https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076221136923
Management Learning
 1 –32
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines: 
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13505076221136923
journals.sagepub.com/home/mlq
Be(com)ing other-oriented: 
Mindfulness-trained leaders’ 
experiences of their enhanced  
social awareness
Laura Ilona Urrila  and Liisa Mäkelä
University of Vaasa, Finland
Abstract
The potential significance of mindfulness for social relations at work has been recognized in the 
recent management literature, yet a thorough investigation has been lacking into how mindfulness 
may help leaders tap into their other-orientation. In this study, we examine whether and how 
mindfulness training contributes to the development of leaders’ social awareness by studying the 
experiences of 62 leaders who participated in an 8-week-long mindfulness training program. Our study 
contributes to the literature on management learning and mindfulness in leadership in three ways. 
First, it identifies how the leaders who participated in mindfulness training see themselves developing 
toward becoming more socially aware in situations involving followers across the three interlinked 
domains of human functioning—the cognitive, affective, and behavioral—clarifying mindfulness as an 
interpersonal phenomenon. Second, it highlights mindfulness as a value-based developmental practice 
instead of merely a personal stress reduction and attention-enhancement technique. Third, it proposes 
mindfulness training as a viable approach to enhance leaders’ social awareness through a combination 
of a formal program and continuous self-development, departing from the views of mindfulness as a 
“quick fix.” It also provides a conceptual framework that illustrates the pathway with the potential to 
build social leadership capacity.
Keywords
Leadership, leadership development, management learning, mindfulness intervention, mindfulness training, 
social relations
To meditate means to go home to yourself. Then you know how to take care of the things that are happening 
inside you, and you know how to take care of the things that happen around you.
—Thich Nhat Hanh
Corresponding author:
Laura Ilona Urrila, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, 65200 Vaasa, Finland. 
Email: laura.urrila@uwasa.fi
1136923 MLQ0010.1177/13505076221136923Management LearningUrrila and Mäkelä
research-article2022
Original Article
2 Management Learning 00(0)
The potential significance of mindfulness, “the state of being attentive to and aware of what is tak-
ing place in the present” (Brown and Ryan, 2003: 822), for social relations at work has been rec-
ognized in the recent management literature (e.g. Eby et al., 2020; Kay and Young, 2022; Reina 
et al., 2022; Rooney et al., 2021; Vu and Nguyen, 2022). A leader’s presence to and awareness of 
others in social situations, social awareness, is a critical contributor to the individual leader’s 
social leadership capacity, the capacity to be an effective leader in social situations involving fol-
lowers (Dane and Rockmann, 2020; Goldman-Schuyler et al., 2017). Social awareness is an other-
oriented form of awareness that may be conceptualized in relation to other people and in terms of 
social and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Svalgaard, 2018; 
Thorndike, 1920; for a review, see Carden et al., 2021), all of which are important components of 
mindfulness. Learning to be fully present to followers may help leaders better understand the fol-
lowers’ needs and the value of being supportive and thus support their followers’ well-being and 
performance (Reb et al., 2014; for a review, see Inceoglu et al., 2018). There is accelerated interest 
among leaders and development professionals in the improvement of work life through mindful-
ness, and organizations worldwide are using mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs; developmen-
tally focused programs and activities built around the mindfulness concept) with their leaders to 
enhance the individual, team, and organizational functionality. Popular leadership approaches 
influence how people think and learn about leadership (Guthey et al., 2022); however, the literature 
discussing the social and relational aspects of mindfulness in leadership is limited.
Recent research suggests the awareness of the self and others that is enhanced by mindfulness 
practice could improve reflection of feedback, listening, trust and respect, collaboration, better 
conflict management, reduced emotional contagion, ethical decision making and prosocial behav-
ior, possibly having a beneficial impact on the development of leaders in their role leading others 
(Good et al., 2016; Roche et al., 2020; Vu and Nguyen, 2022). Nevertheless, the research area 
lacks a thorough investigation into how practicing mindfulness could help leaders tap into their 
other-orientation (e.g. Dietl and Reb, 2021; Pircher Verdorfer, 2016). Empirical research on mind-
fulness in relationships originating mainly outside of management research indicates that mindful-
ness practice can benefit interpersonal relationships by influencing the interlinked processes of 
other-directed attention, affect, and behavior—such as perspective-taking, compassion, and shar-
ing cultivated in relationships (e.g. Barnes et al., 2007; Fazia et al., 2020; for reviews see Donald 
et al., 2019; Skoranski et al., 2019). Research on mindfulness for leaders (e.g. Ceravolo and Raines, 
2019; Crivelli et al., 2019; Lundqvist et al., 2018; Vonderlin et al., 2021; for reviews, see 
Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2019; Urrila, 2022) and in workplace settings in general (for a review, see 
Eby et al., 2019) has typically taken a positivistic approach to assessing the influence of mindful-
ness-based interventions on individuals using predefined well-being and performance-related out-
come measures (Karjalainen et al., 2021).
An empirical focus on a stressful work environment lends itself to criticism concerning reduc-
ing the originally interconnected mindfulness practice to a personal stress-reduction and attention-
enhancement technique (e.g. Purser, 2018). It has been suggested that promoting mindfulness 
techniques (such as managing unpleasant emotions by accepting them as they are) as a self-help 
tool could make people lose their ability for healthy criticism and docilely adapt to systemic causes 
of stress in search for a better ability to cope and perform in a demanding environment (e.g. du 
Plessis and Just, 2021; Purser, 2018; Walsh, 2018). It has been proposed that due to its heterogene-
ous and contextual nature, mindfulness in the organizational settings is prone to various interpreta-
tions, which makes cause–effect relationships in mindfulness research uncertain, to say the least 
(Ihl et al., 2020). Interpretations and uses of mindfulness may vary a great deal depending on how 
individuals and groups make sense of it, and whether mindfulness is viewed from the perspective 
of the organization, the group, or the individual (Ihl et al., 2020). Therefore, research on how 
Urrila and Mäkelä 3
mindfulness is really interpreted in organizations has been demanded (Badham and King, 2021; Ihl 
et al., 2020). Emerging qualitative research (e.g. Goldman-Schuyler et al., 2017; Ihme and 
Sundström, 2021; Islam et al., 2017; Shonin and Van Gordon, 2015) is seeking to advance under-
standing of the multifaceted expressions of mindfulness in leadership. Yet, the prospect of strength-
ening leaders’ other-orientation necessitates thorough exploration of the other-oriented expressions 
of mindfulness in the leadership context.
In this study, we examine whether and how mindfulness training contributes to the development 
of leaders’ social awareness by studying the experiences of 62 leaders who participated in an 
8-week-long mindfulness training program. Materials for analysis were collected from written pre-
intervention assessments and post-intervention interviews. This study contributes to the literature 
on management learning and mindfulness in leadership in three ways. First, we identify how the 
leaders who participated in mindfulness training see themselves developing toward becoming 
more socially aware in situations involving followers across the three interlinked domains of 
human functioning—the cognitive, affective, and behavioral. By clarifying mindfulness as an 
interpersonal phenomenon (Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2022; Skoranski et al., 2019), we challenge 
the predominant emphasis of workplace mindfulness research and practice (Eby et al., 2019). 
Second, we highlight mindfulness as a value-based developmental practice instead of merely a 
personal stress-reduction and attention-enhancement technique (Purser and Milillo, 2015; Vu and 
Nguyen, 2022). Third, we propose mindfulness training may be a viable approach to enhance lead-
ers’ social awareness through a combination of a formal program and continuous self-development 
(Svalgaard, 2018), departing from the views of mindfulness as a “quick fix” (Karjalainen et al., 
2021). We also provide a conceptual framework that illustrates the pathway with the potential to 
build social leadership capacity through training leaders in mindfulness.
Theoretical background
Social awareness in leadership
An organizational leader’s role is to set and facilitate the development of a direction and engage 
and motivate other people (followers) toward accomplishing the common goal (e.g. Day and 
Dragoni, 2015). Leader–follower relationships may be the most important relationships people 
have at work and can profoundly influence followers’ well-being and performance (Inceoglu et al., 
2018). Leadership and leader development efforts aim to expand the collective and the individual 
capacity to be effective in a leadership role (e.g. Day and Dragoni, 2015; Day et al., 2021). Being, 
or becoming, a good leader is a question of the right skills, competencies, and practices (Rostron, 
2022). Social skills and abilities relevant for a leader would include building relationships, manag-
ing communication and conflict, and developing others; However, as the perceptions and personal 
experiences of a leader shape how they identify and act as a leader, a leader also requires skills 
related to self-views (one’s self-concept and views of oneself) in the form of self-awareness and 
social awareness (Day et al., 2014, 2021; Kwok et al., 2021; Rooney et al., 2021; Rostron, 2022). 
These skills contribute toward leaders’ social leadership capacity, the capacity to be an effective 
leader in social situations involving followers.
Thorndike (1920) introduced social intelligence to refer to a form of intelligence separate from 
general intelligence that involves the ability to understand other people and “to act wisely in human 
relations” (p. 228). Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined emotional intelligence as a type of social 
intelligence involving the ability to understand one’s own and others’ emotions, and to use that 
understanding to guide one’s thinking and actions. In the management literature, social and emo-
tional intelligence have been viewed as intertwined (social intelligence being the other-oriented 
4 Management Learning 00(0)
extension of emotional intelligence). The combination involves interacting cognitive processes, 
emotions, and actions, required by an effective organizational leader to respond wisely in challeng-
ing social situations that arise in groups (e.g. Gill, 2011; Goleman, 1995; Mumford et al., 2000).
Self-awareness and social awareness are key components of social and emotional intelligence 
(Goleman, 1995). Carden et al. (2021) define self-awareness as consisting of an awareness of one’s 
emotions, cognitions, and physiological responses that drives one’s behaviors and assists an aware-
ness of one’s influence on others. According to Carden et al. (2021), the “self” may be viewed as 
both an intra- and inter-individual construct by nature, meaning that it is made of both conscious 
and unconscious dimensions of oneself, and perceived in relation to others. “Awareness” may be 
understood as a combination of one’s cognitive awareness concerning one’s perception, thinking 
and awareness of others’ feelings, and one’s impact on others. It is argued that awareness is a mul-
tilevel construct, in that it has both conscious and unconscious levels which the individual may or 
may not be aware of but may be able to bring to conscious awareness by processing the goings-on 
of one’s mind and body (Carden et al., 2021).
Self-awareness, also defined as “a higher-level concept which includes the extent to which peo-
ple are consciously aware of their interactions or relationships with others and their internal states” 
(Sutton et al., 2015: 611) entails the other-oriented quality of consciousness which may be concep-
tualized in relation to other people. Social awareness involves introspective reflection of the mul-
tidimensional self, informed by the observations of others (Carden et al., 2021). Although the 
importance of self-awareness has been widely recognized in the management literature, social 
awareness has been given relatively little attention in research and is often discussed alongside, or 
as a subcategory of, self-awareness (Svalgaard, 2018; for a review, see Carden et al., 2021). 
Nevertheless, a leader being present for and aware of followers in social situations is deemed criti-
cal for the individual leader’s capacity to be an effective leader (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Dane 
and Rockmann, 2020; Reb et al., 2014).
According to current knowledge, self-awareness and social awareness may be developed 
through a lifelong process of growing and maturing as a human being, through practicing reflexiv-
ity in action or retrospectively based on internal and external feedback, and also through practices 
that encompass and stimulate cognitive, emotional, and sensory functions and introspection 
(Carden et al., 2021). Consequently, research has been called for to understand the benefits of self- 
and social awareness, and to explore different methods of teaching them (Carden et al., 2021). To 
develop such skills, a leader needs to be motivated to develop as a leader (Day et al., 2021; Rosch 
and Villanueva, 2016). According to Reichard and Johnson (2011), to develop self- and social 
awareness, it is imperative that the individual leader proactively engages in self-development 
activities, such as self-reflection of leadership experiences and utilizing the internal and external 
feedback in on-the-job leadership experiences (Reichard and Johnson, 2011). It has been acknowl-
edged that formal development programs can initiate the continuous development of self- and 
social awareness at the core of leading people wisely, but according to Svalgaard (2018), the newly 
enhanced self- and social awareness may fall into disuse once the individual returns to the normal 
organizational routines. Svalgaard (2018) argues that voluntary mindful awareness of the actual 
situations that individuals must face at work outside of formal training is a key to sustained self- 
and social awareness.
Mindfulness in relationships
Common definitions describe mindfulness as a state of attention to and awareness of events and 
experience in the present moment (e.g. Brown and Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 2003) that can be 
pursued intentionally through formal mindfulness meditation practice or informal practice, a way 
Urrila and Mäkelä 5
of “being” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003); for instance, “the awareness that emerges through paying attention 
on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment 
by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003: 145). King and Badham (2020) present mindfulness as “a quality 
or state of mind that attends to experience, avoiding or overcoming mindlessness by giving full and 
proper attention to presence, context and purpose,” drawing attention to mindfulness as a contex-
tual wisdom practice (p. 6). While numerous well-known conceptualizations have been developed 
for mindfulness, there remains no scholastic consensus on its definition (Choi and Leroy, 2015; 
King and Badham, 2020). Different scholars and practitioners emphasize different aspects of 
mindfulness depending on their situations and contexts. Gethin (2015) states,
Mindfulness is a word, and like other words, mindfulness is used in a variety of ways. That is, different 
people, whether ancient Buddhists or contemporary neuroscientists, may use and define mindfulness—in 
different ways and it is not clear what standards we might use to judge any given account of mindfulness. 
(p. 9)
Mindfulness as a heterogeneous concept may be placed, for instance, in a spiritual, meditation, 
neuroscience, or business background (Islam et al., 2017). Research within the Western medical 
and psychological domain since the late 1970s has focused mainly on the investigation of mindful-
ness as a stable or fluctuating intra-individual psychological capacity and a type of intervention 
and practice to induce a mindful mental state, offered for clinical or non-clinical audiences (e.g. 
mindfulness-based stress reduction or MBSR) (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Keng et al., 2011). Research on 
mindfulness originating in psychological contexts has tended to focus on mindfulness as a tech-
nique of attention-enhancement. The conceptualizations of mindfulness originating from 
Buddhism, on the contrary, portray mindfulness as aspects of attention and deep awareness of 
one’s experience that may lead to “awakening” (Gethin, 2011).
Mindfulness practice is centered around the holistic development of the physiological, cogni-
tive and attentional, emotional, behavioral, and spiritual qualities of an individual in relationship to 
the self and others (Kristeller, 2004). It has been suggested that mindfulness practice increases the 
human capacity of objectivity about one’s internal experience, which enables taking another’s 
