Buy ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: Our papers are 100% human-written.
Check before you submit. Get Turnitin Score Report in 15 Minutes.
Don't risk the 'Red' score. Get the exact same Turnitin report your professor uses. Join 50,000+ students who submitted their essays with confidence this semester.
Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3
Journal of Business Ethics (2019) 160:745763
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3927-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential
Mediation Model of LMX Quality, Interpersonal Justice, and Employee
Stress
Jochen Reb1
Sankalp Chaturvedi2
Jayanth Narayanan3
Ravi S. Kudesia4
Received: 26 November 2017 / Accepted: 9 May 2018 / Published online: 18 May 2018
Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
In the present research, we examine the relation between leader mindfulness and employee performance through the lenses
of organizational justice and leader-member relations. We hypothesize that employees of more mindful leaders view their
relations as being of higher leader-member exchange (LMX) quality. We further hypothesize two mediating mechanisms of
this relation: increased interpersonal justice and reduced employee stress. In other words, we posit that employees of more
mindful leaders feel treated with greater respect and experience less stress. Finally, we predict that LMX quality serves as a
mediator linking leader mindfulness to employee performancedefned in terms of both in-role and extra-role performance.
Across two feld studies of (Study 1) and dyadic leaderemployee data (Study 2), we fnd
support for this sequential mediation model. We discuss implications for theorizing on leadership, organizational justice,
business ethics, LMX, and mindfulness, as well as practical implications.
Keywords Business ethics Extra-role performance In-role performance Interpersonal justice Leadership Leader
mindfulness LMX Mindfulness Organizational justice Stress
Introduction
Organizational interest in mindfulnesswhich can be
defned as an open, present-centered awareness and attention (Bishop et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007)has increased
signifcantly over recent years. This interest is driven by a
substantial body of research showing a broad range of wellbeing and functioning benefts of being mindful such as
lower anxiety and greater cognitive performance (e.g., Baer
2003; Chiesa and Serretti 2009; Chiesa et al. 2011; Eberth
and Sedlmeier 2012). Building on this work, a growing body
of organizational research has similarly found intrapersonal
benefts of mindfulness at work in the areas of well-being
and functioning (Good et al. 2016; Reb and Atkins 2015).
Among others, research has related mindfulness to lower
emotional exhaustion and greater job satisfaction (Hlsheger
et al. 2013), greater performance (Dane and Brummel 2014),
greater organizational citizenship behaviors and lower deviance (Reb et al. 2015a), and lower turnover intentions (Reb
et al. 2017).
However, it has been argued that research on workplace
mindfulness has been limited in at least two major ways.
First, most research on mindfulness at work has focused on
intrapersonal efects of how employee mindfulness benefts
the employee him- or herself (Good et al. 2016; Sutclife
et al. 2016). This is unfortunate, given that interpersonal
relations and interactions are at the core of organizational
phenomena (Weick 1979). This approach has also been
criticized as a decontextualized individual-level approach
to mindfulness (Purser and Milillo 2015). In contrast, in
leadership research relations between leaders and employees
* Jochen Reb
jreb@smu.edu.sg
Sankalp Chaturvedi
sankalp@imperial.ac.uk
Jayanth Narayanan
jnarayanan@gmail.com
Ravi S. Kudesia
ravi.kudesia@frs.ethz.ch
1 Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management
University, 50 Stamford Road, Singapore 178899, Singapore
2 Imperial College London, London, UK
3 National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
4 Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
746 J. Reb et al.
1 3
have received considerable research attention (e.g., Dachler
1992; Dulebohn et al. 2012; Gerstner and Day 1997; UhlBien 2006). As Bennis (2007, p. 3) stated however, at its
basic level, leadership is grounded in a relationship.
While past research has argued that leader mindfulness may lead to better leadermember exchange (LMX)
relations (Reb et al. 2014), empirical evidence is lacking
about whether leader mindfulness helps in developing and
maintaining high-quality relations with employees, as past
research on leader mindfulness has focused either on how
employees react to mindful leaders (i.e., experience more
need satisfaction, less emotional exhaustion) or on what
mindful leaders do (i.e., behave procedurally fairly). However, we believe that there are good reasons to expect leader
mindfulness to lead to better leaderemployee relations. For
example, as Good and colleagues (2016) argued, mindfulness may be associated with greater attention to others,
better communication, reduced confict, reduced emotional
reactivity, and greater expression of other-directed emotions (p. 126). Reb and colleagues (2014) argued that
improvements in justice perceptions, supervisor support,
and other possible factors may contribute to a generally
favorable perception of the relation between the leader and
the employee (p. 43).
Second, research on mindfulness at the workplace has
been criticized for neglecting the connection between
mindfulness and ethics that features prominently in Buddhist approaches to mindfulness (e.g., Kudesia and Nyima
2015). Some scholars have warned that without such a foundation, mindfulness is in danger of turning into McMindfulnessan approach to mindfulness similarly corporatized
as the McDonalds fast food chainand given the example
of mindfulness training for military snipers for how ethics
have been sidelined in favor of managerial interests (Purser
and Milillo 2015). From this perspective, more mindful
leaders may use their ability to focus their attention on the
present in an instrumental manner to extract more from their
employees. However, to date little empirical research sheds
light on whether mindfulness, construed as we do in this
research as an attentional construct devoid of ethical connotations, actually is associated with unethical interpersonal
leader behaviors.
Against this backdrop, we examine the role of mindfulness in leadership. We foreground the relational and ethical
nature of leader mindfulness by examining its relation with
leadermember relationship quality as well as organizational
justice. Specifcally, in the present research, we test whether
leader mindfulness facilitates employee performance (both
in-role and extra-role) through the mediating process of
LMX quality: the quality of the dyadic relationship between
a leader and a follower (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). In other
words, we posit that employees of more mindful leaders will
experience higher-quality relationships with their leaders.
Moreover, we posit signifcant mediating roles of interpersonal justice and employee stress: mindful leaders enhance
LMX quality by engaging in interpersonally fair behaviors
that treat employees with respect and consideration (Masterson et al. 2000; Scandura 1999) and by lowering employee
stress (Hui et al. 1999).
We test these hypotheses (see also Fig. 3) in two feld
studies of leaderemployee dyads. Study 1 assesses leader
mindfulness (as the independent variable), LMX quality (as
the second-stage mediating variable), and in-role and extrarole performance (as the dependent variables). Study 2 replicates and extends Study 1 by also assessing interpersonal
justice and employee stress (as the frst-stage mediators) and
thus tests the entire sequential mediation model. We decided
to take a quantitative, rather than a qualitative, approach
because our goal is to deductively test the hypotheses outlined above. Theorists have argued that mindfulness can be
described as a state-level construct that can also be assessed
at the trait level (Dane 2011, p. 999). We decided to take a
trait-level approach to mindfulness because we are interested
in leaderemployee relations and employee performance that
refect experiences and behaviors over extended time periods, making a state-level approach less suitable.
We believe that our research makes several noteworthy
contributions. First, our research contributes to the emergent
study of mindfulness and ethics. So far, this literature has
focused more on exploring the ethical foundations of mindfulness within the Buddhist context (e.g., Qiu and Rooney
2017) and on ethical decision making (Pandey et al. 2017;
Ruedy and Schweitzer 2010; Shapiro et al. 2012), rather than
on its relation to just behaviors at the workplace. a major way in which leaders enact
ethical behaviors (Neubert et al. 2009) and a large body of
research attests to the benefts of such behaviors, in terms
of leaderemployee relations (Masterson et al. 2000) and
employee and organizational outcomes (Colquitt et al. 2001).
Yet, despite this important role, little empirical research has
studied antecedents of fair leader behavior. With respect
to mindfulness in particular, Schuh and colleagues (2017)
recently showed a positive relation between leaders mindfulness and procedural justice. In the present research, we
complement this work by examining leader mindfulness as
an antecedent of interpersonal justice, which has been shown
to be particularly important for leaderemployee relations
(e.g., Masterson et al. 2000; Rupp and Cropanzano 2002).
If leader mindfulness indeed is associated with fairer interpersonal treatment of employees, it would help alleviate
concerns that mindfulness, approached from an attentional
perspective void of ethical connotations, leads to unethical
behaviors (e.g., Purser and Milillo 2015; Reb et al. 2015b).
Second, although a large amount of research has studied LMX, much of this work has focused on the nature and
consequences of high-quality leadermember relations
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 747
1 3
(e.g., Dulebohn et al. 2012; Gerstner and Day 1997; UhlBien 2006). The present research responds to calls for more
research on the factors contributing to LMX as well as on
the integration of antecedents and consequences of LMX
quality (Dulebohn et al. 2012). By examining leader mindfulness as antecedent of LMX, and the mediating processes
of interpersonal justice and employee stress, we increase
understanding of the attentional, self-regulatory, and relational processes through which leaders maintain high-quality
relationships with their employees, and how these in turn
infuence employee performance.
Finally, we respond to recent calls (Good et al. 2016;
Reb et al. 2014; Sutclife et al. 2016) to go beyond most
of the mindfulness literature and examine the interpersonal
aspect of mindful leadership, thus contributing to the emerging literature on workplace mindfulness. By examining
the relation between leader mindfulness and LMX quality
through the mediating processes of interpersonal justice and
employee stress, we put to an empirical test recent conceptual arguments that mindfulness may help leaders establish
high-quality relationships with their employees and advance
knowledge of the mediating processes through which leader
mindfulness infuences employee performance (Reb et al.
2014). By showing that leader mindfulness is related to how
much stress employees experience and how interpersonally
fairly they feel treated, we shed light not only on how leader
mindfulness supports better leaderemployee relations, but
also discover novel ways in which leader mindfulness benefts employees with respect to their health, well-being, and
sense of justice at work (Reb et al. 2014; Schuh et al. 2017).
