Building on the focal article by Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015), we propose conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a framework that may explain why mindfulness contributes to work motivation and performance in an organizational context. We argue that mindfulness is especially beneficial in dynamic work contexts because it provides employees with a personal resource that makes them more resilient to the loss of job resources and more aware of alternative job resources in their changed work environment.

As pointed out by Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015), the most prominent effect of mindfulness is a significant decrease in experienced stress levels, and one of the most popular mindfulness interventions is mindfulness-based stress reduction. When it comes to psychological stress, desirable outcomes are both expected and documented for employees who adopt a mindful approach to work. But how are these beneficial effects happening, exactly?

As Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) note, many conceptualizations of mindfulness include three characteristics. In particular, mindfulness is often defined as a state of consciousness in which an individual (a) focuses on the present moment, (b) attends to phenomena occurring both externally and internally, and (c) remains open to and accepting of observed stimuli—and thus avoids making judgments. Together, these characteristics grant insight into how mindfulness stands to improve performance in work settings. Just as directing attention to the work environment and the tasks and events associated with it can equip workers with key information for making decisions and help them identify and circumvent risks and threats, so too can attending to internal phenomena (e.g., emotions and intuitions) provide workers with useful inputs to the decisions they face (Dane, 2011). Furthermore, in refraining from making judgments and evaluations, workers are more likely to view unfolding events through a variety of lenses and are less likely to view their thoughts, feelings, and reactions as manifestations or indictments of who they are (Glomb, Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011). In line with these observations, researchers have hypothesized and provided evidence for positive relationships between mindfulness and the well-being and performance of workers (e.g., Allen & Kiburz, 2012; Dane & Brummel, 2014; Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013).

In an attempt to distill what we know about the effects of workplace mindfulness-based training, Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) cast a wide net with regard to the array of studies included in their review. For example, they include studies that investigate the benefits associated with workplace mindfulness training (e.g., Wolever et al., 2012) as well as training conducted for patients within primary care settings (e.g., Allen, Bromley, Kuyken, & Sonnenberg, 2009). In addition, their review includes studies based on self-reports of individual differences in mindfulness traits/skills (e.g., Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2014). Reviewing a broad cross-section of research is helpful to illustrate the wide-ranging nature of mindfulness research but also has the potential to obfuscate what we know about mindfulness as it pertains to workers and workplaces.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) provide ample evidence regarding the value of mindfulness to individuals and the industrial–organizational community as a whole. However, as they noted, mindfulness programs and practices have not yet found widespread implementation among businesses and other organizations. Hyland et al. suggest two primary reasons for this. First, the move toward a nonjudgmental, presently aware, and accepting mind is a tall order for most individuals in our Western society who are heavily conditioned to be relatively self-interested, judgmental, and future oriented. Second, typical mindfulness programs (e.g., mindfulness based stress reduction; MBSR) may be too costly and time consuming for organizations.

We believe that Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) introduced important considerations concerning the importance of mindfulness for research and practice in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, and we applaud their effort. We also feel that some equally important points were neglected or given scant attention. We amplify their introduction in three ways. We discuss (a) how construct confusion is common when new constructs are introduced and how paying attention to the type of meditation practice used to induce mindfulness will enhance construct clarity, (b) how using forms of meditation that employ physical movement and other activities to induce mindfulness expand the choices for intervention and training, and (c) how meditation and mindfulness provide a valuable bridge linking positive psychology and I-O psychology theory and practice.

I am happy to see the topic of mindfulness at work find its way into this journal as a focal article (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015), and I read it with great interest. Although I agree with most of the points made, I want to elaborate on some critical issues that were not or were only briefly touched on and that I deem worthy of further exploration and discussion.