perspective. This shift in perspective also known as “reperceiving” is “the hallmark of mindfulness 
practice” (Shapiro et al., 2006: 378). Mindful awareness adds the component of “attunement” 
between the direct experience and observing of the situation in a broader context of one’s “being” 
and life. In the interpersonal context, mindfulness may enable focusing on the other person with an 
attitude of kindness and compassion (e.g. Parker et al., 2015).
Thus, current literature expands the understanding of mindfulness from being a within-person 
psychological capacity to an interpersonal phenomenon that takes place in social interactions and 
processes (Donald et al., 2019; Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2022; Skoranski et al., 2019; Vu and 
Nguyen, 2022). Mindfulness practice is assumed to benefit an individual’s health, well-being, and 
functioning. Furthermore, mindfulness should then influence the connection with other people 
(Skoranski et al., 2019). Mindfulness is then referred to as interpersonal (e.g. Barnes et al., 2007), 
relational (e.g. Vich et al., 2020), social (e.g. Fazia et al., 2020), and collective (e.g. Islam et al., 
2017) mindfulness. Empirical research on the phenomenon originates mainly in non-work contexts 
such as parental interaction, romantic relationships, and friendships. That research indicates that 
practicing mindfulness may benefit interpersonal relationships by influencing the interlinked pro-
cesses of other-directed attention, affect, and behavior (e.g. Barnes et al., 2007).
In studies of the cognitive aspects of mindfulness related to attention, thinking, and perceiving 
in relationships, Carson et al. (2004), for instance, found mindfulness intervention to increase peo-
ple’s acceptance of one another in romantic relationships. Once the emotional aspects of 
6 Management Learning 00(0)
mindfulness related to feelings and affect in relationships have been studied, the focus has been on 
emotional awareness and cultivating prosocial emotions via interventions (for a review, see Galante 
et al., 2014). For example, mindfulness meditation has been associated with interpersonal forgive-
ness (Karremans et al., 2020) and compassion (Condon et al., 2013; Fredrickson et al., 2008). 
Studies on the behavioral aspects of mindfulness related to volition in relationships showed that 
mindfulness interventions increase prosocial behavior, that is, voluntary actions, such as helping, 
intended to benefit others (for a meta-analysis, see Donald et al., 2019). In addition, communica-
tion quality improved owing to reduced negativity and verbal and nonverbal aggression in stressful 
interpersonal dialogue (Barnes et al., 2007) and constructive and compassionate responding 
(Barnes et al., 2007; Condon et al., 2013).
Fredrickson et al. (2008) showed that cultivating positive emotions through a mindfulness-
based intervention in working adults was linked to improved personal resources, including main-
taining positive relations with others. To explain the linkages between the attentional, emotional, 
and behavioral aspects of mindfulness in relationships, they propose positive affect as a central 
mechanism driving positive change in and between people. Currently available evidence on mind-
fulness intervention studies reviewed by Donald et al. (2019) suggests that mindfulness meditation 
enhances prosocial behaviors through empathetic concern and compassion and that mindfulness-
based compassion meditation may enhance prosociality via the mechanisms of emotion regulation 
and positive affect. The regulation of affect and personal distress, enhanced by mindfulness, has 
been found to determine how compassionately, altruistically, or kindly people respond to others 
(Donald et al., 2019; Skoranski et al., 2019). Skoranski et al. (2019) argue that mindful attention, 
exhibited in the constant dynamic process of interpersonal interaction between people, supports 
mutual positive affect and reinforces positive behaviors, causing a recursive loop of an increas-
ingly mindful relationship.
Summing up, mindfulness and mindfulness practice, which involves raising awareness of one-
self in the context of others, has been conceptualized as a developmental phenomenon occurring in 
the context of interpersonal relationships. To date, much of the existing empirical research on 
mindfulness in relationships is set in specific non-work contexts.
Application of mindfulness for organizational leaders
Workplace mindfulness interventions are heterogeneous in terms of length and intensity and often 
tailored according to the requirements and expectations of the purchasing organization (Bartlett 
et al., 2019; Davidson and Kazniak, 2015; Islam et al., 2017). Depending on the intervention, they 
approach mindfulness, for instance, as an instrument for stress-reduction and productivity-
enhancement, or as a spiritual practice, which is likely to affect the participants’ experience (King 
and Badham, 2020; Shonin and Van Gordon, 2015). Most typically, mindfulness interventions 
contain meditation and awareness practices, psychoeducational content, and opportunity for self-
reflection (Urrila, 2022). Optimally, developing leaders’ social intelligence, value-orientation, and 
compassion through mindfulness could promote positive organizational forms and supportive 
leadership characterized by “recognition of long-term consequences of actions, simultaneous 
awareness of inner self, external reality and work impacts, and commitment to authenticity, truth 
and responsibility” (Badham and King, 2021: 545).
Researchers and practitioners acknowledge the collective dimension of workplace mindfulness, 
as the focus of development shifts from individual to organizational, emphasizing interdepend-
ence, group mind, and cooperation (Badham and King, 2021; du Plessis and Just, 2021). 
Mindfulness in organizations may emerge through the interactional and social processes that occur 
between people, such as creating a healthy learning environment and enhancing interpersonal 
Urrila and Mäkelä 7
functioning, which research suggests could potentially have beneficial transformative effects (du 
Plessis and Just, 2021; Shapiro et al., 2015). Nevertheless, empirical research on mindfulness for 
leaders (e.g. Ceravolo and Raines, 2019; Crivelli et al., 2019; Lundqvist et al., 2018; for reviews, 
see Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2019; Urrila, 2022) and in workplace settings in general (for a review, 
see Eby et al., 2019) tends to focus on the stressfulness of the work from the outset. While research 
has shown that practicing mindfulness can help individual leaders often working in high-stress 
environments like the corporate world and healthcare to restore their personal resources, sufficing 
with that has elicited criticism.
Among holistic well-being approaches that organizations worldwide are using to enhance the 
individual, team, and organizational functionality, mindfulness brings to the fore the personal, 
social, and spiritual aspects of being a human at work. This leaves room for interpretations and 
blurs the boundaries between the private and the professional. Due to the heterogeneity attached 
to the concept of mindfulness, Islam et al. (2017) characterize workplace mindfulness as an 
“empty signifier,” meaning that there is no one agreed definition for it or its effects. This implies 
“a field in which alternative and sometimes opposing camps may struggle over the meanings and 
applications of the term” (Islam et al., 2017: 2). For one organizational member, mindfulness 
may be a handy pocket tool to take out in stressful situations; for another one it represents a 
deep-rooted spiritual practice. Furthermore, the interpretations of what mindfulness practice 
means, and what it implies, may vary in the organizational, group, and individual levels (Ihl 
et al., 2020). The organization level may be most interested in performance improvement and 
business goals, the group level in improved relationships, the individual practitioner may find 
the meaning in newly found calmness, or the quest for the life’s purpose. Therefore, recent 
research has come to consider unintended or potentially negative effects of mindfulness at the 
workplace (Ihl et al., 2020). As mindfulness is always practiced and experienced on the indi-
vidual level and any specific outcomes cannot be “ordered,” the practice could lead to unin-
tended organizational outcomes, such as attrition, as Ihl et al. (2020) point out. It could also 
result in issues in group-level dynamics, when some individuals are pro and others against it. 
Existing knowledge considers mindfulness meditation practice as a generally safe way to 
improve psychological health when practiced and administered correctly, but there is little 
research that would specifically address possible adverse health and well-being effects of mind-
fulness for individuals, such as problems due to forced breathing or meditation addiction (Shonin 
et al., 2014). Anyhow, individuals who experience discomfort or fear of social reactions due to 
practicing and do not want to practice mindfulness in the company of colleagues, may experi-
ence distress (du Plessis and Just, 2021; Ihl et al., 2020).
The more broadly mindfulness is understood, the more difficult it is to measure, let alone pre-
determine, outcomes (Islam et al., 2017). The “emptiness” of the concept means that it is not 
known how the concept of mindfulness in organizational settings may be molded to support mean-
ings and ideologies (Islam et al., 2017). Mindfulness in the social organizational and managerial 
context may appropriate an individual’s psychological resources and spirituality, a “sense of 
peace,” toward the demands of productive work, misappropriating and politicizing the practice and 
even exploiting people (du Plessis and Just, 2021; Ihl et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2017: 4). One of the 
main criticisms concerns the individual-focused, instrumental use of mindfulness as an organiza-
tional means to ignore perceived stress by transferring the responsibility onto the individual prac-
titioner instead of true efforts to remove the systemic sources of stress in fact falling outside of the 
individual’s control (e.g. Purser, 2018; Walsh, 2018). It has been suggested that the branding of 
mindfulness as a self-care practice wrongly inflates the individual’s sense of autonomy and agency, 
as if to detach the individual from one’s social, political, and economic context (Purser, 2018). This 
could corrupt mindfulness practice intended to connect people, not separate them from each other 
8 Management Learning 00(0)
and the context they live in (Purser, 2018). Purser and Loy (2013) assert that “right mindfulness is 
guided by intentions and motivations based on self-restraint, wholesome mental states, and ethical 
behaviors—goals that include but supersede stress-reduction and improvements in concentration” 
(p. 4).
Overall, recent critical literature on mindfulness in organizational settings calls for practices 
that support mindful consideration and reflection instead of mere stress-reduction and perfor-
mance-related outcomes (e.g. Badham and King, 2021; du Plessis and Just, 2021). Emerging col-
lective and substantive approaches to mindfulness in organizations emphasize values such as 
interconnectedness and collaboration instead of within-person attention and awareness. A line of 
empirical research within management studies is seeking to advance understanding of the multifac-
eted expressions of mindfulness in leadership. It does so by employing notions of mindfulness that 
are in line with Buddhist conceptualizations of mindfulness as a developmental wisdom practice 
that intrinsically involves contemplation directed toward internal and external phenomena (medita-
tion), introspective monitoring of mental state and actions, and value-based evaluation that only 
people are capable of, concerning not only oneself but other people (Gethin, 2011; Purser and 
Milillo, 2015). This understanding is viewed to advance the debate about mindfulness in the organ-
izational context (Badham and King, 2021).
Emerging empirical research indicates that a leader’s mindfulness practice may facilitate a posi-
tive form of leadership—involving the ability to take the perspective of others (e.g. Wasylkiw 
et al., 2015), empathize with others (e.g. Goldman-Schuyler et al., 2017), and internalize the social 
and ethical norms for behavior (e.g. Nübold et al., 2019). So far, few mindfulness intervention 
studies have focused on the social and relational aspects of mindfulness-based leadership develop-
ment (Islam at al., 2017). Those quantitative intervention studies with a direct focus on the leader–
follower dyad have focused on measuring the effect of mindfulness practice on behavioral outcomes 
(Lange and Rowold, 2019; Nübold et al., 2019). None of the existing qualitative mindfulness inter-
vention studies have focused on leader development involving followers as the main context of the 
investigation. Instead, they have approached leaders’ perceptions of their leadership in general, 
mainly from the personal well-being perspective (Ihme and Sundström, 2021; Mahfouz, 2018; 
Rupprecht et al., 2019; Wasylkiw et al., 2015), with small sample sizes. Three prior qualitative 
studies focusing on leaders’ independent mindfulness practice (Goldman-Schuyler et al., 2017; 
Lippincott, 2018; Vu and Gill, 2018) suggest that practicing mindfulness can heighten leaders’ 
social and contextual awareness.
In sum, mindfulness in work-related settings may be viewed as a developmental practice to 
support relationships and the collective good, rather than merely a personal stress-reduction 
and attention-enhancement technique (Purser and Milillo, 2015; Skoranski et al., 2019). The 
interpersonal conceptualizations of mindfulness may be particularly relevant for leadership, as 
leadership is inherently relational and takes place in leader–follower interactions (Avolio and 
Gardner, 2005; Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2022; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Research investigating how 
the awareness of the self and others enhanced by mindfulness influences the development of 
leaders has been demanded (e.g. Good et al., 2016; Hyland et al., 2015). Empirical research 
seeking to understand how a leader’s mindfulness practice could support leadership relation-
ships is an emerging stream (e.g. Nübold et al., 2019; Roche et al., 2020). That is perhaps sur-
prising given the recognition that other-orientation and taking an interest in the needs of others 
may be a key aspect of mindfulness in leadership (Pircher Verdorfer, 2016). We argue that the 
other-oriented components of mindfulness, such as perspective-taking, compassion, and shar-
ing cultivated in relationships (Skoranski et al., 2019) warrant exploration in the context of 
organizational leadership.
Urrila and Mäkelä 9
Method
To investigate whether and how mindfulness training contributes to the development of leaders’ 
social awareness in the context of followers, we study the experiences of 62 leaders who partici-
pated in an 8-week mindfulness program. Empirical research on mindfulness for leaders (e.g. 
Crivelli et al., 2019) has often taken a positivistic approach to assessing the influence of mindful-
ness-based interventions on individuals using predefined well-being and performance-related out-
come measures (Karjalainen et al., 2021). Leader mindfulness may be viewed as a social 
phenomenon that may bear relational value, therefore in the organizational context it may need to 
be treated as an emergent (instead of a fixed) concept that is being formed in the social and proces-
sual organizational context (Ihl et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2017). Thus, its study can greatly benefit 
from the qualitative approach. A qualitative intervention approach that features a longitudinal pre–
post design is expected to build understanding of how leaders engage in mindfulness practice in the 
organizational context involving their followers. Interventions may be examined qualitatively, 
viewing interventions as “producing outcomes not directly but only via introducing resources into 
a setting which local actors may then use and in doing so may trigger mechanisms,” and so might 
generate beneficial outcomes (Warren et al., 2020). Intervention participants are expected to be 
able to provide realist accounts of how the intervention works for them. The content of a first-
person description is always directly linked to the lived, conscious experience of a human who 
experiences it as subjectively relevant and for which the subjective self, the first person, can pro-
vide an account (Goldman-Schuyler et al., 2017; Varela and Shear, 1999). By investigating the 
leader’s personal experience in a specific context, management research can respond to questions 
concerning the internalized role and the development of an individual leader (Rostron, 2022). 
Thus, the perceptions and experiences of the leaders were probed in this study.
Research setting
Intervention. Five 8-week mindfulness interventions were organized in 2019, one for each partici-
pating organization. The first author took responsibility for the delivery of the interventions and 
data collection. The training was coordinated and conducted by an experienced mindfulness trainer. 
Participants were recruited by the participating organizations’ human resource departments.
Each intervention consisted of six 90-minute group sessions delivered at an approximately 1.5-
week interval. The purpose of the intervention was to increase participants’ knowledge of mindful-
ness and introduce mindfulness practices. The intervention contained mindfulness practice and 
invited self-reflection and open discussion. The participants received guidance for independent 
practice and had access to a mobile application featuring 16 mindfulness meditation recordings, 
including body-scanning and (self-)compassion.
Participants. The current research is informed by data elicited from 62 organizational leaders (56 
female, 6 male) who participated in a mindfulness intervention offered by their employers, five 