Mindfulness and Ethics
In the present research, we approach mindfulness from a
secular perspective as an open, present-centered awareness and attention (Bishop et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007).
This approach has been criticized by scholars approaching
mindfulness from a Buddhist perspective (Purser and Milillo
2015). Long before secular approaches to mindfulness, the
concept, and particularly the practice, of mindfulness has
been central to Asian contemplative traditions such as Buddhism. In traditional Buddhist contexts, mindfulness and
ethics are closely intertwined as the study of and adherence to ethical principles is considered a precondition for
training of mindfulness, producing what is known as right
mindfulness (Grossman 2011; Kudesia and Nyima 2015;
Monteiro et al. 2015). Ethical conduct along with cultivation of attention and wisdom is regarded as the one of
the three fundamental pillars of mindfulness in Buddhism
(Thanissaro 1998). Right mindfulness thus entails a focus
on present-moment events and actions that is directed by
ethical principles. From this perspective, mindfulness, by
defnition, entails not merely attention and its quality (e.g.,
openness), but also intention and ethicality (Shapiro et al.
2006). From this perspective, mindfulness is not necessarily non-judging and accepting, but involves discerning and
choosing wholesome states of mind and actions from those
that are unwholesome and harmful to self and others (Bodhi
2011; Kudesia and Nyima 2015; Purser and Milillo 2015).
Indeed, Purser and Milillo (2015, p. 3) refer to mindfulness conceptualized purely from an attentional perspective
as denatured mindfulness divorced from its soteriological
context and they argue that it reduces it to a self-help technique that is easily misappropriated for reproducing corporate and institutional power, employee pacifcation, and
maintenance of toxic organizational cultures. In a related
vein, Reb et al. (2015b) pointed out that when mindfulness
is defned from an attentional perspective, it is possible that
a leader may use presence for selfsh, political, or antisocial
goals (p. 261). Yet, at the same time, they pointed out that
mindfulness, defned as a present-centered attention, may
better enable leaders to communicate their genuine care
and respect to their subordinates (p. 262). Overall, these
arguments point to the need for more empirical research on
the role of mindfulness in leadership.
Mindfulness in Leadership
Whereas a considerable amount of empirical and conceptual
work has explored the role of mindfulness at work, little is
known about the role of mindfulness in leadership. Indeed,
it is largely practitioner-oriented writing that has argued
that mindful leaders are more efective at their jobs (e.g.,
Boyatzis and McKee 2005; Carroll 2008; Goldstein 2011).
Although a limited amount of organizational scholarship has
discussed these claims (e.g., Reb et al. 2015b; Sauer and
Kohls 2011), empirical evidence on the role of mindfulness
in leadership remains scarce.
As Good et al. (2016, p. 128) have pointed out, although
there is precedent to suggest that mindfulness may relate
to leadership, management scholars have not yet seriously undertaken that challenge of understanding the role
of mindfulness in leadership. Among the limited research,
Liang and colleagues (2016) found that leader mindfulness
moderated the relation between employee performance and
abusive supervision such that more mindful leaders were
less likely to engage in abusive behavior following poor
employee performance. Others have found that mindful
leaders are seen by subordinates as engaging more often
in behaviors associated with servant leadership (Verdorfer
2016) and are rated by supervisors as demonstrating greater
self-mastery as leaders (King and Haar 2017).
Focusing on the link between leader mindfulness
and employee performance, a main interest of the present research, Reb et al. (2014) found in two feld studies
that employees of mindful leaders were less emotionally
748 J. Reb et al.
1 3
exhausted, more satisfed with their jobs, and performed
better, at least partly because they felt greater psychological need satisfaction. Building on this work, Schuh and
colleagues (2017) found similarly that employees of more
mindful leaders were less emotionally exhausted and performed better, because they felt their leaders acted with
greater procedural justice. These studies have thus not only
found empirical evidence of leader mindfulness enhancing
employee performance, they also provided initial insights
into the mediating variables underlying this relation.
LMX Quality as Mediator of the Leader Mindfulness
Employee Performance Relation
Extending existing research, posit that one pathway in which
leader mindfulness can have benefcial efects is through
greater relationship quality. We develop this argument by
drawing on relational leadership theories which emphasize
that leaders efectiveness depends to a large extent on their
ability to create and
with their subordinates (Uhl-Bien 2006). Leadermember
exchange research argues that efective leadership processes occur when leaders and followers are able to develop
mature relationships (partnerships) and thus gain access to
the many benefts these relationships bring (Graen and UhlBien 1995, p. 225). According to social exchange theory
(e.g., Blau 1964; Homans 1958), high-quality relations are
developed and maintained through the exchange of valued
resources that create mutual obligations governed by norms
such as reciprocity (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). The
resources exchanged need not be economic in nature, but
can also by socioemotional or symbolic. Indeed, it is often
the exchange of such less tangible resources that characterizes less transactional and higher-quality relations (e.g., Foa
and Foa 1980).
We suggest that leader mindfulness supports high-quality
LMX relationships because mindful leaders are better able
to provide support and (socioemotional) resources to their
employees. Kahn (1992) posited that employees who are
in relationships with more psychologically present leaders will be given the resources to explore a fuller range of
their workplace experiences. Reb and colleagues (2015a)
similarly argued that mindful leaders, through their open
presence, can provision greater resources to their employees. Receiving support from their leaders, employees perceive that they have high quality LMX relations and feel
an obligation to reciprocate. This, in turn, should result in
greater in-role and extra-role performance (Dulebohn et al.
2012). Over time, such reciprocal resource exchange further
develops mutual trust, respect, open-ended obligations, and
a move beyond self-interest to larger mutual interests. This
leads to mature, high-quality LMX relationships that further
enhance employee performance, both in-role and extra-role
(Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Uhl-Bien 2006; Uhl-Bien and
Graen 1993).
Empirically, albeit not in a work context, research in
domains such as romantic relationships (e.g., Barnes et al.
2007; Block-Lerner et al. 2007; Wachs and Cordova 2007)
and parentchild relationships (e.g., Coatsworth et al.
2010; Singh et al. 2006) suggests that mindfulness positively relates to relationship quality. Further, meta-analytic
evidence shows that LMX quality is positively related to
and extra-role performance
(Dulebohn et al. 2012; Gerstner and Day 1997).
Based on the above, we expect that leader mindfulness
will be positively related to LMX quality and employee
in-role and extra-role performance and that LMX quality
will mediate the relation between leader mindfulness and
employee in-role and extra-role performance.
H1 Leader mindfulness will be positively associated with
LMX quality.
H2a Leader mindfulness will be positively associated with
employee in-role performance.
H2b Leader mindfulness will be positively associated with
.
H3a LMX quality will mediate the relation between leader
mindfulness and employee in-role performance.
H3b LMX quality will mediate the relation between leader
mindfulness and employee extra-role performance.
How specifcally do mindful leaders support employees
and create high quality relations? In what follows, we identify two likely mediating processes: interpersonal justice and
employee stress. Specifcally, frst, we argue that employees
will perceive mindful leaders as more interpersonally fair.
Employee interpersonal justice perceptions, in turn, will lead
to greater LMX quality. Second, we argue that employees
of mindful leaders will feel less stressed. Employee stress,
in turn, will lead to lower LMX quality. Thus, overall, we
predict multiple sequential mediation in which leader mindfulness positively relates to interpersonal justice and negatively relates to employee stress, both of which in turn predict LMX quality (positively and negatively, respectively).
Leader Mindfulness, Interpersonal Justice, and LMX
Quality
A large body of research has studied the importance of
employee justice perceptions (see Colquitt et al. 2001).
Whereas the initial research focused on distributive justice
(or the justice of the distribution of valued resources) and
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 749
1 3
procedural justice (or the justice of the decision processes
used to distribute resources), subsequent research discovered
the importance of interpersonal justice (Greenberg 1987;
Leventhal et al. 1980). Employee interpersonal justice perceptions have been shown to predict the extent to which
employees engage in negative behaviors such as rule breaking, theft, and retaliation, and in positive behaviors such as
helping others and performing well on their work tasks (see
Colquitt 2001; Colquitt et al. 2001).
The essence of interpersonal justice consists in supervisors and organizations treating employees with consideration
and respect, which can be defned as showing due regard for
the feelings, wishes, and rights of others (Bies and Moag
1986). This suggests an important connection to mindfulness: the attentional and emotional presence characteristic of mindfulness is likely to be a signifcant antecedent
for consideration and respect. An open presence creates a
foundation for mindful leaders to engage with employees
in non-scripted ways that are responsive to the feelings
and needs of the employee, to adjust their behaviors to the
specifc employee with whom they are interacting, and to
accept employees for who they are rather than to judge them
(Carson et al. 2004), thus increasing employee interpersonal
justice perceptions. Also, given that leaders attention is
limited and becoming increasingly scarce, especially in this
age of attentional overload (Simon 1971; van Knippenberg
et al. 2015), the full presence of a mindful leader is a scarce
resource that is likely experienced as a sign of respect and
consideration.
In contrast, a leader who is absentminded and distracted
with a subordinate is likely perceived as disrespectful and
inconsiderate. A mindless leaders presence may be diverted
during interactions with employees due to their attention
being occupied with internal activities such as worrying,
ruminating, or daydreaming, or with external activities such
as typing on the computer or looking at their mobile phones.
Research on workplace incivility (e.g., Pearson et al. 2000;
Schilpzand et al. 2016) helps to further understand the potential relation between mindfulness and interpersonal justice.
