBehaviors OCBsrefertoemploy- Results
eebehaviorsthatgobeyondthatwhichisconsideredpartof
theformaljobdescription(ortaskperformance).Supervisors Means,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsofallstudyvar-
ratedemployeeOCBsonMoormanandBlakely's(1995)17- iablesarereportedinTable3.
item scale, α=0.93. Example items include “this employee
always goes out of the way to make newer employees feel EmployeeAwareness,Absent-mindedness,andWell-being
welcome in the work group” and “encourages others to try
newandmoreeffectivewaysofdoingtheirjob.” We expectedemployee awareness tobe positively related to
well-being(hypothesis1a).Asexpected,employeeawareness
Deviance Deviance can be considered a negative form or was positively related to job satisfaction [r(158)=0.46,
performance, and we expected that mindfulness is negatively p<0.001] and psychological need satisfaction [r(70)=0.32,
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
3
1 –
* *
* *
8 3
5 3
2 0. 0.
1 −
6** 9** ple
11 0.5 0.5– am
s
e
** ** ** on
8 0 7 6 n
6 4 4 1 i
10 0. 0. 0.−0. cted
e
8** 1* 0** coll
2 2 3 n
0.– 0.– 0. ee
9 − − b
g
n
23** 14 15 22** 17 30** havi
8 0.−0.−0.−0.−0. 0. nly
o
s
* ** ** * ** ble
8 3 6 2 0 2 4 a
7 −0.0−0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3−0.0 vari
e
m
* * * o
* * * * s
4 6 9 8 4 3 o
5 1 2 5 2 1 t
6 0.−0.−0. 0.– 0.– −0. due
e
* * * * ar
0.43* 0.23* 0.07 0.25* 0.45* 0.51* 0.12 0.22 0.03 cells
5 − − − y
pt
m
** * * * ** E
4 −0.25−0.21−0.03 0.18 0.16−0.05−0.28−0.25−0.19 0.07 nd2).
a
* * * * * * * * 1
11 21* 16 20* 26* 52* 37* 37* 25* 17 46* bles
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Ta
3 − − − − − − −
o
s
* * * al
3 5 4 2 1 3 1 6 4 2 7 5 e
bles 2 −0.0 0.1−0.1−0.1−0.1−0.0 0.2−0.0−0.1 0.0−0.1−0.1 e(se
a v
allstudyvari 1 −0.10−0.13−0.04 0.05−0.04−0.01−0.29**−0.07 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.10−0.01 mpleandwa
nsof N 231 231 231 231 231 124 231 231 124 178 82 175 79 96 onsa
orrelatio SD 12.78 0.50 0.72 1.57 1.13 1.06 0.91 1.06 1.08 1.11 0.67 0.58 0.76 0.60 depends
c
N,and Mean 35.97 1.57 2.05 4.41 5.41 5.02 4.37 2.85 3.49 5.38 5.05 4.03 5.41 1.37 male.N viors
Table3Means,standarddeviations, 1Age 2Gender 3Organizationalconstraints 4Taskroutineness 5Jobautonomy 6Supervisorsupport 7Employeeawareness 8Employeeabsent-mindedness 9Emotionalexhaustion 10Jobsatisfaction 11Needsatisfaction 12Taskperformance 13OCBs 14Deviance Genderiscodedas1=maleand2=fe OCBsorganizationalcitizenshipbeha≤≤**p0.01;*p0.05
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
p<0.01] and negatively related to emotional exhaustion awareness was positively related to task performance
[r(123)=−0.23,p=0.01].Hypothesis2astatedthatemployee [r(167)=0.20, p=0.01] and OCBs [r(72)=0.32, p<0.01]
absent-mindednesswouldbenegativelyrelatedtowell-being. (see also Table 3). However, it was not related to employee
Employeeabsent-mindedness was positivelyrelated toemo- deviance [r(94)=−0.04, p=0.73]. Hypothesis 2b stated that
tionalexhaustion[r(123)=0.23,p<0.01],butnotsignificantly employee absent-mindedness would be negatively related to
relatedtojobsatisfaction[r(158)=−0.14,p=0.08]orpsycho- jobperformance.Employeeabsent-mindednesswasnegative-
logicalneedsatisfaction[r(70)=−0.15,p=0.20]. ly related to task performance [r(167)=−0.22, p<0.01] and
To further examine the relative contribution of awareness positively related to deviance [r(94)=0.30, p<0.01]. It was
andabsent-mindednessinpredictingemployeewell-being,we not,however,relatedtoOCBs[r(72)=−0.17,p=0.14].