Finnish organizations across different sectors. In all, 22 participants worked in health, 17 in insur-
ance, 9 in forestry, 10 in information technology, and 4 in production. A leader was defined as a 
leader, manager, or supervisor who had direct reports; in this article, “followers.” On average, the 
participants had 17 direct reports. Their experience in leadership positions varied between 1 and 
30 years (average 10 years). Their ages varied between 26 and 63 years (average 45 years). A total 
of 52 informants were Finnish, 10 were of other European nationalities. All participants actively 
participated in the intervention. Participation in the intervention was voluntary, and participants 
were not paid for participation in the research.
10 Management Learning 00(0)
Data collection
The data for analysis were collected from written pre-intervention tasks and post-intervention 
interviews with the 62 participants. Data collection took place between January and November 
2019. The first author, who was familiar with the research setting and arranged the mindfulness 
intervention research project, collected the material for analysis and conducted the interviews.
The written pre-tasks were completed before the intervention commenced. We asked the partici-
pants to write a self-reflective text about their recent experience and their expectations for personal 
development, and from the mindfulness training. The lengths of the written tasks were typically 
one to two pages of typewritten text. After the intervention ended (maximum 3 weeks), participants 
were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured. The first author asked open-ended ques-
tions from the participants about their experiences of mindfulness training. The questions followed 
a structure which allowed freedom and flexibility for the participants to describe their personal 
experience in the way that was meaningful for them. Everyone was asked about their experiences 
with mindfulness training (e.g. What do you think of mindfulness as a learning experience?), how 
they understood and practiced mindfulness (e.g. Please describe what mindfulness means to you, 
in your terms?), how they viewed their development as a leader (e.g. What is the most important 
area of development for you personally as a leader?), and if and how they viewed mindfulness 
could support them in the leader role (e.g. Do you see the mindfulness training offered for leaders, 
and mindfulness practice, could support your leadership and how?). Asking follow-up questions 
required flexibly stepping outside the guiding structure when the interviewer sensed an area of 
importance for the interviewee. Examples were asked to allow in-depth exploration and enrichen 
the interviewees’ descriptions. The interview duration varied between 26 and 76 minutes (average 
48 minutes); 39 interviews were conducted face-to-face and 23 remotely.
Data preparation and analysis
Extensive qualitative data were gathered to provide an adequate account of the experience of the 
participants, who were “knowledgeable agents” willing and able to describe their organizational 
reality, thoughts, intentions, and actions (Gioia et al., 2012: 17). Thematic content analysis was 
conducted to classify the raw data into thematic categories and dimensions. Handwritten reflective 
notes and frameworks were compiled at the interview stage. Emerging themes and sub-themes 
were identified in an iterative, continuous manner. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and 
downloaded to the NVivo program by the first author. The first author conducted the coding of raw 
data. A systematic approach by Gioia et al. (2012) that was suitable for qualitative and interpretive 
inductive research that facilitates new concept development was utilized to aid analyzing the data 
and to present findings. In line with Gioia et al. (2012), the informant-centric terms and codes 
presented as first-order concepts and the researcher-centric themes presented as second-order 
themes demonstrate the connections between the data and the emerging concepts, while the aggre-
gate dimensions answer the research question on the theoretical level (p. 21). The second author 
was involved in the verification of the first-order categories, second-order themes, aggregate 
dimensions, and the thematic data structure in different stages of its development. Regular discus-
sions took place between the authors during the research process, which provided a deeper under-
standing of the findings and increased transparency among the author team. 
Evaluation of qualitative research
The primary goal of qualitative research like the current study is to learn about the subjective expe-
riences of individuals. Lincoln and Guba (1985) developed a set of criteria for evaluating 
Urrila and Mäkelä 11
qualitative research that relies on relativist ontology and subjectivist epistemology (Eriksson and 
Kovalainen, 2015). A key principle in establishing qualitative rigor is ensuring trustworthiness, 
which is indicated by data having credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability 
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness is particularly important when dealing with large quali-
tative data sets (White et al., 2012). In this research, attention to quality and trustworthiness was 
established through the systematic planning and organization of the entire research project through-
out the design, intervention delivery, data collection, data analysis, and reporting phases. Following 
the principles of research ethics, the research participants were asked to read the information docu-
ment prepared about the research and sign an Informed Consent form.
Findings
The findings of the study are now examined in detail. First, we present the leaders’ pre-intervention 
expectations of mindfulness training to illuminate the context in which the leaders worked and 
their leadership and leader development priorities concerning mindfulness training. Then, we pre-
sent the post-intervention interview findings. The focus is on the leaders’ expressions of social 
awareness across three related yet distinct dimensions—other-oriented thought, other-oriented 
emotion, and other-oriented behavior. Finally, we discuss the leaders’ understandings of mindful-
ness as a leader development method. The interview excerpts are labeled according to the interven-
tion group A, B, C, D, or E and the number assigned to each participant within the group.
Leaders’ expectations for mindfulness training
The leaders’ written accounts gathered before the start of the mindfulness program reported heavy 
workloads, challenging relationships with followers, and difficulties with team functioning. The 
leaders hoped mindfulness training could improve their stress management and coping skills, 
calmness and mental balance, self-compassion, and emotional development. As one leader said,
The biggest development [due to this course] should by far occur in stress management and being kind to 
myself. I believe this would also help in the supervisory work—I wouldn’t so often appear to be “the 
always so busy leader,” and I would be more present for them. (D3)
So, the leaders believed that strengthening their own mental skills through mindfulness could help 
them be more supportive leaders. Promisingly, the leaders also expressed their intention to bring 
the mindfulness learnings for their followers to provide them with means to restore their mental 
resources and to take care of their own well-being, which could, in the best case, lead to the 
improved overall well-being of the entire team. One of the leaders put it this way:
[The mindfulness course] interests me also because the nature of my followers’ work has become more 
burdening during the past year, and that won’t ease in the future. I would like to see if mindfulness could 
help them in some way. (C4)
Second, the leaders talked about their expectations from mindfulness training for enhanced 
focusing abilities and work performance. For example, one leader said that he expected mindful-
ness training to bring mental clarity that would possibly affect his followers:
I have never really familiarized myself with mindfulness. . . . I expect the mental balance to help me see 
the most important things in my work clearly, and ease structuring my work and my leadership model 
12 Management Learning 00(0)
because I’m afraid I am a little restless. I have bad conscience all the time, like does this affect my 
followers, even when they know we’re in the same boat. (A3)
Third, the leaders discussed their expectation that mindfulness training would help them connect 
with others through improved presence and thus be able to support their followers better. For 
example, one leader explained how she felt that with the help of mindfulness techniques, she could 
act as an encouraging and present-oriented role model for positive behavior among her team:
I hope to be able to be more and better present also in the situations in which I work with the experts in my 
team. I’d like to encourage and help them to be more creative and find their strength in new and insecure 
situations. I expect concrete techniques that I can apply, to stop in the moment better than before and help 
others do the same. (C6)
Fourth, the leaders discussed expectations regarding personal leader development. Some reported 
quite broadly that they believed mindfulness could provide concrete tools for self-development 
and self-leadership. Others hoped for enhanced self-confidence and a clearer sense of purpose and 
picture of oneself as a leader. Many believed mindfulness would increase their self-knowledge 
and help leverage that knowledge better in the leader role, as exemplified by this leader:
I have high hopes regarding this course. Hopefully, the training will support me in forming a clearer 
picture of my stronger and weaker skills as a manager and give me tools to cope with the weaknesses and 
improve them. (E3)
Based on the pre-intervention assessment, the leaders were motivated to develop themselves to 
become better leaders. The majority did not have any prior experience of mindfulness training nor 
an adequate understanding of the type of practice involved thus their expectations of mindfulness 
were quite broad and outcome-focused. They seemed open to mindfulness and believed that the 
mindfulness training could benefit themselves and their followers, but they had not yet experi-
enced how mindfulness could help them as leaders.
Leaders’ experiences of mindfulness training
The analysis of the leaders’ experiences following their participation in an 8-week mindfulness 
program revealed developments that the leaders associated with mindfulness training and practice. 
Figure 1 illustrates the findings through a thematic data structure.
Other-oriented thought
The theme of other-oriented thought concerns the cognitive domain: attention, perceptions, per-
spectives, and attitudes.
Present-moment orientation. Participating in mindfulness training offered the leaders insights into 
the importance of focusing on their direct experience in the “here-and-now.” They came to view 
presence as something that they wished to better integrate in their way of working with others. A 
few respondents also remarked that followers “deserved” to have their leader’s presence.
The leaders commonly reported how mindfulness had enhanced their awareness of direct expe-
rience. For example, one leader described how she had learned to get in touch with what was 
Urrila and Mäkelä 13
F
ig
ur
e 
1.
 D
at
a 
st
ru
ct
ur
e 
fo
r 
th
e 
le
ad
er
s’
 e
xp
er
ie
nc
es
 o
f m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
 t
ra
in
in
g.
14 Management Learning 00(0)
currently happening within herself, cognitively, emotionally, and sensually, which extends to inter-
acting with her followers:
Awareness is the key [in practicing mindfulness], like awareness of one’s feelings, and stress level, and 
presence, and focus, and then awareness of others’ viewpoints and feelings. (D1)
The leaders thus appeared to understand that their internal states influenced their interaction with 
employees and that mindfulness helped create a positive, calming presence. They also said that 
mindfulness practice helped them focus on the current situation, something seen as particularly 
useful when under pressure and in challenging one-on-one discussions, for instance, with followers 
with a different communication style. Consciously transitioning to a new situation was often men-
tioned as a newly acquired practice that could be fitted into leaders’ busy schedules, as this leader 
described:
Moving from one encounter to another . . . I can [now] better . . . close the previous encounter and then 
meet the new person or new people and topic, so that I am more present in the situation. . . . I have 
developed in that [way due to mindfulness]. For instance, in a meeting, I don’t think about the previous 
meeting or the next meeting, every encounter is valuable . . . I walk down that aisle calmly, breathing 
calmly, consciously. (C12)
So, the leaders realized that it is possible to control the distractable mind to a certain extent. They 
also described mindfulness practice helped attain clarity of mind, which was perceived as an inval-
uable attribute to facilitate effective communication with followers. For example, this leader said 
mindfulness helped her keep a clear head amid daily challenges:
In the afternoons, it may have been really challenging to lead a unit meeting when I’ve felt that my words 
had become porridge and I said wrong words and when I’m just no longer able to produce sensible speech, 
which can be a challenge for a supervisor when you’re leading a unit meeting . . . So, now I haven’t had 
this. . . . My thoughts are clearer, so when I discuss and talk, I don’t have to make an effort to find the 
words, so all in all, I feel clear and good. (B18)
She continued to explain how mindfulness practice enabled her to act on issues promptly:
You can quickly sense what the situation is, and move on to develop a solution, and also have the employees 
participate in it, give them the facts in a way that they can understand, since these unplanned situations 
happen quickly . . . so it’s about how you solve them. (B18)
This exemplifies an important observation of the leaders related to how their heightened present-
moment orientation improved their ability to notice emerging challenges within the team.
Perspective-taking. Due to mindfulness learning, the leaders began to see themselves as becom-
ing open to other people’s viewpoints. This meant consciously creating the mental space to 
accommodate the other people’s views, being less forceful and attached to their own opinions, 
being more sensitive, and being willing to listen to others, all practices seen as enhancing 
objectivity.
The leaders often mentioned an improved ability to take the observer view of an objective out-
sider when facing difficult situations in the team instead of becoming entangled in the issue. This 
objectivity sometimes involved mentally detaching from others’ annoying or even destructive 
behavior, as this leader reported:
Urrila and Mäkelä 15
So, it is quite hectic, and you must react to everything immediately . . . and one easily goes into this state 
when it is busy all the time, all the time there is a fire somewhere. So now I can at least observe when the 
situation gets like that, when the people are in that state . . . I can calm the situation in a way from outside 
it, not going into the same panic myself. (A10)
Stepping back and keeping a distance enabled the leaders to stay calm and avoid progressing to a 
state of alarm, which was seen as helpful in guiding followers through challenges.
The leaders reported an improved ability to consider the other’s perspective, which involved 
increased sensitivity to followers’ underlying motivations and intentions, such as things left unsaid, 
that could be influential beneath the surface. This sensitivity was seen as key in directing the fol-
lowers toward the right goals, as exemplified by this leader who was keen to understand her fol-
lowers on a deeper level:
Go behind the fact “OK this person is now happy or angry,” like what it is the thing in the background . . . 
You should not hurry . . . but rather stop, observe and give time for the interaction as it is in that moment, 
and if you want to steer the person in some direction, it will not happen fast. With mindfulness, you can 
learn patience . . . You come to understand why this person did not take my message and do what I wanted 
straight away. (A2)
Moreover, many leaders reported that mindfulness had influenced their ability to accept individual 
differences. For instance, this leader had started to accept that some people tend to be more opti-
mistic while others are pessimistic:
What stuck in my mind quite well was [that] others are pessimistic, and others are optimistic, and then you 
should be able to tell who is what . . . who brings what thinking to this . . . so I have started to think more 
about what is this person’s and that person’s point of view, because facts are the same for everyone. (D1)
Furthermore, interviewees described how mindfulness had improved their sensitivity to others’ 
needs. For example, this leader reported how mindfulness meant he may be better able to notice if 
a follower’s well-being was at risk or if there were other problems:
To learn to recognize the alarm signs when some people perform badly somehow or if there’s a problem 
with coping. (D2)
Redefining “self ” as a leader. The leaders expressed how mindfulness training encouraged develop-
ing the idea of the self as a leader, in reference to examining one’s attitudes, character, values, 
motivations, and desires. Consequently, mindfulness was seen as having imparted new insights 
into their own identity and role as a leader, including recognition of their function as role models.
The leaders often mentioned that mindfulness training had taught them to cope in a constantly 
changing work environment involving juggling people-related responsibilities and other work 