As Andersson and Pearson (1999, p. 457) point out: Uncivil
behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others. Examples of uncivil
behaviors include neglecting to greet one another, cutting
people of while speaking (Pearson et al. 2000, p. 126) and
it is easy to see how mindless leaders would be more likely
to engage in such behaviors due to their absentmindedness.
This may be perceived as both uncivil and interpersonally
unfair due to the lack of respect displayed.
Thus, based on the above, we hypothesize a positive
relation between leader mindfulness and employee interpersonal justice perceptions. Moreover, consistent with
past theorizing and empirical fndings, we predict a positive
relation between employee interpersonal justice perceptions
and LMX quality (Masterson et al. 2000; Rupp and Cropanzano 2002; Sparr and Sonnentag 2008). In particular,
whereas employees tend to rely on their perceptions of
procedural justice when assessing the organization more
broadly, employees tend to rely on their perceptions of
interpersonal justice to assess their supervisor in particular (Bies and Moag 1986). As Masterson and colleagues
(2000, p. 740) argued: employees perceive acts of fairness
to be contributions that enhance the quality and desirability of their ongoing relations. In turn, these contributions
obligate employees to reciprocate as part of ongoing social
exchange relationships. Thus, to the extent that employees
perceive that they are treated fairly by their supervisor, they
will perceive their relation with the leader in ways characteristic of high-quality LMX relations, such as mutual trust,
respect, and obligation. Overall, we thus posit the following
hypotheses.
H4a Leader mindfulness will be positively associated with
employee interpersonal justice perceptions.
H4b Employee interpersonal justice perceptions will mediate the relation between leader mindfulness and LMX
quality.
H4c There will be a sequential mediation from leader mindfulness to employee in-role performance through interpersonal justice and LMX quality.
H4d There will be a sequential mediation from leader mindfulness to employee extra-role performance through interpersonal justice and LMX quality.
Leader Mindfulness, Employee Stress, and LMX
Quality
Stress is an evolved physiological and psychological
response to demanding situations that infuences how people put their personal resources to use (Lazarus and Folkman
1984; Motowidlo et al. 1986). While stress can have adaptive
functions in the short-term, prolonged and chronic stress
has pernicious long-term efects on health, well-being, and
performance (Maslach et al. 2001; Moore 2000). A considerable amount of research has established a negative relation between mindfulness and stress (Baer 2003; Chiesa and
Serretti 2009; Eberth and Sedlmeier 2012; Grossman et al.
2004). Within a workplace context, research has also found
that mindfulness is negatively related to stress and emotional
exhaustion in employees (Good et al. 2016).
However, past research has taken an intrapersonal perspective, examining the relation between a persons mindfulness and that persons level of stress. In the present research,
we instead examine how one persons (i.e., a leader)
750 J. Reb et al.
1 3
mindfulness relates to another persons (i.e., an employee)
stress. We believe there are good reasons to expect this interpersonal efect of leader mindfulness on employee stress.
For example, given the research reviewed above, the more
mindful leaders are, the less stressed they are expected to
be. Meta-analytic research suggests that leader stress infuences leader behaviors and these leader behaviors, in turn,
infuence employee stress (Harms et al. 2017). Specifcally,
Harms et al. (2017) found that leader stress is associated
with reduced transformational leadership and increased abusive supervision, which in turn are negatively and positively
(respectively) associated with employee stress. Also, leaders lower stress levels can translate into lower stress levels
for leaders subordinates through the process of emotional
contagion (Hatfeld et al. 1994). Indeed, a large body of
work supports the idea that leaders exhibit strong contagion efects on employees (e.g., Anderson et al. 2003; Lewis
2000, Sy et al. 2005).
Also, mindful leaders, partly by being less stressed themselves, may have a greater capacity to support their subordinates. Stress is associated with a feeling of lack of energy,
control, and efcacy, and the accompanying physical and
psychological state may preclude less mindful and more
stressed leaders from spending limited resources on others,
such as their employees (Demerouti et al. 2001). Instead,
such leaders will be more likely to focus their eforts and
resources on regulating their stress level, for example, by
reducing efort and spending more time on recovery. Mindful leaders, by being better able to regulate their attention
and emotions, may be more attuned to their subordinates,
which allows them to provide subordinates with more appropriate support as needed (Reb et al. 2015b). An abundance
of research on social, organizational, and supervisory support, in turn, suggests that when employees experience more
support from their leaders, they are better able to cope with
work stressors and as a result experience less stress (Babin
and Boles 1996; Ganster et al. 1986; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Viswesvaran et al. 1999).
As employees experience less stress as a result of the support they receive from their leader, their perceptions of LMX
quality are expected to increase. Although most empirical
research has not focused on employee stress per se, the existing research supports a negative relation between employee
negative afectivity, which is closely intertwined with stress,
and LMX quality (e.g., Bernerth et al. 2007; Hochwarter
2005; Hui et al. 1999). These studies suggest that if a person tends to view life negatively, this person may be less
likely to build efective work relationships with others
(Hui et al. 1999, p. 8). Overall, as stress erodes available
resources (Hobfoll 1989) and is associated with negative
afect, we suggest that stress will reduce employee investment in interpersonal relations and thereby reduce LMX
quality. We posit the following hypotheses.
H5a Leader mindfulness will be negatively associated with
employee stress.
H5b Employee stress will mediate the relation between
leader mindfulness and LMX quality.
H5c There will be a sequential mediation from leader mindfulness to employee in-role performance through employee
stress and LMX quality.
H5d There will be a sequential mediation from leader
mindfulness to employee extra-role performance through
employee stress and LMX quality.
Study 1
Method
Procedure and Sample
Participants for this study were recruited by trained undergraduate students enrolled in a management course at a university in Singapore. This is a commonly used method and
several studies suggest that data quality using this method is
comparable to using more traditional procedures (e.g., Hazer
and Highhouse 1997; Reeve and Smith 2001). The students
were trained to recruit supervisors, their immediate subordinates, and peers (to provide ratings of extra-role performance) to participate in the study. By research design, each
student recruiter could recruit only one triad. Students were
given course credit if all three members of the triad participated in an online study on mindfulness at the workplace.
In total, 88 triads had at least one participant, and we
had complete data from 76 triads, which constitute the sample for this study. The leader sample was 52% male and
42.5 years of age on average. The employee sample was 42%
male and 37.9 years of age on average. The peer sample was
40% male and 33 years of age on average. All three samples
were primarily Singaporean by nationality and Chinese by
ethnic descent. Leader, peer, and employee variables were
assessed at around the same time. The surveys were in English and all respondents were fuent in English, which is one
of the national languages of the country.
Measures
Leader mindfulness We decided to measure mindfulness
with the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale
(MAAS; Brown and Ryan 2003) as a unidimensional
mindfulness scalerather than using a multidimensional
scale such as the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer et al. 2008)because our theorizing does not
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 751
1 3
diferentiate among diferent mindfulness dimensions.
Despite some criticism of this scale and the approach of
self-rating mindfulness (e.g., Grossman 2008, 2011), a
considerable amount of reliability and validity evidence
supports the use of this scale (e.g., Brown and Ryan 2003;
Carlson and Brown 2005). Leaders self-rated their mindfulness on the 15 items of the MAAS on a 6-point response
scale (1=almost always; 6=almost never). Sample items
include I fnd it difcult to stay focused on whats happening in the present, It seems I am running on automatic
without much awareness of what Im doing, and I fnd
myself preoccupied with the future or the past. Responses
were reverse-scored such that higher values indicate higher
mindfulness. The Cronbachs alpha was 0.92.
LMX quality Employees rated LMX quality on Graen
and Uhl-Biens (1995) 7-item measure using a 4-point
(14) Likert-type scale. This LMX-7 measure has been
one of the most widely cited and has been found to have
the soundest psychometric properties of all existing LMX
scales (Gerstner and Day 1997). An example item is I
would have enough confdence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and justify his or her decisions
if he or she were not present to do so. The Cronbachs
alpha was 0.87.
Employee in-role performance Leaders assessed
employee in-role performance using the 3-item scale of
Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994). Leaders rated employees on a 5-point (15) scale based on the degree to which
they meet standards for performance, their level of performance relative to others in the same job, and their contribution to the organizations efectiveness. The Cronbachs
alpha for this measure was 0.94.
Employee extra-role performance Peers assessed
employee extra-role performance with 17 items of
Moorman and Blakelys (1995) organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) scale on a 7-point response scale
(1 = almost never; 7 = almost always). Example items
include shows genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal
situations and for issues that may have serious consequences, expresses opinions honestly even when others
may disagree. The Cronbachs alpha was 0.97.
Results and Discussion
The means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability
statistics are shown in Table 1. Hypothesized correlations
were signifcant and in the expected directions. Specifcally,
leader mindfulness was positively related to LMX quality,
employee in-role and extra-role performance, and LMX
quality was positively related to employee in-role and extrarole performance.
For hypotheses testing, we ran OLS regression using
SPSS (see Table 2) and used the PROCESS macro as recommended by Hayes (2013) to estimate direct and indirect
efects for mediation testing. Consistent with Hypothesis 1,
the relationship between leader mindfulness and LMX quality was positive and signifcant (b=0.19, p<0.01). Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted that leader mindfulness would be
positively associated with employee in-role and extra-role
performance. In support of the hypotheses, analyses with
the hypothesized mediator, LMX quality, included showed
that the total efect (i.e., the direct and indirect efect combined) of leader mindfulness was signifcant for employee
in-role performance (b=0.30, p<0.01; the bias-corrected
bootstrap confdence interval did not include zero, bias corrected lower bound (BCLB)=0.11, bias corrected upper
bound (BCUB)=0.49) and extra-role performance (b=0.40,
p<0.01, BCLB=0.13; BCUB=0.66).