The focal article (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015) has reviewed the literature and has generally concluded that research on mindfulness training has been supportive and suggestive of the potential of these interventions to benefit organizations and people in the workplace. We generally agree with this conclusion but have some suggestions regarding future research and the implementation of mindfulness interventions. Our first suggestion is that organizations exercise caution about simply jumping on the mindfulness bandwagon without thinking through the decision to implement mindfulness interventions. The wide variety of mindfulness techniques can be very different in terms of the techniques used, the potential to be perceived as intrusive, and the outcomes associated with the different mindfulness interventions. We suggest that, when mindfulness interventions are implemented in organizations, the fit of the intervention with the specific goals of the organization be considered as well as alternative interventions. In addition, we suggest that the benefits to employees and employers be clearly articulated, as there may be possible conflicts between these constituencies.

Recently, mindfulness research has grown quickly, particularly as an avenue to increase productivity and alleviate modern workers' growing stress levels (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015). In a parallel but largely separate literature, work–family1 conflict has received expansive research attention in the last several decades as an important modern stressor. Work–family researchers have repeatedly called for practical interventions and individual strategies such as coping (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011). As a potential remedy for modern stress with demonstrated utility in the workplace, mindfulness is ideally suited to facilitate workers' efforts to balance their work and personal life domains. The purpose of this commentary is to explore numerous ways through which bridging mindfulness and work–family literatures will advance organizational science and practice.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) make a strong case for research and practice on mindfulness within the industrial–organizational community. Their main argument is that mindfulness has the potential to provide physical, psychological, and performance benefits to employees and organizations. However, to realize these benefits, organizations must first provide mindfulness training programs to their employees. Along these lines they note that some organizations have established mindfulness training programs to enhance employee well-being, and some firms specialize in providing workplace mindfulness training.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) have provided a thorough and much needed overview of the construct of mindfulness within the context of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and have offered several reasons why mindfulness programs should be considered in the workplace. In this commentary, we focus on their suggestion that mindfulness may improve the development of high potentials through enhanced self-awareness. We agree that mindfulness is likely an effective tool to help high potentials succeed in an increasingly complex world. We come to this conclusion after conducting a rigorous review of the literature and talking to experts (Ruderman, Clerkin, & Connolly, 2014), learning various forms of mindfulness including completing the mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, and our experiences conducting applied leadership research at the Center for Creative Leadership—a 45-year-old organization devoted exclusively to leadership development.

In their focal article, Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) discuss several potential areas in which mindfulness interventions may improve work performance. Some of these include creativity and sales performance (Chaskalson, 2011; Seligman, 2006). We agree that future research should continue to examine the potential benefits of mindfulness and propose an additional domain in which mindfulness interventions may be particularly beneficial: safety performance.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) open a door for discussing the benefits, utility, and challenges of mindfulness at work. Although it is evident from Hyland and colleagues that mindfulness can minimize negative employee outcomes (such as the experience of stress, strain, and burnout) and promote cognitive functioning, there seems to be limited consideration of how mindfulness actively promotes employee growth, development, high performance, and engagement. In this commentary, we speak to how mindfulness can encourage positive well-being at work in a hospital context. Specifically, we consider how mindfulness programs are currently being used in the ongoing training and development of nurses to cultivate patient-centered compassionate care. We propose that mindfulness can encourage positive well-being and compassionate care via the cultivation of resources and the creation of resource gain spirals, and we provide preliminary evidence for the utility of mindfulness training in hospital care settings.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) specified the two most popular scales for mindfulness: the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; 30 items, Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001; 14 items, Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006) and the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003). However, the popularity of these measures does not necessarily mean that they are of high quality. Especially considering the complex epistemology and ontology of the mindfulness construct, we should apply mindfulness assessments with caution. More specially, according to item development theorists in the industrial and organizational (I-O) area (see Hinkin, 1998; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993), scholars must select measures that have (a) a clear operational definition; (b) alignment between definition and measure (content validity); (c) high reliability and (d) high construct validity; and (e) high criterion-related validity. However, it is not clear which of the available mindfulness assessments satisfies these criteria and to what extent. In this commentary, we assess currently used measures based on these criteria and provide directions for future research.