tasks. For example, this leader described how mindfulness had helped her to relax and adopt the 
attitude of trusting that everything would work out:
My attitude and how I respond, for example . . . if there are absences, they always must be covered . . . 
The situation can change so many times between Tuesday and Thursday, so I don’t worry about those 
situations beforehand anymore . . . I’ve learned that I won’t worry about it before it’s time to act. It would 
be a complete waste. . . . So, these things don’t cause horrible anxiety anymore. (B2)
16 Management Learning 00(0)
Thus, mindfulness conferred flexibility and adaptability.
On many occasions, mindfulness learning had encouraged the leaders to reconsider their per-
ceptions of their leadership qualities, most typically their internal need to overperform or seek 
perfection. Interestingly, a major theme raised was setting personal boundaries that were stricter 
than before. The newly gained confidence was viewed to help the leaders to perform well in the 
leader role, as exemplified by this participant:
When you’re so conscientious, [it] turns negative when you try to stretch and do everything. . . . You try 
to do your best, like write a retirement speech that matters to the listener. . . . There, mindfulness has been 
good. My workload is not going to change, but I can change my attitude . . . It’s not the end of the world 
if something won’t be done. . . . The change in my own thinking, my attitude toward the community, my 
own working, how much is expected from me . . . I don’t want work to get me down, so in a way, there 
has to be a balance. (B7)
Mindfulness training seemed to help the leaders develop self-compassion and to be lenient on 
themselves, which made them feel both more balanced and at the same time more accomplished. 
That development also involved insights relating to self-criticism. This appeared to be such an 
important realization that several leaders described having already established clearer limits relat-
ing to followers, which, for instance, involved not responding to all new requests immediately or 
sometimes shutting their office door.
Curiously, the leaders’ accounts involved insights into leading oneself to be able to lead others 
that they linked to mindfulness training. Mindfulness was commonly seen as a self-leadership 
method that enables leading others well, as captured by a female unit head:
I see it quite strongly as a self-leadership tool. The idea here is that when your own stuff is in order, then 
you can lead others. . . . There are many things about how you can use [mindfulness] for leadership, but 
they are a bit secondary. The biggest thing for me . . . is that when you are on good terms with yourself, 
you can do that leadership job for others. (A8)
Additionally, the leaders found mindfulness learning aligned with their intention to provide sup-
port for and to serve their followers wisely, as this leader expressed:
I hope I’ll grow this great wisdom which I can then share with others. (D1)
Thus, mindfulness seemed to strengthen a prosocial attitude in some leaders.
Other-oriented emotion
The theme of other-oriented emotion concerns the affective domain: feelings, emotional states, and 
moods.
Emotional awareness. Due to training in mindfulness, the leaders developed the ability to notice 
emotions in oneself and others.
Among the leaders, emotional self-awareness could mean noticing their unproductive emotions 
in each situation, often observed in the context of their followers. For example, this leader had 
learned to become aware of being irritated when she was interrupted:
Then you notice, for example, sometimes when a team member comes by and they can clearly see that 
steam is almost coming from my head, so it is easier in a way for me to recognize my own feelings after 
the mindfulness course, that “OK, now I’m getting in the angry sector.” (B5)
Urrila and Mäkelä 17
Furthermore, the ability to recognize one’s own feelings extended to recognizing their followers’ 
emotions. The leaders reported that practicing mindfulness enhanced their awareness of others’ 
emotions, as a female director noted:
You notice not just your own emotional states but that of the people you lead. . . . You try to understand 
what could be behind them, and what influences them. (C8)
Emotional self-regulation. Learning to manage and self-regulate automatic emotional reactions pro-
actively was a common theme in the leaders’ accounts. Mindfulness helped the leaders realize that 
it is possible to work on an emotion internally before the internal state or any harmful reactive 
consequence, such as lashing out in front of a follower, becomes visible to others.
Then handling unpleasant emotions consciously became possible. That approach was seen as 
central to recovering quickly from frustration, learning from the event, and not letting negative 
emotions harm the team, as explained by one leader:
You must let the feelings come out too, but in some other situation, when I’m not with the staff . . . in a 
way I can dissolve them in some other way, those, what, fears or unpleasant situations or others, for 
instance with these [mindfulness] practices I can dissolve them. (B4)
Emotional self-regulation often involved responding instead of reacting; instead of sharpness 
finding a wiser way around an emotionally challenging or irritating situation. Often that 
involved the leader signified adapting their communication behavior. For instance, one leader 
described a major change in her way of responding instead of reacting to an irritating situation 
with a follower:
Well, I have this one [team member] who . . . well, let’s say that [s/he] is the kind of person who gets easily 
agitated, so with this person [I] must be careful . . . so that [I] don’t do the same and get to that same state. 
So, I’m like . . . I consciously say [to myself] “Now, a couple of breaths and a calm voice, and continue 
. . .” (B11)
Cultivating positive emotions. The leaders seemed to have developed a sense of responsibility over 
the emotional atmosphere at the workplace due to mindfulness. The leaders reported that their 
practice of mindfulness had increased the instances of having positive other-oriented emotions, 
such as relaxation, joy, gratitude, compassion, and kindness, in the interactions with followers.
The leaders described having started to consciously cultivate prosocial emotions among others. 
For instance, one leader described an experience of a shared happy moment with a follower. 
Mindfulness learning had helped her understand the value of seizing the moment, an example of 
informal mindfulness practice:
Just now with [a team member] whose family situation has been tight . . . and we talked, and it was so 
lovely to enjoy with her so truly and bubblingly, it made me feel good, too. It was a happy moment. . . . It 
wasn’t for that long a time, but I felt she also felt good about it when we were there, and I listened to her 
story. And that [moment] could have just . . . passed, had we not paused there. (B1)
Additionally, the leaders experienced connection with followers, as described by this leader:
I feel that instead of, like before they have sent me email, now they have more eagerly called or come talk 
face-to-face, so could it be that I've been more relaxed and somehow happier and not so filled with hurry 
and negativity, so that others could have noticed it too, I don’t know. (A2)
18 Management Learning 00(0)
The nuances of connection seemed so subtle one might miss them without the present-moment 
awareness the leaders viewed mindfulness learning offered them. Overall, the space provided by 
mindfulness practice seemed to broaden the leaders’ awareness of their spectrum of emotions in the 
work context. Consequently, they had started to intentionally cultivate space for positive emotions 
among their teams.
Other-oriented behavior
The theme of other-oriented behavior concerns the behavioral domain, that is, voluntary action.
Communicating thoughtfully. The leaders reported that practicing mindfulness provided a means to 
engage with awareness in verbal and nonverbal communication with others, which involves behav-
ioral regulation in communication.
The leaders typically emphasized listening as the cornerstone of respectful interaction in their 
role. With the help of mindfulness and enhanced present-moment orientation, they felt that they 
could facilitate dialogue in one-to-one discussions with followers by ensuring a lesser role for their 
own input, as one leader put it:
I feel that I’ve left out a lot of my own, kind of, train of thought from those discussions, and maybe just 
that . . . I’ve been able to be quiet, able to wait, able to listen. (D3)
The leaders described that keeping quiet more often or delaying their response was beneficial to 
allowing the followers the space to express themselves. Merely observing—something the leaders 
reported they had learned in mindfulness training—helped avoid rushing to say something and 
instead allowing others time to respond, which could elicit valuable input from the other person.
Additionally, the leaders perceived that mindfulness helped them in terms of dealing with dif-
ficult discussions more kindly and patiently, which usually involved responding with improved 
self-regulation. For instance, one leader described at length how her tactic in discussing sickness 
absences with a follower had changed dramatically after the realization that a straightforward 
approach was not the most fruitful option:
Now I have consciously done so that I let the employee first tell me about their own issues . . . and I have 
kept quiet, let the other person speak, so I have given them the space for presence and then we have gone 
forward with the difficult matter. So, there it’s been significant. . . . The result is a lot better; it is then 
easier for the person to speak about the difficult matter and go through it after they have space for it. (B1)
Facilitating mindful work environment. The leaders often brought up the theme of facilitating fol-
lower work performance and team functioning when they described a leader’s responsibilities 
where mindfulness skills could be useful. This meant helpful action to ease people’s work at the 
workplace.
Creating a calm work climate was seen as an important responsibility of a leader where mind-
fulness could help. For instance, this leader recognized that she could influence her team by the 
quality of her own state of mind:
This simple thing that you do (practicing mindfulness) can have wider effects. Certainly, it does show 
when you focus on something for a moment and get other things off your mind and become calm. Of 
course, your own presence will impact your surroundings, and your being, and of course the team will 
immediately sense it in you. They know exactly when you’re busy . . . they can read it from you. . . . So, 
the state you go there in has a big impact. (B10)
Urrila and Mäkelä 19
The leaders seemed to have understood that the mental and emotional factors affecting the climate 
in the team were contagious and, in fact, could be influenced by an intentional leadership 
practice.
Mindfulness learning was also seen as providing tangible support for resolving interpersonal 
conflicts, which leaders regularly had to deal with. For instance, one leader explained that careful 
observation, induced by mindfulness practice, helped her adopt a neutral, present-oriented stance:
Like, you have this idea of each employee and then, you hear this, and you hear that, and then there is a 
conflict . . . it is dangerous, but you could, like form a picture beforehand . . . when these people . . . So, 
one should not form that picture based on prior assumptions, so for me, this is a major area of development, 
but I mean . . . It does require one to stop and remember that, well, there mindfulness probably can help. 
(B15)
Interestingly, the mindfulness training had prompted the interviewees to start implementing mind-
ful work practices for various purposes, such as raising the team’s emotional awareness. One leader 
explained,
I call it a check-in moment . . . At the beginning of each team meeting, everyone shares their own feelings 
they came to that meeting with . . . Everyone understands that one person is tired and angry, and maybe 
another is really excited. So, everyone knows where we are. I introduced this after a session of [mindfulness] 
training that discussed how you can really come to this moment . . . It is really nice for me to know if the 
whole team is in a bad mood, because then it’s useless to go through something boring, then I can start 
from a little different angle. (D4)
Sharing. The leaders thought that mindfulness training had encouraged sharing mental and rela-
tional energy and information with others. Mindfulness was seen as encouraging authenticity and 
openness about personal experiences. For instance, one leader seemed to even surprise herself by 
her new found openness:
During this [mindfulness] course, I have tried to tell [my team] a little more about myself, I’m sure [the 
mindfulness course] has caused that in a way, I’ve even been a little astonished and asked myself why did 
I say that about myself. I’m usually quite reserved, I don’t speak about private matters, only neutral ones, 
but now I realized that I spoke about a truly personal matter . . . I kind of didn’t see anything to lose . . . 
It felt like something that I could share. It was a bigger thing, so maybe it was time to mention it. (B18)
Mindfulness training clearly resonated with the leaders’ willingness to share delicate personal mat-
ters and vulnerabilities with their followers more openly, which was seen to help build trust.
Bringing mindfulness learning to the team was a common desire among those leaders who had 
participated in mindfulness training. The leaders frequently found ways to directly integrate mind-
fulness learning in day-to-day leadership work, as one leader exemplified:
Last week my team member had a difficult situation with her own team member, and I noticed that both of 
them had feelings going on and I foresaw we might not be getting to the topic at all, so I just told them that 
I was doing this training and . . . [asked] would you like to try this practice? And we did it together and I 
think it had a good, a surprisingly good, impact on that situation and everyone had a calmer mind when we 
started to solve it. (C8)
20 Management Learning 00(0)
In sum, we discovered that participation in mindfulness training was perceived by leaders to affect 
their interaction with followers in three domains of social awareness—other-oriented thought, 
other-oriented emotion, and other-oriented behavior. Table 1 summarizes the themes.
Leaders’ understandings of mindfulness as a developmental practice
We now present the leaders’ thoughts on the relevance of mindfulness to them as leaders. The 
enhanced other-orientations induced by mindfulness training and practice reported above seemed 
to strengthen the leaders’ views of themselves as those who could positively influence challenging 
work situations requiring that they constantly interact with other people. Becoming aware of the 
consequences of the alternative (mindful or less mindful) ways to respond in certain situations was 
key in this development, as crystallized by one leader:
When you are about to get frustrated . . . I mean these situations come every day, so you take the 
mindfulness gear and choose whether you go along with that tightness, or whether you take it a little easier. 
So, this—choosing the path—is the takeaway from this course. (B20)
The leaders commonly recognized that the 8-week training was only the beginning of a longer 
development process, as one leader explained:
Eight weeks is such a short time that perhaps nothing has yet changed. It may be that some thoughts have 
only just begun to emerge. . . . I think it’ll take some time from me . . . Let’s say a few months from here, 
the next half a year, maybe then I will see if I can integrate some of the practices into leadership, I don’t 
think that it’ll happen very quickly. (D1)
So, the leaders perceived that the continuous journey initiated by the formal mindfulness training 
could potentially lead to deeper self-awareness and improved capacity to act wisely as a leader. The 
positive experiences during the training program motivated the leaders to consider mindfulness as 
a practice they would like to engage in on long-term, as this leader described:
Isn’t it more like a process . . . that at best, doesn’t end? I mean somehow it will live in me, I mean I don’t 
ever stop thinking, like, more “mindful” . . . If I’ve got these new ideas, or realized something, or got help 
with stress management, I don’t just suddenly stop it. Surely it does not stop when [mindfulness training] 
ends. I guess for me . . . I hope that this is something lasting. (B12)
The idea of mindfulness as an ongoing process contained the recognition that the key to reaping 
lasting benefits may be a regular practice—rewarding, yet painfully hard to maintain. During the 
intervention, active participation, engaging in mindfulness practices and self-reflection contributed 
to the perceived developments. After the intervention, the leaders discussed their desire to establish 
practical personal mindfulness practice. Even when often mentioned as a restraint, this comment 
conveys that lack of time may not be a real constraint:
If the impact is what I can already see . . . small change has already happened . . . [mindfulness practice] 
will take a kind of established place in my life. . . . I will take care of those calming breaks and increase 
them . . . I will find more opportunities for [mindfulness], instead of browsing [the newspaper] with my 
cellphone, I’ll close my eyes and spend five minutes by myself. (C14)
Finally, the leaders shared their reflections on the distinct characteristics of mindfulness training 
as a method of leadership and leader development among other human resource development 
Urrila and Mäkelä 21
T
ab
le
 1
. 
Se
co
nd
-o
rd
er
 t
he
m
es
 a
nd
 e
xe
m
pl
ar
y 
qu
ot
at
io
ns
.
T
he
m
e
D
es
cr
ip
tio
n
Ex
em
pl
ar
y 
qu
ot
at
io
n
O
th
er
-o
ri
en
te
d 
th
ou
gh
t
 