Importantly, analysis of the mediation Hypothesis 3a
found that the indirect effect of leader mindfulness on
employee in-role performance was signifcant (b =0.10,
p<0.05, BCLB=0.02, BCUB=0.23). The direct efect of
leader mindfulness on in-role performance was also signifcant (b=0.20, p<0.05; BCLB=0.01, BCUB=0.38). Thus,
leader mindfulness had both a direct and indirect efect
(through LMX) on employee in-role performance. Analysis
of the mediation Hypothesis 3b similarly found that the indirect efect of leader mindfulness on employee extra-role performance was signifcant (b=0.13, p<0.05, BCLB=0.03,
BCUB=0.29). The direct efect of leader mindfulness on
employee extra-role performance did not quite reach signifcance (b=0.26, p=0.06; BCLB=0.01, BCUB=0.53).
On an exploratory basis, we also examined whether the
results remained signifcant for all four facets of Moorman
and Blakelys (1995) OCB scale (interpersonal helping,
Table 1 Means, standard
deviations, correlations, and
reliabilities, Study 1
N=76, Reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) are in parentheses on the diagonal
*** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05
M SD 1 2 3 4
1 Leader mindfulness 4.09 0.75 (0.92)
2 LMX quality 2.74 0.45 0.35** (0.87)
3 Employee in-role performance 3.78 0.67 0.34** 0.43*** (0.95)
4 Employee extra-role performance 5.23 0.92 0.33** 0.39*** 0.44*** (0.97)
752 J. Reb et al.
1 3
individual initiative, personal industry, loyal boosterism). This was indeed the case, suggesting that employee
extra-role performance was higher for more mindful leaders across the diverse dimensions of helping co-workers,
showing initiative and industry, and promoting the organization to outsiders. As a further robustness check, we also
had leaders rate employee OCBs using the same scale. All
hypotheses test results were replicated in analyses with
leader-rated employee extra-role performance.
Overall, consistent with earlier research (Reb et al.
2014), we found that leader mindfulness was positively
related to both leader-rated in-role performance and peerrated extra-role performance. To our knowledge, this
is the frst study that avoids same source concerns with
respect to measuring leader mindfulness and leader-rated
employee performance by using peer ratings of extra-role
performance. More importantly, we found that employee
perceptions of LMX quality acted as a signifcant mediator
of the relation between leader mindfulness and employee
performance. This is consistent with the idea that mindfulness helps leaders maintain higher-quality relations
with their employees. These relations, characterized by
trust, respect, reciprocal infuence, and mutual obligations,
result in greater employee performance (Graen and UhlBien 1995; Uhl-Bien and Graen 1993).
In Study 2, we extend these fndings to better understand how leader mindfulness enables higher-quality
leaderemployee relations and increases employee perceptions of LMX quality. In particular, we highlight two
distinct potential mediational pathways: reduced employee
stress and increased employee perceptions of interpersonal
justice.
Study 2
Method
Procedure and Sample
Leaderemployee dyads in this study were recruited in
the same manner as in Study 1. In total, 255 dyads had
at least one participant, and we had complete data from
227 dyads, which constitute the sample for this study. The
leader sample was 60% male, 41 years of age on average
and the employee sample was 40% male, 36.7 years of age
on average. Both samples were primarily Singaporean by
nationality and Chinese by ethnic descent.
Measures
Leader mindfulness Leader mindfulness was measured
using the same measure as in Study 1 (MAAS; Brown and
Ryan 2003). The Cronbach alpha in this sample was 0.92.
LMX quality Employees rated LMX quality using the
same measure as in Study 1 (LMX 7; Graen and Uhl-Bien
1995). The Cronbach alpha was 0.83.
Interpersonal justice Employee rated supervisor interpersonal justice using the 5-item scale developed by Colquitt
(2001) on a 5-point (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly
agree) response scale. A sample item is my supervisor
treated me with dignity. The Cronbach alpha was 0.93.
Employee stress Employees rated their stress using
Cohen and Williamsons (1988) 10-item Perceived Stress
Table 2 Regression results for mediation model, Study 1
Unstandardized coefcients are reported. BCLB refers to lower limit of the 95% confdence interval and BCUB refers to upper limit of the 95%
bootstrapped confdence interval
*** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05
LMX quality Employee in-role performance Employee extra-role performance
b SE t b SE t b SE t
Constant 1.96 0.26 7.44*** 1.54 0.48 3.19*** 2.39 0.68 3.52***
Leader mindfulness 0.19 0.06 3.06** 0.20 0.09 2.09* 0.26 0.13 1.93
LMX quality 0.51 0.16 3.22** 0.64 0.22 2.86**
Indirect efect 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.06
(Confdence interval) (BCLB=0.02, BCUB=0.23) (BCLB=0.03, BCUB=0.29)
Direct efect 0.20 0.09 2.09* 0.26 0.13 1.93
(Confdence interval) (BCLB=0.01, BCUB=0.38) (BCLB=0.01, BCUB=0.53)
Total efect 0.30 0.09 3.16** 0.40 0.13 2.97**
(Confdence interval) (BCLB=0.11, BCUB=0.49) (BCLB=0.13, BCUB=0.66)
F 9.39** 9.97** 8.94***
R2 0.11 0.11 0.11
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 753
1 3
Scale. The items ask about participants feelings and
thoughts during the last month, using a 5-point (1=almost
never; 5=very often) response scale. A sample item is in
the last month, how often have you found that you could
not cope with all the things that you had to do? The Cronbach alpha in this sample was 0.80.
Employee in-role performance Leaders assessed
employee in-role performance using the 7-item in-role
performance measure developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). Sample items include Adequately completes
assigned duties and Engages in activities that will directly
afect his or her performance evaluation. Responses were
made on a 7-point scale (1 = almost never; 7 = almost
always). The Cronbach alpha was 0.81.
Employee extra-role performance To reduce survey
length, we focused specifcally on employee interpersonal
helping as a main facet of OCB. We used fve items of Moorman and Blakelys (1995) scale. Leaders rated employees
on a 7-point response scale (1=almost never; 7=almost
always). An example item is Voluntarily helps new employees to settle in the job. The Cronbachs alpha in this sample
was 0.87.
Results and Discussion
The means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability
statistics are shown in Table 3. Hypothesized correlations
were signifcant and in the expected directions. Specifcally,
leader mindfulness was positively related to LMX quality
(H1), employee in-role (H2a) and extra-role performance
(H2b), and employee interpersonal justice (H4a), and negatively related to employee stress (H5a). Employee interpersonal justice was positively (H4b), and employee stress was
negatively related to LMX quality (H5b); and LMX quality
was positively related to employee performance, both in-role
and extra-role.
As multiple variables were collected from a single source
each (i.e., leaders and employees), we ran several confrmatory factor analyses (CFA) to ascertain distinctiveness from
common sources for all variables that were reported by
leaders and employees separately (Podsakof et al. 2003;
Spector 1987). Leaders rated mindfulness, employee in-role,
and employee extra-role performance. We found that a model
with these three factors had an adequate ft (Hu and Bentler
1999) with the data (CFI=0.90; TLI=0.89; RMSEA=0.07;
Chi Square=658.30; Df
= 320) and was signifcantly better
than a two factor model in which in-role and extra-role performance were treated as one factor (CFI=0.74; TLI=0.72;
RMSEA=0.11; Chi Square=1195.27; Df
= 322) and one
factor model in which all three variables were subsumed
under a single factor of leader-rated variables (CFI=0.59;
TLI=0.55; RMSEA =0.14; Chi Square=1712.97; Df
=
323).
Employees provided ratings of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and stress. We found that the CFA model of
three factors ft the data adequately (CFI=0.86; TLI=0.84;
RMSEA =0.08; Chi Square=509.81; Df
= 186) and signifcantly better than a two factor CFA with LMX quality
and interpersonal justice treated as one factor (CFI=0.65;
TLI = 0.61; RMSEA = 0.14; Chi Square = 982.10; Df =
188) and a single factor CFA in which all three variables
were subsumed under a single factor of employee-rated
variables (CFI = 0.50; TLI = 0.44; RMSEA = 0.16; Chi
Square=1316.07; Df
= 189). Overall, the CFA analyses suggest that the study variables are empirically distinct despite
same source measurement.
Next, we conducted a sequential multiple mediation analysis using AMOS software. AMOS was considered suitable
for the analyses as we included two dependent variables in
the models tested and, unlike Study 1, we had a sufciently
large sample size to allow for latent structural equation
modeling (SEM). For clarity, we present the SEM analyses
in three models: Model 1 focuses on LMX as the (secondstage) mediator of the relation between leader mindfulness
and employee performance, essentially replicating the analyses of Study 1; Model 2 focuses on interpersonal justice
and employee stress as parallel (frst-stage) mediators of the
relation between leader mindfulness and LMX quality; and
fnally, Model 3 examines the complete sequential multiple
mediation model, estimating all paths simultaneously. We
Table 3 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities, Study 2
N=227. Reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) are in parentheses on the diagonal
*** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Leader mindfulness 4.31 0.87 (0.92)
2 Interpersonal justice 3.65 0.63 0.15* (0.93)
3 Employee stress 2.82 0.51 0.18** 0.19** (0.80)
4 LMX quality 2.85 0.56 0.15* 0.29*** 0.48*** (0.83)
5 Employee in-role performance 5.83 0.75 0.32*** 0.22*** 0.26*** 0.28*** (0.81)
6 Employee extra-role performance 5.26 0.91 0.08 0.15* 0.16* 0.28*** 0.51*** (0.87)
754 J. Reb et al.
1 3
ran bootstrap analyses (200 iterations) to get stable regression coefcients for all models. We report standardized
regression coefcients with bias corrected lower bound and
upper bound confdence intervals.