conducted multiple regression analyses on each of the three Wenextconductedmultipleregressionanalysesoneachof
dependent variables, with age and gender added as control the three dependent variables, with age and gender added as
variablesinthefirststep(seeTable4).Lookingatjobsatisfac- controlvariablesinthefirststepandbothawarenessandabsent-
tion as a dependent variable, employee awareness was a sig- mindedness entered in the second step (see Table 5). For task
nificant predictor (β=0.45, p<0.001), but absent-mindedness performance, employee awareness was a significant predictor
was not (β=−0.07, p=0.36). Regarding psychological need (β=0.18, p<0.05), as was absent-mindedness (β=−0.19,
satisfaction, employee awareness was again a significant pre- p<0.05). Regarding OCBs, employee awareness was again a
dictor (β=0.29, p<0.05), but absent-mindedness was not significantpredictor(β=0.29,p<0.05),butabsent-mindedness
(β=−0.12, p=0.36). Emotional exhaustion was predicted by was not (β=−0.14, p=0.31). Finally, absent-mindedness pre-
both awareness (β=−0.19, p=0.05) and absent-mindedness dicted deviance (β=−0.31, p<0.01), but awareness did not
(β=0.23, p<0.05). These regression analyses are consistent (β=−0.02, p=0.83). These regression analyses are consistent
withtheresultsofthecorrelationanalyses. withtheresultsofthecorrelationanalyses.
Overall, these analyses provide support for hypothesis 1a Overall, these analyses provide qualified support for hy-
andqualifiedsupportforhypothesis2a.Specifically,whereas potheses 1b and 2b. Specifically, whereas employee aware-
employee awareness was related to all the three aspects of ness was related to task performance and OCBs (but not
employeewell-beinginthehypothesizeddirection,employee deviance) in the hypothesized direction, employee absent-
absent-mindedness was only positively related to emotional mindedness was related to task performance and deviance
exhaustionintheexpecteddirection,butnottojobsatisfaction (butnotOCBs)intheexpecteddirection.
andpsychologicalneedsatisfaction.
OrganizationalConstraints,OrganizationalSupport,
EmployeeAwareness,Absent-mindedness,andPerformance andEmployeeMindfulness
According to hypothesis 1b, employee awareness should be According to hypothesis3,organizationalconstraintsshould
positively related to performance. As expected, employee benegativelyrelatedtoemployeeawareness(hypothesis3a)
Table4 Multipleregressionanalysesofemployeeawarenessandabsent-mindednesspredictingemployeewell-beingvariables
Emotionalexhaustion Jobsatisfaction Needsatisfaction
Model B SE(B) t B SE(B) t B SE(B) t
1 (Constant) 2.96 0.49 6.06** 5.21 0.43 12.20** 5.19 0.39 13.23**
Age 0.00 0.01 −0.51 0.01 0.01 1.33 0.00 0.01 0.60
Gender 0.44 0.22 2.02* −0.12 0.19 −0.62 −0.18 0.17 −1.06
R2=0.05,ΔR2=0.05,F(2,99)=2.31 R2=0.02,ΔR2=0.02,F(2,139)=1.18 R2=0.03,ΔR2=0.03,F(2,60)=0.81
2 (Constant) 3.12 0.84 3.71** 2.90 0.68 4.24** 4.46 0.68 6.58**
Age 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 1.25 0.00 0.01 0.37
Gender 0.42 0.21 2.02* −0.02 0.17 −0.12 −0.15 0.17 −0.89
Employee −0.23 0.11 −1.99* 0.55 0.09 5.98** 0.22 0.09 2.37*
awareness
Employeeabsent- 0.23 0.10 2.28* −0.08 0.08 −0.93 −0.07 0.08 −0.92
mindedness
R2=0.14,ΔR2=0.10,F(2,197)=5.07** R2=0.23,ΔR2=0.21,F(2,137)=19.04** R2=0.13,ΔR2=0.10,F(2,58)=3.48*
Genderiscodedas1=maleand2=female.FvaluesareoftheR2 change.Degreesoffreedomdependonsampleandwave(seealsoTables1and2)
**p≤0.01;*p≤0.05
Author's personal copy
Mindfulness
Table5 Multipleregressionanalysesofemployeeawarenessandabsent-mindednesspredictingemployeeperformancevariables
Taskperformance OCBs Deviance
Model B SE(B) t B SE(B) t B SE(B) t
1 (Constant) 3.80 0.22 17.58** 5.60 0.42 13.27** 1.70 0.30 5.63**
Age 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.00 0.01 −0.26
Gender 0.03 0.10 0.36 −0.24 0.19 −1.29 −0.18 0.13 −1.37