 Pr
es
en
t-
m
om
en
t 
or
ie
nt
at
io
n
Le
ad
er
s 
le
ar
n 
to
 fo
cu
s 
on
 t
he
ir
 
di
re
ct
 e
xp
er
ie
nc
e 
in
 t
he
 “
he
re
-
an
d-
no
w
.”
M
in
df
ul
ne
ss
 in
 a
 w
ay
 h
el
ps
 m
e 
to
 li
st
en
 to
 p
eo
pl
e 
m
or
e 
ca
re
fu
lly
, a
s 
yo
u 
st
rip
 o
ff 
th
e 
di
st
ra
ct
io
ns
, a
nd
 y
ou
 c
re
at
e 
w
ay
s 
of
 w
or
ki
ng
 
fo
r 
yo
ur
se
lf,
 li
ke
, w
he
n 
yo
u 
ha
ve
 a
gr
ee
d 
on
 s
om
et
hi
ng
, s
o 
th
en
 y
ou
 k
in
d 
of
 e
nc
ou
nt
er
, a
nd
 th
at
 e
nc
ou
nt
er
 is
 “
cle
an
” 
an
d 
it 
do
es
 
no
t c
on
ta
in
 a
ny
 d
ist
ra
ct
io
ns
, s
o 
th
at
 b
rin
gs
 th
e 
qu
al
ity
 to
 it
, I
’v
e 
no
tic
ed
. (
B1
3)
 
 Pe
rs
pe
ct
iv
e-
ta
ki
ng
Le
ad
er
s 
se
e 
th
em
se
lv
es
 a
s 
be
co
m
in
g 
op
en
 t
o 
ot
he
r 
pe
op
le
’s
 v
ie
w
po
in
ts
.
Th
is 
ki
nd
 o
f m
er
cif
ul
ne
ss
 to
w
ar
ds
 m
ys
el
f a
nd
 o
th
er
s, 
lik
e,
 w
el
l I
 h
av
e 
al
w
ay
s 
be
en
 r
ea
lly
 g
oo
d 
w
ith
 s
ys
te
m
s, 
an
d 
I l
ea
rn
 q
ui
ck
ly.
 
So
, t
o 
un
de
rs
ta
nd
 th
at
 e
ve
ry
on
e 
is 
no
t l
ik
e 
th
at
, a
nd
 I 
th
in
k 
so
m
e 
of
 m
y 
te
am
 m
em
be
rs
 fe
el
 p
re
ss
ur
ed
 .  
. .
 S
o,
 [
no
w
] 
I’v
e 
tr
ie
d 
to
 
m
ak
e 
it 
ea
sie
r 
fo
r 
th
em
 to
 a
sk
 h
el
p,
 li
ke
 e
nc
ou
ra
ge
d 
th
em
 to
 s
ay
 it
 o
ut
 lo
ud
 if
 th
ey
 d
on
’t 
kn
ow
 h
ow
 to
 d
o 
so
m
et
hi
ng
 .  
. .
 T
he
se
 
ki
nd
s 
of
 th
in
gs
 [
m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
] 
ha
s 
br
ou
gh
t, 
I t
ry
 to
, a
ga
in
, l
oo
k 
at
 th
in
gs
 fr
om
 m
an
y 
sid
es
, a
nd
 w
ith
 c
al
m
ne
ss
. (
C
13
)
 