The results of Model 1 are shown in Fig. 1. The overall ft indices of this model show adequate ft (CFI=0.88;
TLI = 0.87; RMSEA = 0.06; Chi Square = 1010.72; Df
= 521). Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the direct effect
of leader mindfulness on LMX quality was significant
(=0.20; p<0.01). We also found a positive signifcant
association of LMX with employee in-role performance
(=0.30, p<0.01) and extra-role performance (=0.35,
p<0.01).
Moreover, bootstrap analysis, showed a signifcant indirect efect of leader mindfulness on in-role performance
through LMX quality (=0.06, p<0.001, BCLB=0.03;
BCUB=0.11). There also was a signifcant direct efect
of leader mindfulness on employee in-role performance
(=0.26, p<0.01, BCLB=0.12; BCUB=0.37) and the
total efect was 0.32 (p<0.01). Similarly, we found a signifcant indirect efect of leader mindfulness on extra-role
performance through LMX quality ( = 0.07, p < 0.05,
BCLB=0.03; BCUB=0.12). The direct efect was 0.13
(ns., BCLB=0.00; BCUB=0.28) and the total efect was
0.21 (p<0.05, BCLB=0.09; BCUB=0.35). These results
support Hypotheses 2b and 3b and show that the relation
between leader mindfulness and employee extra-role performance was signifcantly mediated through LMX quality.
Overall, these results replicate Study 1 fndings.
Model 2 tested the first-stage mediation model with
leader mindfulness as independent variable, LMX quality as the dependent variable, and interpersonal justice
and stress as mediators (Fig. 2). The overall ft indices are
acceptable (CFI=0.85; TLI=0.84; RMSEA =0.07; Chi
Square=1266.89; Df
= 589). Consistent with Hypotheses
4a and 4b, we found signifcant relationships between leader
mindfulness and employee interpersonal justice perceptions (=0.17, p<0.01; BCLB=0.04; BCUB=0.26) and
between interpersonal justice and LMX quality (=0.50,
p<0.001; BCLB=0.38; BCUB=0.61). Consistent with
Hypotheses 5a and 5b, we found signifcant and negative
relationships between leader mindfulness and employee
stress ( = -27, p<0.01; BCLB=0.39; BCUB=0.15)
and between employee stress and LMX quality ( = 0.20,
p<0.01, BCLB=0.32; BCUB=0.06).
Importantly, bootstrap analysis of the multiple mediation
model showed that the indirect efect (from leader mindfulness to LMX quality via interpersonal justice and perceived
stress) was signifcant (=0.14, p<0.01, BCLB=0.06;
BCUB = 0.21). The direct effect (from leader mindfulness to LMX quality) was non-signifcant ( =0.07, ns.,
BCLB=0.17; BCUB=0.03) in this model.
Finally, Model 3 was examined to test all hypotheses
simultaneously (see Fig. 3). The results were consistent with
the hypothesized sequential mediation process. The global ft
indices of the model show good ft (CFI=0.85; TLI=0.84;
RMSEA=0.06; Chi Square=1957.05; Df
= 1071). Hypotheses 4c and 4d postulated indirect sequential effects of
Fig. 1 Second-stage Mediation
Model, Study 2. Standardized coefcients are reported.
CFI=0.88; TLI=0.87;
RMSEA=0.06; Chi2=1010.72;
Df
= 521 Leader
Mindfulness
Employee
In-role
Performance
Employee
Extra-role
Performance
LMX
Quality
.20*
.30***
.35***
.26***
.13
Fig. 2 First-stage Multiple
Mediation Model, Study 2.
Standardized coefcients
are reported. CFI=0.85;
TLI=0.84; RMSEA=0.07;
Chi2=1266.89; Df
= 589 Leader
Mindfulness
Interpersonal
Jusce
Employee
Stress
LMX
Quality
.17* .50***
-.27** -.20**
0.07
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 755
1 3
leader mindfulness through employee interpersonal justice perceptions and LMX quality to in-role and extra-role
performance, respectively. Consistent with the hypotheses,
the relevant path coefcients were signifcant. As shown in
Fig. 3, direct efects of leader mindfulness on interpersonal
justice (=0.17, p<0.05, BCLB=0.06; BCUB=0.29), of
interpersonal justice on LMX quality (=0.52, p<0.01;
BCLB=0.41; BCUB=0.64), of LMX quality on in-role performance (=0.32, p<0.01; BCLB=0.18; BCUB=0.45),
and of LMX quality on extra-role performance (=0.35,
p<0.01; BCLB=0.23; BCUB=0.51), were all signifcant.
Similarly, Hypotheses 5c and 5d predicted indirect
sequential efects of leader mindfulness through employee
stress and LMX quality on employee in-role and extra-role
performance. Consistent with the hypotheses, direct efects
of leader mindfulness on perceived stress ( = 0.27,
p<0.01; BCLB=0.39; BCUB=0.16) and of employee
stress on LMX quality ( = 0.22, p<0.01, BCLB=0.34;
BCUB=0.09) were signifcant.
Most importantly, supporting the sequential mediation
hypothesis, bootstrap analyses found that the indirect efects
of leader mindfulness on employee in-role performance
(=0.05, p<0.001, BCLB=0.02; BCUB=0.08) and on
employee extra-role performance ( = 0.05, p < 0.001,
BCLB=0.02; BCUB=0.09) were both signifcant. Further,
the total efects of leader mindfulness on in-role performance (=0.31, p<0.001, BCLB=0.18; BCUB=0.43) and
on extra-role performance (=0.19, p<0.01, BCLB=0.06;
BCUB = 0.32) were also significant, as were the direct
effects of leader mindfulness on in-role performance
(=0.27, p<0.01, BCLB=0.12; BCUB=0.38) and on
extra-role performance (=0.14, p<0.05, BCLB=0.01;
BCUB=0.28). This confrms that the relationship between
leader mindfulness and employee in-role and extra-role performance was mediated through sequential mediators.
Overall, Study 2 replicated all results of Study 1. This
study thus lends further credence to the hypothesis that
mindful leaders create higher-quality relations with their
followers. Importantly, Study 2 also found support for the
complete sequential mediation model depicted in Fig. 3,
in which leader mindfulness is associated with lower
employee stress and greater employee interpersonal justice perceptions, which in turn predict LMX quality, which
then is related to greater employee in-role and extra-role
performance.
General Discussion
Interest in the role of mindfulness for leaders has increased
substantially over recent years and practitioner-oriented writings have made the case that mindfulness plays an important
role in leaders ability to meet the challenges of their job
(e.g., Boyatzis and McKee 2005; Carroll 2008). At the same
time, critical voices have argued that organizations and their
leaders may use mindfulness to take advantage of employees
(e.g., Purser and Milillo 2015; Reb et al. 2015b). Emerging
empirical research suggests that mindful leaders may indeed
be more efective and that employees of more mindful leaders do better with respect to job satisfaction, well-being, and
performance (Reb et al. 2014). Further, recent research suggests that this efect may be at least partly due to more ethical leader behavior in the form of procedural justice (Schuh
et al. 2017). In the present studies, we built on this research
by taking a relational and ethical view of leadership (e.g.,
Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Uhl-Bien 2006) that sees efective leadership as resulting from high-quality relationships
between leaders and employees that are characterized by
respect and consideration. We proposed that leader mindfulness enables high-quality LMX relationships by reducing
employees stress levels and by increasing employees interpersonal justice perceptions. These high-quality relations,
in turn, lead to greater employee performance (Dulebohn
et al. 2012).
To test these hypotheses, we collected data from leaderemployee-peer triads (Study 1) and leaderemployee dyads
Fig. 3 Full Sequential Multiple
Mediation Model, Study 2.
Standardized coefcients
are reported. CFI=0.85;
TLI=0.84; RMSEA=0.06;
Chi2=1957.05; Df
= 1071
Leader
Mindfulness
Interpersonal
Jusce
Employee
In-Role
Performance
Employee
Extra-Role
Performance
LMX
Quality
Employee
Stress
.17*
-.27***
.52***
-.22**
.32***
.35***
.27***
.14*
756 J. Reb et al.
1 3
(Study 2). Consistent with the hypotheses, we found that
the more mindful the leaders, the higher the dyadic relationship quality between leader and employee, as perceived by
the subordinate. Further, we found that the more mindful
leaders were, the better their employees performedand
that this relation was partly mediated through LMX quality.
These fndings held for two important dimensions within
the performance criterion space: in-role performance (rated
by supervisors) and extra-role performance (rated by peers
in Study 1 and supervisors in Study 2). Finally, testing a
sequential multiple mediation model in Study 2, we found
that the relation between leader mindfulness and LMX
quality was mediated by employee stress and interpersonal
justice.
Our research makes several noteworthy contributions. First, the present studies add in several ways to the
sparse empirical literature on the role of mindfulness at the
leaderemployee interface. Most of the early research in a
work context, perhaps infuenced by the earlier medical and
clinical studies, has focused on health-related dependent variables at the intrapersonal level, such as stress or emotional
exhaustion (Good et al. 2016). In contrast, our research contributes to a small set of studies (e.g., Liang et al. 2016;
Long and Christian 2015; Reb and Narayanan 2014) that
examine the interpersonal efects of mindfulness within the
workplace. Specifcally, our research suggests that the quality of the relationship between two individuals is important
in translating one persons (i.e., a leaders) mindfulness into
another persons (i.e., a subordinates) performance. Our
fndings thus replicate and extend previous fndings linking leader mindfulness to employee performance (Reb et al.