R2=0.01,ΔR2=0.01,F(2,150)=0.88 R2=0.04,ΔR2=0.04,F(2,65)=1.17 R2=0.02,ΔR2=0.02,F(2,82)=0.94
2 (Constant) 3.65 0.38 9.71** 4.83 0.72 6.68** 1.09 0.52 2.09*
Age 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.54
Gender 0.04 0.09 0.47 −0.21 0.18 −1.14 −0.16 0.13 −1.25
Employeeawareness 0.12 0.05 2.30* 0.25 0.10 2.50* −0.02 0.07 −0.22
Employeeabsent-mindedness −0.10 0.05 −2.28* −0.10 0.09 −1.14 0.17 0.06 2.76*
R2=0.8,ΔR2=0.7,F(2,148)=5.82** R2=0.15,ΔR2=0.11,F(2,63)=4.09* R2=0.11,ΔR2=0.09,F(2,80)=3.93*
Genderiscodedas1=maleand2=female.FvaluesareoftheR2 change.Degreesoffreedomdependonsampleandwave(seealsoTables1and2)
OCBsorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviors
**p≤0.01;*p≤0.05
and positively related to employee absent-mindedness (hy- We next conducted multiple regression analyses on both
pothesis 3b). As expected, organizational constraints were awarenessandabsent-mindednessasdependentvariablesand
negativelyrelatedtoawareness[r(186)=−0.20,p<0.01](see the two aspects of organizational support as predictors, with
alsoTable3).However,taskroutinenesswasnotsignificantly ageandgenderaddedascontrolvariablesinthefirststep(see
related [r(186)=−0.03, p=0.66]. Both organizational con- Table 7). For employee awareness, supervisor support was a
straints [r(186)=0.26, p<0.001] and task routineness significantpredictor(β=0.54,p<0.001),butjobautonomywas
[r(186)=0.18, p<0.05] were positively related to absent- not(β=−0.01,p=0.96).Regardingabsent-mindedness,neither
mindedness. supervisor support (β=−0.19, p=0.08) nor job autonomy
We next conducted multiple regression analyses on both (β=0.01,p=0.93)wasasignificantpredictor.Theseregression
awareness and absent-mindedness as dependent variables and
thetwoaspectsoforganizationsconstraintsaspredictors,with Table6 Multipleregressionanalysesoforganizationalconstraintsvari-
ageandgenderaddedascontrolvariablesinthefirststep(see ablespredictingemployeeawarenessandabsent-mindedness
Table 6). For employee awareness, organizational constraints
Model Employeeawareness Employeeabsent-
were a significant predictor (β=−0.21, p<0.01), but task
mindedness
routineness was not (β=0.01, p=0.93). Regarding absent-
mindedness, both organizational constraints (β=0.21, p<0.01) B SE t B SE t
andtaskroutineness(β=0.16,p<0.05)weresignificantpredic- (B) (B)
tors.Theseregressionanalysesareconsistentwiththeresults.
1 (Constant) 4.72 0.30 15.49** 3.93 0.34 11.43**
Overall,theseresultsprovidesupportforhypothesis3band Age 0.00 0.01 −0.22 −0.02 0.01 −4.11**
qualifiedsupportforhypothesis3a.Specifically,whereasboth Gender −0.20 0.13 −1.45 −0.13 0.15 −0.85
organizationalconstraintsandtaskroutinenesswerepositive- R2=0.01,ΔR2=0.01, R2=0.09,ΔR2=0.09,
lyrelatedtoemployeeabsent-mindedness,onlyorganization- F(2,184)=0.35 F(2,184)=8.55**
alconstraints(butnottaskroutineness)werenegativelyrelat- 2 (Constant) 5.35 0.40 13.52** 2.80 0.44 6.38**
edtoemployeeawareness. Age 0.00 0.01 −0.61 −0.02 0.01 −3.77**
According to hypothesis 4, organizational support should Gender −0.21 0.13 −1.59 −0.16 0.15 −1.07
be positively related to employee awareness (hypothesis 4a) Organizational −0.27 0.09 −2.92** 0.30 0.10 2.97**
and negatively related to employee absent-mindedness (hy- constraints
pothesis4b).Asexpected,jobautonomywaspositivelyrelat- Taskroutineness 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.05 2.26*
edtoawareness[r(186)=0.23,p=0.001](seealsoTable3),as R2=0.06,ΔR2=0.05, R2=0.16,ΔR2=0.08,
F(2,182)=4.29* F(2,182)=7.79**
was supervisor support [r(123)=0.54, p<0.001]. However,
neitherjobautonomy[r(186)=−0.07,p=0.32]norsupervisor Genderiscodedas1=maleand2=female.FvaluesareoftheR2 change.
support [r(123)=−0.16, p=0.08] was significantly related to Degreesoffreedomdependonsampleandwave(seealsoTables1and2)
absent-mindedness. **p≤0.01;*p≤0.05