 R
ed
ef
in
in
g 
“s
el
f”
 
as
 a
 le
ad
er
Le
ad
er
s 
de
ve
lo
p 
th
e 
id
ea
 o
f t
he
 
se
lf 
as
 a
 le
ad
er
, i
n 
re
fe
re
nc
e 
to
 e
xa
m
in
in
g 
on
e’
s 
at
tit
ud
es
, 
ch
ar
ac
te
r,
 v
al
ue
s,
 m
ot
iv
at
io
ns
, 
an
d 
de
si
re
s 
in
 t
he
 le
ad
er
 r
ol
e.
I s
ee
 [
m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
] 
as
 d
ev
el
op
in
g 
on
es
el
f, 
ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l g
ro
w
th
 .  
. .
 th
at
’s 
a 
bi
g 
di
ffe
re
nc
e 
[c
om
pa
re
d 
to
 o
th
er
 m
an
ag
er
ia
l 
tr
ai
ni
ng
s]
. .
 . 
. T
hi
s 
is 
ab
ou
t h
ow
 I 
gr
ow
 a
s 
a 
pe
rs
on
. A
s 
be
in
g 
a 
le
ad
er
 is
 a
bo
ut
 b
ei
ng
 h
um
an
, a
nd
 b
ei
ng
 h
um
an
e.
 S
o 
it’
s 
ab
ou
t 
w
ha
t I
 a
m
 li
ke
, t
ha
t’s
 h
ow
 I 
w
or
k,
 th
at
 in
flu
en
ce
s 
ho
w
 I 
fa
ce
 o
th
er
 p
eo
pl
e,
 w
ha
t m
y 
va
lu
es
 a
re
 in
 r
el
at
io
n 
to
 o
th
er
s. 
So
. .
 . 
le
ad
er
sh
ip
 is
 d
oi
ng
 w
ith
 p
eo
pl
e.
 . 
. .
 In
 th
e 
en
d,
 it
’s 
ab
ou
t m
y 
ow
n 
co
pi
ng
 a
nd
 w
el
lb
ei
ng
. S
o 
th
at
 y
ou
 c
an
 d
o 
th
e 
le
ad
er
sh
ip
 jo
b,
 it
’s 
so
 d
em
an
di
ng
, v
ar
yin
g,
 a
nd
 if
 y
ou
’re
 n
ot
 o
k 
yo
u 
ca
nn
ot
 d
o 
it.
 (
B2
1)
O
th
er
-o
ri
en
te
d 
em
ot
io
n
 
 Em
ot
io
na
l 
aw
ar
en
es
s
Le
ad
er
s 
de
ve
lo
p 
th
e 
ab
ili
ty
 t
o 
no
tic
e 
em
ot
io
ns
 in
 o
ne
se
lf 
an
d 
ot
he
rs
.
O
f c
ou
rs
e 
th
er
e 
m
ay
 b
e 
a 
sit
ua
tio
n 
so
m
et
im
es
 w
hi
ch
 y
ou
 c
an
no
t i
nf
lu
en
ce
, l
ik
e 
w
he
n 
em
pl
oy
ee
s 
ar
e 
ha
vin
g 
an
 a
rg
um
en
t a
nd
 
th
er
e 
is 
so
m
e 
sc
hi
sm
, a
nd
 th
en
 y
ou
 b
ec
om
e 
ag
ita
te
d 
as
 w
el
l. 
.  .
 . 
So
 [
w
ith
 th
e 
he
lp
 o
f m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
] 
al
re
ad
y 
be
fo
re
 th
e 
sit
ua
tio
ns
 
ge
ts
 th
at
 fa
r 
an
d 
be
fo
re
 y
ou
 g
et
 a
gi
ta
te
d,
 y
ou
 s
ho
ul
d 
ca
lm
ly 
ha
nd
le
 it
, l
ik
e,
 to
 b
e 
m
or
e 
aw
ar
e 
of
 h
ow
 y
ou
 b
eh
av
e 
an
d 
w
hy
 y
ou
r 
bo
dy
 is
 d
oi
ng
 th
is 
no
w
. (
B9
)
 
 Em
ot
io
na
l s
el
f-
re
gu
la
tio
n
Le
ad
er
s 
le
ar
n 
to
 m
an
ag
e 
th
ei
r 
fr
us
tr
at
io
ns
 a
nd
 a
ut
om
at
ic
 
em
ot
io
na
l r
ea
ct
io
ns
 p
ro
ac
tiv
el
y.
In
 th
e 
te
am
 h
er
e,
 w
e 
ha
ve
 s
om
e 
st
ro
ng
 p
er
so
na
lit
ie
s, 
so
 e
ve
ry
 n
ow
 a
nd
 th
en
, o
r 
qu
ite
 o
fte
n,
 c
om
es
 a
 s
itu
at
io
n 
w
he
n 
I’v
e 
no
tic
ed
 
th
at
 [
no
w
] 
I d
on
’t 
sa
y 
an
yt
hi
ng
 s
o 
sh
ar
pl
y, 
or
 th
at
 I 
re
al
ly 
th
in
k 
a 
lit
tle
 a
bo
ut
 h
ow
 I 
sh
ou
ld
 r
es
po
nd
, t
o 
an
 e
m
ai
l o
r 
so
m
et
hi
ng
. 
. .
 . 
So
m
e 
of
 it
 w
as
 . 
. .
 w
el
l I
 d
id
n’
t a
gr
ee
, a
nd
 th
at
’s 
fin
e,
 b
ut
 n
ow
 I’
ve
 th
ou
gh
t t
ha
t I
 w
an
t t
o 
pr
oc
es
s 
it 
m
or
e 
on
 m
y 
ow
n,
 th
in
k 
ab
ou
t w
ha
t w
e 
co
ul
d 
do
 a
bo
ut
 it
, w
ith
ou
t g
et
tin
g 
irr
ita
te
d.
 (
E8
)
 
 C
ul
tiv
at
in
g 
po
si
tiv
e 
em
ot
io
ns
Le
ad
er
s 
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
 p
os
iti
ve
 
em
ot
io
ns
 a
nd
 a
nd
 fo
st
er
 
pr
os
oc
ia
l e
m
ot
io
ns
, s
uc
h 
as
 
co
nn
ec
tio
n 
an
d 
ki
nd
ne
ss
.
I’v
e 
ha
d 
ph
ys
ica
l a
nd
 m
en
ta
l f
at
ig
ue
, s
o 
[m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
] 
ha
s 
gi
ve
n 
so
m
e 
st
re
ng
th
 to
 fa
ce
 th
os
e 
pe
op
le
 a
nd
 b
e 
pr
es
en
t f
or
 th
em
. I
n 
m
y 
te
am
 s
om
e 
ha
ve
 b
ig
ge
r 
an
d 
so
m
e 
ha
ve
 s
m
al
le
r 
pr
ob
le
m
s, 
it 
ca
n 
be
 a
bo
ut
 p
riv
at
e 
lif
e 
or
 p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 o
r 
w
ha
te
ve
r, 
I f
ee
l t
ha
t 
I c
an
 li
st
en
 b
et
te
r 
no
w
, I
 c
an
 s
to
p,
 a
nd
 it
 d
oe
sn
’t 
fe
el
 s
o 
bu
rd
en
in
g 
. .
 . 
I c
an
 ta
ke
 it
 a
ll 
in
 b
et
te
r. 
I d
o 
cla
im
 [
m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
] 
ha
s 
he
lp
ed
 in
 th
at
. .
 . 
. I
t i
s 
ea
sie
r 
to
 [
co
ns
cio
us
ly]
 fi
nd
 th
e 
po
sit
ive
 th
in
gs
 in
 th
e 
da
y, 
an
d 
in
 li
fe
. (
C
14
)
O
th
er
-o
ri
en
te
d 
be
ha
vi
or
 
 C
om
m
un
ic
at
in
g 
th
ou
gh
tf
ul
ly
Le
ad
er
s 
en
ga
ge
 w
ith
 a
w
ar
en
es
s 
in
 v
er
ba
l a
nd
 n
on
ve
rb
al
 
co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n 
w
ith
 o
th
er
s.
I h
ad
 th
is 
ch
al
le
ng
in
g 
di
sc
us
sio
n 
w
ith
 a
 te
am
 m
em
be
r 
du
rin
g 
th
is 
tr
ai
ni
ng
 w
he
re
 s
/h
e 
to
ld
 m
e 
s/
he
 is
 s
o 
fe
d 
up
 w
ith
 w
or
k 
an
d 
co
ns
id
er
s 
go
in
g 
on
 a
 lo
ng
 s
ick
 le
av
e 
or
 r
es
ig
n.
 S
o 
I t
rie
d 
to
 u
se
 th
e 
m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
 c
ou
rs
e 
le
ar
ni
ng
 a
nd
 s
ai
d 
th
at
 w
e 
ca
n 
ta
ke
 o
ne
 
st
ep
 a
t a
 ti
m
e 
an
d 
th
at
 e
ve
ry
th
in
g 
w
ill 
w
or
k 
ou
t, 
w
e 
ca
n 
lo
ok
 a
t t
he
 n
ew
 s
ys
te
m
s 
on
e 
at
 a
 ti
m
e 
an
d 
I w
ill 
ar
ra
ng
e 
so
m
e 
he
lp
 . 
. .
 
S/
he
’s 
al
so
 h
av
in
g 
a 
ha
rd
 ti
m
e 
in
 p
riv
at
e 
lif
e 
. .
 . 
An
d 
th
at
 te
am
 m
em
be
r 
se
nt
 m
e 
a 
m
es
sa
ge
 n
ex
t d
ay
 a
nd
 th
an
ke
d 
an
d 
sa
id
 th
e 
co
nv
er
sa
tio
n 
w
as
 r
ea
lly
 g
oo
d 
an
d 
m
ad
e 
he
r/
hi
m
 th
in
k.
 . 
. .
 S
o 
th
is 
ki
nd
 o
f v
er
y 
co
nc
re
te
 b
en
ef
it 
[f
ro
m
 m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
]. 
. .
 . 
It 
w
as
 a
s 
if 
I h
ad
 e
ar
ne
d 
he
r/
hi
s 
tr
us
t, 
so
m
et
hi
ng
 c
ha
ng
ed
 th
er
e.
 (
C
13
)
 
 Fa
ci
lit
at
in
g 
m
in
df
ul
 w
or
k 
en
vi
ro
nm
en
t
Le
ad
er
s 
ac
t 
to
 c
re
at
e 
a 
be
ni
gn
 
w
or
kp
la
ce
 t
o 
su
pp
or
t 
fo
llo
w
er
 
w
or
k 
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
 a
nd
 t
ea
m
 
fu
nc
tio
ni
ng
.
N
ow
 I 
se
e 
al
so
 in
 th
e 
le
ad
er
sh
ip
 h
ow
 im
po
rt
an
t i
t i
s 
no
t t
o 
m
ul
tit
as
k 
an
d 
tr
y 
to
 a
vo
id
 th
is.
 S
om
et
im
es
 y
ou
 h
av
e 
to
, b
ec
au
se
 th
er
e 
ju
st
 s
im
pl
y 
is 
no
 o
th
er
 w
ay
, b
ut
 I 
th
in
k 
th
at
 w
ha
t m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
 b
ro
ug
ht
 to
 m
e,
 th
e 
co
nc
ep
t t
ha
t m
ul
tit
as
ki
ng
 is
 n
ot
 a
ct
ua
lly
 g
oo
d,
 
it’
s 
so
m
et
hi
ng
 th
at
 d
ist
ra
ct
s 
yo
ur
 a
tt
en
tio
n,
 a
nd
 I 
re
al
iz
ed
 o
n 
m
ys
el
f t
ha
t .
 . 
. i
t’s
 h
ar
d 
fo
r 
m
e 
to
 fo
cu
s 
w
he
n 
I d
o 
m
or
e 
th
in
gs
. I
 
ha
ve
 th
is 
hi
gh
 s
pe
ed
 . 
. .
 b
ut
 I 
do
n’
t f
oc
us
 . 
. .
. a
nd
 w
he
n 
it 
co
m
es
 to
 th
e 
te
am
, I
 r
ea
lly
 li
ke
 a
ll 
th
e 
do
cu
m
en
ts
 w
e 
w
er
e 
gi
ve
n,
 ti
ps
 