2014) and ofer a more nuanced explanation of the process
by which this happens. Moreover, our research also sheds
light on the processes through which leaders mindfulness
benefts employees and enables better relations: through
reduced employee stress levels and increased interpersonal
justice perceptions. Interestingly, whereas much of the early
research has focused on how mindfulness leads to lower
stress within the same person, our research shows that one
persons mindfulness is associated with another persons
lower stress levels (as well as their sense of being treated
fairly).
Second, our research responds to calls to study the microfoundations of leadership behaviors (Yukl 2012) as well as
the antecedents of LMX quality (Dulebohn et al. 2012; Gerstner and Day 1997). We do so by shedding light on how
mindfulness can serve as an attentional, self-regulatory basis
of creating high quality relationships with subordinates and
of positively infuencing subordinates performance. Selfregulation of attention has been considered fundamental to
emotion and behavior regulation in general (e.g., Baumeister
and Heatherton 1996; Carver and Scheier 1981; Posner and
Rothbart 2000), at work (e.g., Beal et al. 2005; Lord et al.
2010), and in leadership (Collins and Jackson 2015). Faced
with challenging tasks and complex task environments, how
well leaders are able to self-regulate their limited attentional
capacitiesand therefore their emotions and behaviorshas
been argued to be a crucial meta-competency for leaders to
perform efectively (e.g., Yeow and Martin 2013). As Beal
and colleagues (2005, p. 1058) put it, attentional resources
serve as an engine specifcally for self-regulation. The
present studies thus add to the small set of studies examining
individual diferences in leader self-regulation (e.g., Collins and Jackson 2015; Sosik et al. 2002). In addition, our
research extends limited previous work examining employee
stress and interpersonal justice as antecedents of LMX quality (e.g., Hui et al. 1999; Masterson et al. 2000).
Last but not least, our studies add to the emerging literature on the relation between mindfulness and business
ethics. Several authors have examined this relation from a
conceptual perspective. For example, Marques (2012) has
examined how several concepts from Buddhism, including mindfulness, relate to business ethics. Qiu and Rooney
(2017) have developed a four-stage model of workplace
mindfulness from a Buddhist psychology perspective. La
Forge (2000) has argued that (mindfulness) meditation can
facilitate the development of an ethical vision. Empirically,
research has found that organizational ethics, as expressed in
perceived corporate ethical values and a shared ethics code,
predicted employee mindfulness (Valentine et al. 2010).
Ruedy and Schweitzer (2010) found that trait mindfulness
predicted self-importance of moral identity, a principled
approach to ethical decision making, and less severe cheating. Shapiro and colleagues (2012) found that mindfulness
training improved moral reasoning and ethical decision making two months following the training.
We complement this work by examining the role of mindfulness for just behaviors. Scholars have wondered why
managers do not always practice fairness principles (Folger
and Skarlicki 2001, p. 98). The present studies suggest that
leader mindlessness may be contributing to unfair practices
and that leaders who are more mindful engage in more interpersonally fair behaviors, complementing recent work linking leader mindfulness to procedurally fair behaviors (Schuh
et al. 2017).
Establishing this empirical link between mindfulness
and organizational justice is important as concerns have
been raised about the approach of viewing mindfulness as
an attentional state/trait devoid of ethical and intentional
foundations (e.g., Grossman 2011). Scholars have warned
of McMindfulnessan approach to mindfulness similarly
corporatized as the McDonalds fast food chainand given
the example of mindfulness training for military snipers for
how ethics have been sidelined in favor of managerial interests (see Purser and Milillo 2015). From this perspective,
more mindful leaders may use their ability to focus their
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 757
1 3
attention on the present in an instrumental manner to extract
more from their employees (cf. Reb et al. 2015b). In contrast
to this idea, our fndings suggest that more mindful leaders
presence helps employees feel respected and less stressed.
While further research is needed, these results suggest the
possibility that mindfulness, as defned from a state/trait
perspective, may align with ethical behaviors, despite not
explicitly including an ethical component in its defnition
(which may be distinct from practice).
Where might this alignment come from? It has been
argued that what is just is concerned with taking account
of the situation and the specifc people involved, giving
a role to good judgment as opposed to just following the
rules (Fortin and Fellenz 2008, p. 419). By helping managers to engage openly and fexibly with the present situation, mindfulness supports such good judgment, as well
as respectful communication with employees (Carson et al.
2004; Glomb et al. 2011; Karelaia and Reb 2015). We posit
that such behavior is seen as interpersonally fair and these
perceptions, in turn infuence the quality of leadermember
relations (Rupp and Cropanzano 2002).
As such, we suggest that the willingness to allocate ones
attention toward others, which is typically considered merely
in terms of human cognition, may have an inherently ethical
and social component to it. To the extent that mindfulness
entails a greater willingness to ofer attention within social
relationships (Kudesia 2017), it may even contribute to an
ethical workplace culture. Mindful leaders would have a special role in contributing to such an ethical workplace culture,
as it has been argued that the perception of managers as
being interpersonally just likely elevates their status as a
moral authority, which heightens their infuence on virtuously shaping perceptions of an ethical work environment
(Neubert et al. 2009, p. 161). Research on mindfulness thus
can extend existing work that has focused more on moral
values by highlighting the importance of attention and selfregulation for just and ethical behaviors at the workplace.
On the other hand, we appreciate that it is not enough
to solely consider individual attention levels when considering ethics in organizationsas doing so can lead to the
myopic McMindfulness approach noted earlier (see Purser
and Milillo 2015). For instance, as several organization
theorists have noted (e.g., Ocasio and Wohlgezogen 2010;
Weick 1995), organizational structures and processes infuence both what people pay attention to and what they do. By
shaping commonly held assumptions, setting certain strategic priorities, and controlling fows of information, organizational structures and processes can shape attention to ethical
concerns. Namely, these higher-order methods of control can
discount the importance of ethical concerns, increase the
salience of competing goals such as proftability, and limit
feedback from stakeholders that might trigger ethical concerns. Simply because people are more attentive in general,
or allocate attention to their dyadic relationships with others,
does not mean that they will necessarily be attentive to the
ethical concerns implied in their work. As such, whether
mindfulness makes individuals more or less susceptible
to organizational structures and processes that shift attention away from ethical concerns in their work remains an
important research question. We accordingly suggest that the
future research on ethics and mindfulness consider not just
individuals, but the broader organizational context in which
people collectively construct and respond to ethical issues
at work (see Sonenshein 2007).
Practical Implications
Our research suggests several practical implications. In particular, given the positive relation between leader mindfulness, employee stress, interpersonal justice, LMX quality,
and employee performance, our studies suggest that organizations may beneft from paying attention to, and investing
in, their leaders mindfulness. This may be accomplished
by systematic attempts at raising the level of their leaders mindfulness through mindfulness training, especially
training programs tailored to the workplace (e.g., Young
2017). Such training programs should stay true to the roots
of mindfulness, even as they make sensible adjustments
to the context (Qiu and Rooney 2017). Past research suggests that practices designed to increase mindfulness, such
as mindfulness meditation, do indeed increase mindfulness
(e.g., Brown and Ryan 2003). Research also suggests that
mindfulness training can lead to persistent changes in emotion and behavior, as well as in the neural systems responsible for self-regulation (e.g., Baer 2003; Cahn and Polich
2006). Doing so, our research suggests, will result in broad
employee benefts, ranging from physical health and mental
well-being (lower stress levels, a greater sense of justice at
work) over better relations to greater performance. Moreover, engaging in mindfulness practice may also lead to a
more ethical vision (La Forge 2004).
Organizations have long endeavored to find ways to
develop leadership skills. For example, having shown the
various benefts of LMX quality, Dulebohn and colleagues
(2012) raise the open question: However, how do we train
leaders to develop and maintain high-quality relationships with their followers? (p. 1743). While mindfulness
is unlikely to be a panacea in this endeavor, we believe it
constitutes a promising direction. One particularly attractive fnding of our study is that mindfulness seems to beneft not only oneself (ones well-being and functioning),
as past research has suggested (e.g., Eberth and Sedlmeier
2012), but mindfulness also benefts others. Thus, as leaders
increase their mindfulness, both they and their employees
may beneft. This may ultimately result in more mindful organizations (Sutcliffe et al. 2016). Such mindful
758 J. Reb et al.
1 3
organizations may also be facilitated by organizational cultures and processes that support the development of mindfulness (Kudesia 2017).
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
The current research is based on two feld studies using
cross-sectional data and is thus subject to the usual cautions regarding the causal direction of the reported fndings.
Within the confnes of feld research, we tried to strengthen
internal validity by collecting triadic (Study 1) and dyadic
(Study 2) data from leaders, employees, and even peers
of employees, rather than relying on single-source data.
One concern here is that leaders provided both ratings of
their mindfulness (the independent variable) as well as of
employees task performance (the dependent variable). For
example, it could be that more mindful leaders give higher
performance ratings independent of actual performance, perhaps because they experience more empathy towards their
employees. We tried to address such concerns about singlesource data by assessing the mediators at both stages
employee stress, interpersonal justice, and LMX qualitythrough employee ratings. Doing so rules out that the
fndings can be fully explained by common source variance.
Moreover, fndings were replicated across two important
dimensions of employee performancein-role and extrarole performanceas well as peer ratings, providing some
assurance as to the robustness of the results. Nevertheless,
future research could attempt to build on the present studies
by including peer ratings of leader mindfulness or objective
performance measures.