. .
 . 
th
is 
is 
go
od
 a
lso
 fo
r 
th
e 
te
am
. (
E6
)
22 Management Learning 00(0)
(HRD) programs that they had attended in the past. Commonly, the focus on the development of 
self- awareness was seen as a unique feature of mindfulness. One leader stated,
The more I think about it, the more I just can’t imagine that we can have leadership courses without talking 
about mindfulness. . . . Because I have been to very good . . . management courses . . . providing practical 
tools in terms of, you know, how to do an appraisal talk . . . how to have these confrontational discussions 
. . . but that, to me, is not really leadership. . . . I mean, you are not leading by telling somebody. You are 
leading by inspiring people. And how can you inspire people if you are not present and aware? . . . If 
you’re not clear about your own . . . state of mind. So, I guess if people want to learn leadership, they must 
learn these self-leadership techniques, which are, of course, related to being aware and being mindful, and 
being in control of your thoughts. (E1)
The learning the leaders had acquired seemed to refine the leaders’ expectations of mindfulness, 
and how they interpret it. The last example illustrates that the leaders found mindfulness assisted 
an essential role for effective leaders—positively influencing their followers—which culminates in 
the enhanced presence for and awareness of others.
Discussion
In this study, we explored how mindfulness can support the development of leaders’ other-
orientation. The relational aspect of mindfulness is an emerging area of scholarly attention 
within research on mindfulness in organizations. Within the management learning domain, 
novel and popular leadership approaches and fashions—such as mindfulness—are considered 
sociologically significant vehicles for individual and collective learning, as they respond to the 
demands of the present time (Elkjaer, 2022; Guthey et al., 2022). This study took a qualitative 
longitudinal intervention approach, by studying the pre-intervention assessments and post-inter-
vention interviews of 62 leaders who participated in an 8-week-long mindfulness training program. 
The qualitative approach facilitated an open exploration of how leaders perceive mindfulness to 
manifest in interpersonal workplace relationships across multiple other-oriented dimensions and 
expressions of mindfulness (Islam et al., 2017). Drawing from the interpersonal and collective 
conceptualizations of mindfulness (e.g. Badham and King, 2021; Skoranski et al., 2019), the ana-
lytical focus of this study was on the leaders’ experiences in the context of their followers. The 
focus on the experiences of leaders who had been offered the opportunity by their organizations to 
voluntarily participate in a mindfulness training program, and who due to their roles naturally con-
sider organizational, group and individual perspectives, offered valuable insight into how mindful-
ness is interpreted in organizations (Ihl et al., 2020).
This study provides unique evidence that leaders view mindfulness practice as a transformative 
experience (du Plessis and Just, 2021) that can influence the development of their other-orienta-
tion. The leaders learned that mindfulness practice could help them become better leaders of peo-
ple through raising their social awareness (Carden et al., 2021; Svalgaard, 2018). Shaping how 
mindfulness training is understood and defined as a holistic development approach that can build 
leaders’ capacity for social leadership, our work has several implications for theory and practice.
Theoretical contributions
First, our study contributes to the literature on management learning by advancing the understand-
ing of how mindfulness learning and practice foster the development of leaders’ social awareness 
across other-oriented thought, emotion, and behavior. While prior studies have reported leaders’ 
mindfulness practice as having some relational influences (e.g. Goldman-Schuyler et al., 2017; 
Rupprecht et al., 2019), our findings capture the leaders’ experiences in the cognitive domain 
Urrila and Mäkelä 23
regarding perceptions and attitudes; in the affective domain involving management of feelings and 
emotional states; and in the behavioral domain in fostering positive leadership behaviors. The 
empirical findings of the current study, first and foremost, support the argument that mindfulness 
is not merely an intra-individual phenomenon but also an interpersonal one expressed in the daily 
interactions that occur between people (Donald et al., 2019; Skoranski et al., 2019).
Our findings extend those from studies on general populations (e.g. Barnes et al., 2007; Condon 
et al., 2013; Karremans et al., 2020) by offering empirical insight into a specific work-related rela-
tional context, leadership, in which relationships are often non-voluntary and business-like lacking 
emotional expression (Humphrey et al., 2008). Our study corroborates and extends proposals that 
the awareness of the self and others, as enhanced by mindfulness, could significantly influence the 
development of leadership skills in a sustained way (e.g. Hyland et al., 2015). The interviewed 
leaders learned that simple mindfulness practices, such as taking a few conscious breaths upon 
transitioning from one work event to another, helped them be more present in the company of their 
followers. That enhanced presence was beneficial for interactions now guided by giving space to 
the other, seeking to understand another’s perspective, and acting pro-socially. In essence, mindful-
ness learning and practice seemed to encourage self-reflective observation leading to the develop-
ment of perceptions and emotions and integrating that understanding into their everyday leadership 
practices and interaction with followers. Our findings show that mindfulness practice can help 
leaders develop their performance of key leadership tasks requiring social skill, such as communi-
cating, resolving conflicts between people, and dealing effectively with their reactive emotions in 
social situations. As Rudolph et al. (2021) note, in times of uncertainty followers rely on their 
supervisors’ support more than ever, and the improvement of leaders’ attitudes, values, and behav-
iors have been listed as key focus areas to be integrated into future leadership development pro-
grams. Thus, our study shows that for leaders, mindfulness is a personal and timely vehicle for 
internalizing the constantly shifting expectations attached to good leadership (Guthey et al., 2022; 
Rooney et al., 2021; Rostron, 2022). Mindfulness practice can help leaders make sense of their 
experience and express their other-oriented thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in a thoughtful way 
that better meets the expectations for value-based, ethical leadership norm (Ciulla and Forsyth, 
2011; Guthey et al., 2022). Overall, the development indicated by this study is relevant for the 
individual leader’s capacity to be an effective leader in today’s global environment marked by 
constant change, major transformations, and crises that threaten people’s well-being, functioning, 
and sense of safety, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and war (e.g. Antonakis, 2021; Humphrey 
et al., 2008; Vu and Nguyen, 2022).
Second, our study contributes to the research on relational mindfulness within management and 
organization studies by clarifying mindfulness as a value-based developmental practice (e.g. 
Purser, 2018). We found that the leader practitioners do not view mindfulness as a value-neutral 
cognitive technique (or personal “pocket tool”) only to aid staying calm and focused when social 
situations require (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Karjalainen et al., 2021; Roche et al., 2020; Vu and Burton, 
2020). Instead, they viewed the mindfulness practice as facilitating an ongoing transformative 
personal development process (du Plessis and Just, 2021) closely linked to motivation and taking 
specific action to improve the relational leadership processes they are key contributors to. It should 
be acknowledged that our study offers a limited view since we did not inquire second-person views 
of the followers. As Ihl et al. (2020) point out, different organizational members at different levels 
are likely to interpret mindfulness practices in different ways. They suggest that a potentially nega-
tive influence of collective forms of mindfulness concerns the creation of dysfunctional group 
dynamics—for instance, when the leader is eager to introduce mindfulness as a team practice. In- 
and out-groups could be created when some team members are more interested than others in 
practicing mindfulness with their supervisors and other team members. Nevertheless, this study 
24 Management Learning 00(0)
shows how leaders view mindfulness to enhance their social awareness and interpersonal function-
ing, which indicates they interpret mindfulness as an interconnected wisdom practice, rather than 
as merely a personal stress-reduction and attention-enhancement technique. At best, this interpreta-
tion could lead to a more ethical leadership practice, including a thoughtful consideration of those 
team members who decide to opt out of mindfulness. By indicating that mindfulness can strengthen 
leaders’ capacity to act for the collective good, our findings challenge the predominant emphasis 
of workplace mindfulness research and practice (e.g. Eby et al., 2019) and aid in re-establishing the 
interconnected ethical and relational elements of mindfulness feared lost in the adaptations and 
assessments of mindfulness interventions in corporate settings (e.g. Purser, 2018; Walsh, 2018).
As the third contribution, we provide an understanding of how mindfulness helps leaders build 
their capacity for other-oriented leadership through a combination of a formal program and leader 
self-development. We propose that leader-specific mindfulness practice is embedded in the con-
tinuous leader self-development process characterized by volition and motivation to develop as a 
leader (Day and Dragoni, 2015; Day et al., 2021; Reichard and Johnson, 2011; Rosch and 
Villanueva, 2016; Urrila, 2022). In line with what prior literature indicates, our study shows that 
while organizational support and resources are needed, to mature as a leader necessitates that the 
leader takes a reflective stance and voluntarily engages in self-developmental practices (Boyce 
et al., 2010; Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Reichard and Johnson, 2011). Mindfulness practice is expected to 
raise leaders’ awareness of their own values, motivations, and direction, and increase the sense of 
interconnectedness, and therefore help leaders lead themselves to lead others well (Hunter, 2015). 
It has been suggested that those trained in contemplative practices would be best equipped to 
reflect on their own experiences (Davidson and Kazniak, 2015). In connection to Svalgaard’s 
(2018) argument, our findings suggest that active participation in a formal 8-week-long mindful-
ness training program can indeed be an important developmental stepping-stone to improved and 
sustained self- and social awareness, as it offers knowledge, expert guidance, and support for inde-
pendent practice which often takes an informal (“off-the-meditation-seat”) form amid dynamic 
day-to-day social interactions.
Interestingly, the more knowledge the leaders acquired about mindfulness over the course of the 
program, the less specific and instrumental became the outcomes they expected from it. Our study 
thus demonstrates how prone mindfulness is to interpretation, and how the interpretation is facili-
tated by formal programs (Ihl et al., 2020). This places further emphasis on ensuring the quality of 
instruction (Shonin et al., 2014). Teaching leaders mindfulness practices may support leadership 
development behaviors such as reflection on leadership experiences and support a person’s con-
tinuous development to become a better leader. Overall, and departing from the outcome-focused 
quick fix thinking attached to mindfulness in organizations by many critical voices (e.g. Karjalainen 
et al., 2021), our study indicates that engaging in mindfulness practice can guide leaders to under-
stand that an 8-week-long training program may be only the beginning of a continuous develop-
mental process toward improved (work) life, enhanced self-awareness, and becoming a more 
other-oriented leader.
To illustrate the contributions our study makes to literature on management learning, we pro-
vide a conceptual framework (see Figure 2) that highlights the potential significance of mindful-
ness learning to leaders’ social leadership capacity and extends understanding of the processes of 
mindfulness-based leader development. While prior research has examined leader mindfulness 
interventions with much focus on the outcomes (see Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2019) but few refer-
ences to the processual aspects like antecedents and mechanisms, our framework highlights the 
pathway with the potential to build leaders’ capacity for other-oriented leadership. The antecedents 
might be the employer commissioning formal mindfulness training for leaders and teams, and the 
format and delivery of the training program; the mechanism could be active participation in the 
Urrila and Mäkelä 25
F
ig
ur
e 
2.
 D
ev
el
op
m
en
t 
of
 le
ad
er
s’
 s
oc
ia
l a
w
ar
en
es
s 
th
ro
ug
h 
m
in
df
ul
ne
ss
 t
ra
in
in
g.
26 Management Learning 00(0)
training program, developing a personal way of practicing mindfulness, and taking a reflective 
stance, and ultimately applying learning in the relational, organizational context. Our framework 
integrates the current knowledge into a coherent whole, guides future research endeavors and acts 
as a resource for researchers and practitioners alike.
Practical implications
Research on mindfulness in relationships is significant for the practice of leadership, as leadership 
is relational and takes place in leader–follower interactions (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Good et al., 
2016). The current study on mindfulness interventions for leaders has relevance to practice and 
practitioners, as it examines a continuous and holistic way to enhance learning that occurs as part 
of the actual work, through interactions between people (Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2022; Elkjaer, 
2022). It provides valuable information for practicing HR directors and development professionals 
evaluating and selecting mindfulness-based leader development interventions and instructors. We 
found mindfulness knowledge and practice strengthened leaders’ prosocial intentions regarding 
followers. The leaders attested that the change was evident in their thoughts and feelings about 
their followers and their actions toward them. While training leaders in mindfulness appears a 
viable method to build the social leadership capacity of individual leaders, it remains at the leaders’ 
discretion to decide how to integrate the teachings into their lives to support their personal develop-
ment and professional relationships. To encourage more leaders and employees to engage in mind-
fulness, we recommend employers provide staff with information on the individual and interpersonal 
benefits of the practice. However, it is always worthwhile remembering that participatory organi-
zational interventions are complex processes, and therefore outcomes can vary in different organi-
zations and situations (Simonsen Abildgaard et al., 2020).
This study also has implications for mindfulness instructors. It confirms the need for formalized 
leader development approaches that address the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of 
leaders’ holistic functioning affecting the development of their social and interpersonal compe-
tence at the core of leadership (Liu et al., 2021). The framework developed in this study can serve 
as a useful resource for practitioners involved in mindfulness who wish to apply new knowledge 
on this important topic. We recommend that leader-specific elements (such as training in leading 
people with compassion) and technological tools that help practitioners engage despite tight sched-