More fundamentally, some researchers have raised doubts
about the possibility of assessing mindfulness through selfreport scales such as the MAAS, as we did in the current
study (Grossman 2008, 2011). Others have questions its distinctiveness from earlier and related constructs (e.g., selfcontrol; Masicampo and Baumeister 2007). In response to
such concerns, a considerable amount of research has examined the construct validity as well as the nomological net of
mindfulness, with generally encouraging results. For example, scale development research (Baer et al. 2006; Brown and
Ryan 2003) has reported low to moderate correlations with
emotional intelligence (Salovey et al. 1995), self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al. 1975), and self-monitoring (Snyder
and Gangestad 1986). Further, in a meta-analytic review,
Giluk (2009) found only moderate correlations between
mindfulness and the Big Five personality traits and positive
and negative afect. Overall, this existing research suggests
that the tendency to be mindful can be measured reliably
and validly by self-report and that mindfulnesswhile being
signifcantly related to a variety of constructs one would
expect to fnd in its nomological netdoes not overlap with
these constructs to an extent as to suggest redundancy.
Nevertheless, further research could use complementary
methods such as intervention studies in order to corroborate
and extend the present fndings. Of particular interest from
both a theoretical and practical perspective would be intervention studies in which an experimental group of leaders
participates in a mindfulness training program and is compared to a control group. Furthermore, our conceptualization
of mindfulness as a self-report does not take into account the
nuance that mindfulness may indeed occur in stages with
varying degrees of refnement ranging from preliminary
concentration, deep concentration, self-transcendence, and
reengagement (see Qiu and Rooney 2017). From this standpoint, it is important for future research to examine whether
the interpersonal fairness element of mindfulness in leaders
occurs at a particular stage of refnement rather than in more
preliminary stages of cultivating mindfulness.
We also suggest the need for more qualitative research on
the topic of mindfulness in organizations. Whereas quantitative research, like the present study, necessarily operates that
the level of abstract constructs (e.g., interpersonal justice,
leadermember exchange), qualitative research more closely
considers the more specifc interpretations and processes
that underlie these abstract constructs (see Langley 1999;
Morgan and Smircich 1980). For instance, our quantitative
study helps establish that leaders who report being more
mindful are seen by employees as demonstrating greater
interpersonal justice. But our study cannot identify the specifc processes by which this fnding obtains. What specifc
actions do mindful leaders undertake? How do employees
come to form their interpretations of these actions? Such
questions show that qualitative and quantitative approaches
to a topic can lead to richer understandings (Bartunek and
Seo 2002). We suggest the same for the topic of mindfulness.
A strength of the present research is that it goes beyond
the individual level and examines the relationship between
leaders and their employees. In doing so, our research takes
into account the relational nature of leadership, and indeed
of organizations in general. However, admittedly, the present investigation can only ofer a glimpse into the complexity of leaderfollower relationships. For example, we
focused on employee perceptions of LMX quality. While
this allowed us to have other-source data (with mindfulness
and performance being leader-rated), future research could
complement this work by examining LMX quality from the
leaders perspective. Such research could also investigate
whether employee mindfulness plays a role in infuencing
the creation and maintenance of high-quality relationships
between leaders and followers. To allow a fuller understanding of the role of mindfulness in leaderfollower relationships, research should thus examine both leader and follower
mindfulness in these relationships, as well as any possible
interaction between leader and follower mindfulness. However, it also needs to be recognized that such research,
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 759
1 3
including the present studies, are based on responses from
leadermember dyads and as such, it is unclear whether the
fndings generalize beyond these specifc dyadic relations.
Thus, future research should examine the relation of leader
mindfulness with employee interpersonal justice perceptions
and employee stress more broadly.
Finally, and most broadly, we believe that the study
of mindfulness can contribute to a unique perspective on
leadership research and practice that emphasizes a balance
between doing and being. According to culture researchers, societies can be diferentiated based on their orientation towards action with Western cultures tending to orient
towards doing rather than being (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck
1961; Schein 1992; Triandis 1982). These orientations are
also relevant for leadership. For example, according to Triandis (1982), cultures with a being orientation value interpersonal sensitivity and as a result, leaders in such cultures
tend to be more considerate of others. Leadership theories
arguably have been dominated by Western cultural values
and have focused on leader behaviors, or what leaders do.
Perhaps not surprisingly given its Eastern contemplative
roots, the concept of mindfulness is deeply consistent with
a being orientation. For example, Brown et al. (2007) argue
that, whereas other forms of self-awareness, such as selfmonitoring, serve to control behaviorthereby entailing
a doing modemindfulness serves an observing function,
thereby entailing a being mode. We believe it will be fascinating to further explore the potential of a being orientation for leadership, as well as how mindfulness may help
integrate doing and being for more balanced and ultimately
efective leadership.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no confict of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 10541068. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling
efect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), 452. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136.
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The efects of perceived co-worker
involvement and supervisor support on service provider role
stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing,
72(1), 5775. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(96)90005-6.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention:
A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125143. https://doi.org/10.1093/clips
y.bpg015.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 2745. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1073191105283504.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer,
S., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples.
Assessment, 15(3), 329342. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731
91107313003.
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge,
R. D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship
satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 482500. https://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1752-0606.2007.00033.x.
Bartunek, J. M., & Seo, M.-G. (2002). Qualitative research can add
new meanings to quantitative research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(2), 237242. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.132.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 115. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1.
Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An
episodic process model of afective infuences on performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 10541068. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1054.
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world:
Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62(1),
25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.2.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker,
H. J. (2007). Is personality associated with perceptions of LMX?
An empirical study. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 28(7), 613631. https://doi.org/10.1108/0143773071
0823879.
Bies, R., & Moag, R. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication
criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H.
Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations
(Vol. 1, pp. 4355). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D.,
Carmody, J., et al. (2006). Mindfulness: A proposed operational
defnition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3),
230241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Block-Lerner, J., Adair, C., Plumb, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., & Orsillo,
S. M. (2007). The case for mindfulness-based approaches in the
cultivation of empathy: Does nonjudgmental,present-moment
awareness increase capacity for perspective-taking and empathic
concern? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 501
516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00034.x.
Bodhi, B. (2011). What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical
perspective. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 1939. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14639947.2011.564813.
Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant Leadership: Renewing
yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness,hope,
and compassion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefts of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822848. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
760 J. Reb et al.
1 3
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary
efects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211237. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10478400701598298.
Cahn, B. R., & Polich, J. (2006). Meditation states and traits: EEG,
ERP, and neuroimaging studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2),
180211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.180.
Carlson, L. E., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Validation of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in a cancer population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58(1), 2933. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.04.366.
Carroll, M. (2008). The mindful leader: Awakening your natural
management skills through mindfulness meditation. Boston,
MA: Trumpeter.
Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004).
Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior
Therapy, 35(3), 471494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005
-7894(04)80028-5.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced
feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(6), 545568. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90039-1.
Chiesa, A., Calati, R., & Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsychological fndings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3),
449464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.003.
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction
for stress management in healthy people: A review and metaanalysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593600. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2008.0495.
Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Greenberg, M. T., & Nix, R. L.
(2010). Changing parents mindfulness. child management
skills and relationship quality with their youth:Results from
a randomized pilot intervention trial. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 19(2), 203217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1082
6-009-9304-8.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. M. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample in the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp
(Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 3167). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE.
Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and
negative emotions infuence constructive and destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 386401. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.005.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386400. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H.,
& Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425445. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory:
An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6),
874900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.
Dachler, H. P. (1992). Management and leadership as relational phenomena. In M. V. Cranach, W. Doise & G. Mugny (Eds.), Social
representations and the social bases of knowledge (pp. 169178).
Lewiston, KY: Hogrefe and Huber.
Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its efects on task
performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4),
9971018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310367948.
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention.
Human Relations, 67(1), 105128. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187
26713487753.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B.
(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499512. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris,
G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences
of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye
toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 17151759.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280.
Eberth, J., & Sedlmeier, P. (2012). The efects of mindfulness meditation: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 3(3), 174189. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-012-0101-x.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522527. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0076760.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 7794). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In Justice
in the workplace: From theory to practice, Vol. 2 (pp. 97118).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fortin, M., & Fellenz, M. R. (2008). Hypocrisies of fairness: Towards
a more refexive ethical base in organizational justice research
and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 415433. https
://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9330-z.
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of
social support in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 102110. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.1.102.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leadermember exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827844. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827.
Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, big fve personality, and afect: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Diferences, 47(8),
805811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026.
Glomb, T. M., Dufy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management (Vol. 30, pp. 115157). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing.
Goldstein, E. (2011). Are you part of the mindfulness revolution?
Retrieved July 18, 2016, from http://www.hufngtonpost.com/
elisha-goldstein-phd/mindfulness-revolution_b_845826.html.
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W.,
Dufy, M. K., et al. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work:
An integrative review. Journal of Management, 42(1), 114142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach
to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multidomain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219247. https
://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.
Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 922. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMR.1987.4306437.
Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 64(4), 405408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores
.2008.02.001.
Grossman, P. (2011). Defning mindfulness by how poorly I think I
pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 761
1 3
problems for psychologys (re)invention of mindfulness. Comment on Brown et al. (2011). Psychological Assessment, 23(4),
10341040. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022713.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefts. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 3543. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-3999(03)00573-7.
Harms, P. D., Cred, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017).
Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 178194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqu
a.2016.10.006.
Hatfeld, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hazer, J. T., & Highhouse, S. (1997). Factors influencing managersreactions to utility analysis. Effects of SDy
method, information frame, and focal intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 104112. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.104.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513524.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.
Hochwarter, W. (2005). LMX and job tension: Linear and non-linear
efects and afectivity. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19(4), 505520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-4522-6.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal
of Sociology, 63(6), 597606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutof criteria for ft indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model
of the efects of negative afectivity, leader-member exchange,
and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance:
A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 77(1), 321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2812.
Hlsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B.
(2013). Benefts of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness
in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310325. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0031313.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work.
Human Relations, 45(4), 321349. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187
2679204500402.
Karelaia, N., & Reb, J. (2015). Improving decision making through
mindfulness. In J. Reb & P. W. B. Atkins (Eds.), Mindfulness in
Organizations (pp. 163189). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587793.009.
King, E., & Haar, J. M. (2017). Mindfulness and job performance:
A study of Australian leaders. Asia Pacifc Journal of Human
Resources, 55(3), 298319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-
7941.12143.
Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations (Vol. xiv). Oxford: Row, Peterson.
Kudesia, R. S. (2017). Mindfulness as metacognitive practice. Academy
of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0333.
Kudesia, R. S., & Nyima, V. T. (2015). Mindfulness contextualized:
An integration of Buddhist and neuropsychological approaches to
cognition. Mindfulness, 6(4), 910925. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12671-014-0337-8.
La Forge, P. G. (2000). Four steps to a fundamental ethical vision
through meditation. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 2534.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006269113147.
La Forge, P. G. (2004). Cultivating moral imagination through meditation. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 1529. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000032372.35668.83.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data.
Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691710. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2553248.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York, NY: Springer.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness:
A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice
and social interaction (pp. 167218). New York, NY: Springer.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and
female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2),
221234. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(20000
3)21:2<221::AID-JOB36>3.0.CO;2-0
Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dualsystem self-control model. Academy of Management Journal,
59(4), 13851406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0651.
Long, E. C., & Christian, M. S. (2015). Mindfulness bufers retaliatory responses to injustice: A regulatory approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100(5), 14091422. https://doi.org/10.1037/
apl0000019.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorf, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010).
Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1),
543568. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314.
Marques, J. (2012). Consciousness at work: A review of some important values, discussed from a Buddhist perspective. Journal of
Business Ethics, 105(1), 2740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055
1-011-0932-8.
Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Relating mindfulness
and self-regulatory processes. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4),
255258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598363.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397422. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The difering efects
of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738748. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1556364.
Monteiro, L. M., Musten, R. F., & Compson, J. (2015). Traditional and
contemporary mindfulness: Finding the middle path in the tangle
of concerns. Mindfulness, 6(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12671-014-0301-7.
Moore, J. E. (2000). Why is this happening? A causal attribution
approach to work exhaustion consequences. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 335349. https://doi.org/10.2307/259017.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism
as an individual diference predictor of organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127142.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160204.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research.
Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491500. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMR.1980.4288947.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618629. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.618.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475480. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475.
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., &
Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous infuence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the feld. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 157170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9.
762 J. Reb et al.
1 3
Ocasio, W., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2010). Attention and control. In S. B.
Sitkin, L. B. Cardinal & K. M. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational Control (pp. 191221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777899.008.
Pandey, A., Chandwani, R., & Navare, A. (2017). How can mindfulness enhance moral reasoning? An examination using business
school students. Business Ethics: A European Review. https://
doi.org/10.1111/beer.12171.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing
and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics,
29(2), 123137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019
-X.
Podsakof, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakof, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of
self-regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 427
441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003096.
Purser, R. E., & Milillo, J. (2015). Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhistbased conceptualization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1),
324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614532315.
Qiu, J. X. J., & Rooney, D. (2017). Addressing unintended ethical
challenges of workplace mindfulness: A four-stage mindfulness
development model. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-017-3693-1.
Reb, J., & Atkins, P. W. B. (2015). Mindfulness in organizations: Foundations, research, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reb, J., & Narayanan, J. (2014). The infuence of mindful attention on
value claiming in distributive negotiations:Evidence from four
laboratory experiments. Mindfulness, 5(6), 756766. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-013-0232-8.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully:
Two studies on the infuence of supervisor trait mindfulness on
employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5(1), 3645.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Ho, Z. W. (2015a). Mindfulness at work:
Antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and
absent-mindedness. Mindfulness, 6(1), 111122. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4.
Reb, J., Sim, S., Chintakananda, K., & Bhave, D. P. (2015b). Leading
with mindfulness: Exploring the relation of mindfulness with
leadership behaviors,styles, and development. In J. Reb & P. W.
B. Atkins (Eds.), Mindfulness in organizations: Foundations,
research, and applications (pp. 256284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., Chaturvedi, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2017). The mediating role of emotional exhaustion in the relationship of mindfulness with turnover intentions and job performance. Mindfulness,
8(3), 707716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0648-z
Reeve, C. L., & Smith, C. S. (2001). Refning Lodahl and Kejners
job involvement scale with a convergent evidence approach.
Applying multiple methods to multiple samples. Organizational
Research Methods, 4(2), 91111. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944
2810142001.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4), 698714. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698.
Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The efect
of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business
Ethics, 95, 7387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0796-y.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating efects of
social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925946.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T.
P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale.
In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health
(pp. 125154). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Sauer, S., & Kohls, N. (2011). Mindfulness in leadership: Does being
mindful enhance leaders business success?. In S. Han & E. Pppel (Eds.), Culture and neural frames of cognition and communication (pp. 287307). Berlin: Springer.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An
organizational justice perspective. The Leadership Quarterly,
10(1), 2540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)80007-1.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57S88. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.1976.
Schuh, S. C., Zheng, M. X., Xin, K. R., & Fernandez, J. A. (2017).
The interpersonal benefts of leader mindfulness: A serial mediation model linking leader mindfulness, leader procedural justice
enactment, and employee exhaustion and performance. Journal
of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3610-7.
Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006).
Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
62(3), 373386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237.
Shapiro, S. L., Jazaieri, H., & Goldin, P. R. (2012). Mindfulness-based
stress reduction efects on moral reasoning and decision making.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(6), 504515. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2012.723732.
Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich
world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications,
and the public interest (pp. 3852). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Winton, A. S. W., Fisher, B. C., Wahler,
R. G., Mcaleavey, K., et al. (2006). Mindful parenting decreases
aggression, noncompliance, and self-injury in children with
autism. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14(3),
169177. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266060140030401.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125139. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125.
Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justifcation in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemakingintuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1022
1040. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26585677.
Sosik, J. J., Potosky, D., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation:
Meeting othersexpectations of leadership and performance.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 211232. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224540209603896.
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX, and employee well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2),
198225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701743590.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported
afect and perceptions at work: Myth or signifcant problem?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 438443. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.438.
Sutclife, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in
organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 5581. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531.
Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model of LMX Quality, 763
1 3
Sy, T., Ct, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact
of the leaders mood on the mood of group members. group afective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(2), 295305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295.
Thanissaro. (1998). Sikkha Sutta: Trainings (1) (Anguttara Nikaya
3.88). In Access to insight (BCBS Edition). https://www.acces
stoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.088.than.html.
Triandis, H. C. (1982). Dimensions of cultural variation as parameters
of organizational theories. International Studies of Management
& Organization, 12(4), 139169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208
825.1982.11656354.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the
social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqu
a.2006.10.007.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1993). Leadership-making in self-managing professional work teams: An empirical investigation. In K.
E. Clark, M. B. Clark & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), The impact of
leadership (pp. 379387). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library
of America.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Varca, P. E. (2010). Role confict, mindfulness, and organizational ethics in an education-based healthcare
institution. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 455469. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0276-9.
van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G.
(2015). Information, attention, and decision making. Academy
of Management Journal, 58(3), 649657. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2015.4003.
Verdorfer, A. P. (2016). Examining mindfulness and its relations
to humility, motivation to lead, and actual servant leadership
behaviors. Mindfulness, 7(4), 950961. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12671-016-0534-8.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social
support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 314334. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jvbe.1998.1661.
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 464481. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd edn.).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship
and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601617.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305.
Yeow, J., & Martin, R. (2013). The role of self-regulation in developing leaders: A longitudinal feld experiment. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 625637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqu
a.2013.04.004.
Young, J. H. (2017). Mindfulness-based strategic awareness training:
A complete program for leaders and individuals. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Yukl, G. (2012). Efective leadership behavior: What we know and
what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 6685. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amp.2012.0088.
Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?
- Plagiarism free papers
- Timely delivery
- Any deadline
- Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
- Subject-relevant academic writer
- Adherence to paper instructions
- Ability to tackle bulk assignments
- Reasonable prices
- 24/7 Customer Support
- Get superb grades consistently
Online Academic Help With Different Subjects
Literature
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Finance
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
Computer science
Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!
Psychology
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
Nursing
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Sociology
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
Business
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
Statistics
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Law
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
What discipline/subjects do you deal in?
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor’s, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
What if I don’t like the paper?
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Reasons being:
- When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
- We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.
In the event that you don’t like your paper:
- The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
- We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
- Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.
Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
What if the paper is plagiarized?
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
When will I get my paper?
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
Will anyone find out that I used your services?
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
How our Assignment Help Service Works
1. Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2. Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3. Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4. Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!
The post Leader Mindfulness and Employee Performance appeared first on UK Superior Essays.
Get Fast Essay Writing Help – No Plagiarism Guarantee!
hireessaywriters.royalresearchers.com is one of the best Online assignment writing service websites that provide university students with quality academic essays, personal statements, research proposals, essays, term papers, admission essays, annotated bibliographies, reports, research papers, projects, presentations, dissertation, theses, movie reviews, Book reviews, application papers, among others.
Expert and professional Essay Writers to Cover All Your School Needs!