ules are built into the design and delivery of mindfulness interventions for leaders.
Finally, our study has implications for the individual leader. Its results indicate that mindfulness 
training influences the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains of human functioning. Those 
effects are expressed in the relational context with followers, which appears to support the adage 
that leadership starts from within. The identified enhancements to leadership ability are connected 
to human psychological processes that evolve over time (Day et al., 2014, 2021). Consequently, to 
reap sustained benefits capable of spanning various areas of life (i.e. well-being, work productivity, 
inner growth, and relationships), practitioners should see a formal mindfulness training program as 
a starting point. We would suggest they establish regular, independent mindfulness practice beyond 
the formal intervention context.
Limitations and future research
Despite its strengths (pre-/post-intervention design, rich interview material and large sample), this 
study has some limitations, which should inspire future studies. First, we did not measure changes 
in predefined variables. Instead, we openly probed the subjective experiences of the leaders by 
utilizing a qualitative pre–post design (Goldman-Schuyler et al.; Varela and Shear, 1999). 
Urrila and Mäkelä 27
We provided insights into the key domains of leaders’ social awareness and presented them as a 
conceptual framework. We acknowledge that the elements within this framework are related. For 
instance, behavior may be seen as an expression of thoughts and emotions (Gill, 2011), but we did 
not focus on assessing the relationships between those elements. In the future, connections between 
the attentional, affective, and behavioral elements could be investigated. Another option would be 
a deep dive into any of the above areas, for instance exploring the sustained behavioral changes 
might offer valuable insights into the processes of leader mindfulness. Future research might also 
investigate the broader implications for the workplace climate, for instance, if practicing mindful-
ness enhances human flourishing at work (Arch and Landy, 2015).
Second, we did not assess second-person perspectives such as those of followers. This study 
focused on revealing the subjective experience of leaders and their thoughts, emotions, and behav-
iors. We acknowledge that personal interviews focusing on individuals’ perceptions of themselves 
in relation to others could be subject to halo effects, meaning that the enhanced social behaviors of 
the interviewees may, for instance, be over-emphasized when the behavior is self-reported, as 
opposed to being assessed by another person (Donaldson and Grant-Vallone, 2002). However, the 
information from leaders on their mental and behavioral processes presented by the current analy-
sis could be obtained only by studying the leaders’ first-person accounts (e.g. Goldman-Schuyler 
et al., 2017). Future research might qualitatively examine followers’ attitudes, emotions, and 
behaviors (a considerable time) after they and/or their leaders attend mindfulness training. Future 
research could also explore how team mindfulness (Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018) develops as a 
result of leader mindfulness training.
Third, the focus of this study was on the leaders’ experiences described by them immediately 
after the mindfulness training. We would encourage investigations of the long-term relational 
impacts of mindfulness training on leadership through a longitudinal design (Davidson and 
Kazniak, 2015). Follow-up interviews or surveys could be conducted 6 and 12 months, or even 
several years, after the intervention.
Fourth, the potential limitations of the research setting should be considered. Participation in the 
research intervention was, as is typical of mindfulness programs, voluntary (Davidson and Kazniak, 
2015). The self-selecting participants know that they are attending a mindfulness intervention, 
which could lead to self-selection bias (the leaders who are motivated could be different from 
another kind of leader population) and demand bias (the participants’ expectation affects their 
experience) (Davidson and Kazniak, 2015). Participants in mindfulness interventions who per-
ceive the experience positively may be more enthusiastic about taking part in research than those 
who had a negative experience (Rupprecht et al., 2019). We did not inquire experiences of people 
who did not enroll to a mindfulness course in the first place or who dropped out at some point. 
Instead, this study focuses on leaders who did participate in the training and who wanted to share 
their experience. While the informants’ motivation to learn about mindfulness may affect that they 
report about their experience in a positive way, the participants’ willingness to dedicate their time 
to mindfulness practice is an important antecedent of mindfulness (Davidson and Kazniak, 2015). 
Furthermore, female participants dominated the population of the current study, which is perhaps 
telling of the popularity of workplace mindfulness among women. Future studies might balance 
potential biases by seeking the view of individuals who did not agree to be interviewed or who 
dropped out from the program, constructing samples with equal numbers of female and male 
informants, and exploring the obstacles to imparting the value of mindfulness.
Finally, workplace mindfulness interventions are heterogeneous in terms of length and intensity, 
and often tailored according to the requirements of the purchasing organization. Both the content 
and context of the intervention may influence the results (Bartlett et al., 2019). The current research 
intervention did not have a particular emphasis, for instance, on stress-reduction or spirituality 
28 Management Learning 00(0)
(King and Badham, 2020; Shonin and Van Gordon, 2015). The heterogeneity of the different mind-
fulness programs available and not being able to control how individuals practice what they learn 
complicate comparison (Davidson and Kazniak, 2015), but supports the assessment of their effec-
tiveness in ways that can accommodate accounts of subjective experiences as we have done. In the 
current research intervention, regular home practice was encouraged, which is an important ele-
ment of mindfulness interventions (Davidson and Kazniak, 2015). The participants’ experiences 
may have been different had the participants not been provided support and a mobile application to 
encourage independent practice. Practicing mindfulness is a personal and contextual choice that 
practitioners independently make (Vu and Gill, 2018), as described by our interviewees. Because 
the results of organizational interventions are “products of multiple intervention mechanisms inter-
acting with the specific organizational contexts” (Simonsen Abildgaard et al., 2020: 1340), future 
studies might address the context of the intervention.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated how leaders perceive mindfulness learning to foster their other-
orientation as a leader. Our findings illustrate the development of their social awareness in three 
interlinked domains of human functioning—the cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Our 
research highlights that the examination of mindfulness in relation to others concerns not only 
an individual’s personal gain, like well-being and attention-enhancement, but their enhanced 
other-orientation; intention to do well by others, to respond wisely, and act responsibly. One of 
the key messages of this study is that leaders recognize that an 8-week-long training program 
may be only beginning of a continuous journey toward enhanced self-awareness and becoming 
a more socially aware leader. Based on our findings, we propose that mindfulness influences 
how people understand and learn about what might constitute good and wise leadership (Guthey 
et al., 2022; Rooney et al., 2021). In conclusion, our research implies that training leaders in 
mindfulness could unleash beneficial relational value and improve their capacity for leading 
others in a sustained way. To build on this research, we encourage management learning scholars 
to continue the investigation of mindfulness as an interpersonal organizational phenomenon.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article: This research was supported by the Foundation for Economic Education 
(Liikesivistysrahasto), Evald and Hilda Nissi Foundation, and Tampereen Liikesivistysrahasto. 
ORCID iD
Laura Ilona Urrila  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7400-7393
References
Antonakis J (2021) Leadership to defeat COVID-19. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 24(2): 210–
215.
Arch JJ and Landy LN (2015) Emotional benefits of mindfulness. In: Brown KW, Creswell JD and Ryan RM 
(eds) Handbook of Mindfulness. New York: The Guildford Press, 208–224.
Avolio BJ and Gardner WL (2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms 
of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315–338.
Badham R and King E (2021) Mindfulness at work: A critical re-view. Organization 28(4): 531–554.
Barnes S, Brown KW, Krusemark E, et al. (2007) The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfac-
tion and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 33(4): 482–500.
Urrila and Mäkelä 29
Bartlett L, Martin A, Neil AL, et al. (2019) A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace mindfulness 
training randomized controlled trials. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 24(1): 108–126.
Boyce LA, Zaccaro SJ and Wisecarver MZ (2010) Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: 
Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. The Leadership 
Quarterly 21(1): 159–178.
Brown KW and Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological 
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(4): 822–848.
Carden J, Jones RJ and Passmore J (2021) Defining self-awareness in the context of adult development: A 
systematic literature review. Journal of Management Education 46(1): 140–177.
Carson JW, Carson KM, Gil KM, et al. (2004) Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior 
Therapy 35(3): 471–494.
Ceravolo D and Raines A (2019) The impact of a mindfulness intervention for nurse managers. Journal of 
Holistic Nursing 37(1): 47–55.
Choi E and Leroy H (2015) Methods of mindfulness: How mindfulness is studied in the workplace. In: 
Reb J and Atkins PWB (eds) Mindfulness in Organizations: Foundations, Research, and Applications. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67–99.
Ciulla JB and Forsyth DR (2011) Leadership ethics. In: Bryman A, Collinson D, Grint K, et al. (eds) The Sage 
Handbook of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 227–241.
Condon P, Desbordes G, Miller WB, et al. (2013) Meditation increases compassionate responses to suffering. 
Psychological Science 24(10): 2125–2127.
Crivelli D, Fronda G, Venturella I, et al. (2019) Stress and neurocognitive efficiency in managerial con-
texts: A study on technology-mediated mindfulness practice. International Journal of Workplace Health 
Management 12(2): 42–56.
Dane E and Rockmann KW (2020) Traveler’s mind: A narrative-based account of working and living mind-
fully. Journal of Management Inquiry 29(3): 330–337.
Davidson RJ and Kazniak AW (2015) Conceptual and methodological issues in research on mindfulness and 
meditation. American Psychologist 70(7): 581–592.
Day D and Dragoni L (2015) Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels 
of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2(1): 133–156.
Day DV, Fleenor JW, Atwater LE, et al. (2014) Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 
25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly 25(1): 63–82.
Day DV, Riggio RE, Tan TJ, et al. (2021) Advancing the science of 21st-century leadership development: 
Theory, Research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly 32(5): 101557.
Dietl E and Reb J (2021) A self-regulation model of leader authenticity based on mindful self-regulated atten-
tion and political skill. Human Relations 74(4): 473–501.
Donald JN, Sahdra BK, Van Zanden B, et al. (2019) Does your mindfulness benefit others? A systematic 
review and meta-analysis of the link between mindfulness and prosocial behaviour. British Journal of 
Psychology 110(1): 101–125.
Donaldson-Feilder E, Lewis R and Yarker J (2019) What outcomes have mindfulness and meditation inter-
ventions for managers and leaders achieved? A systematic review. European Journal of Work and 
Organizational Psychology 28(1): 11–29.
Donaldson-Feilder E, Lewis R, Yarker J, et al. (2022) Interpersonal mindfulness in leadership development. 
Journal of Management Education 46(5): 816–852.
Donaldson SI and Grant-Vallone EJ (2002) Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior 
research. Journal of Business and Psychology 17(2): 245–262.
du Plessis EM and Just SN (2021) Mindfulness—It’s not what you think: Toward critical reconciliation with 
progressive self-development practices. Organization 29(1): 209–221.
Eby LT, Allen TD, Conley KM, et al. (2019) Mindfulness-based training interventions for employees: A 
qualitative review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review 29(2): 156–178.
Eby LT, Robertson MM and Facteau DB (2020) Mindfulness and relationships: An organizational perspec-
tive. In: Buckley MR, Wheeler AR, Baur JR, et al. (eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources 
Management. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 57–102.
30 Management Learning 00(0)
Elkjaer B (2022) Taking stock of “organizational learning”: Looking back and moving forward. Management 
Learning 53(3): 582–604.
Eriksson P and Kovalainen A (2015) Qualitative Methods in Business Research: A Practical Guide to Social 
Research. London: SAGE.
Fazia T, Bubbico F, Salvato G, et al. (2020) Boosting psychological well-being through a social mindful-
ness-based intervention in the general population. International Journal of Environmental Research and 
Public Health 17: 8404.
Fredrickson BL, Cohn MA, Coffey KA, et al. (2008) Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced 
through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology 95(5): 1045–1062.
Galante J, Galante I, Bekkers M-J, et al. (2014) Effect of kindness-based meditation on health and well-
being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82(6): 
1101–1114.
Gethin R (2011) On some definitions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism 12(1): 263–279.
Gethin R (2015) Buddhist conceptualizations of mindfulness. In: Brown KW, Creswell JD and Ryan RM 
(eds) Handbook of Mindfulness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press, 9–14.
Gill R (2011) Theory and Practice of Leadership. London: SAGE.
Gioia DA, Corley KG and Hamilton AL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the 
Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16(1): 15–31.
Goldman-Schuyler K, Skjei S, Sanzgiri J, et al. (2017) “Moments of waking up”: A doorway to mindfulness 
and presence. Journal of Management Inquiry 26(1): 86–100.
Goleman D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Good DJ, Lyddy CJ, Glomb TM, et al. (2016) Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. 
Journal of Management 42(1): 114–142.
Guthey E, Ferry NC and Remke R (2022) Taking leadership fashions seriously as a vehicle for leadership 
learning. Management Learning 53(5): 397–416.
Humphrey RH, Pollack JM and Hawver T (2008) Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial 
Psychology 23(2): 151–168.
Hunter J (2015) Teaching managers to manage themselves: Mindfulness and the inside work of management. 
In: Reb J and Atkins PWB (eds) Mindfulness in Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
355–382.
Hyland PK, Lee RA and Mills MJ (2015) Mindfulness at work: A new approach to improving individual and 
organizational performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8(4): 576–602.
Ihl A, Strunk K and Fiedler M (2020) Interpretations of mindfulness practices in organizations: A multi-level 
analysis of interpretations on an organizational group individual level. Organization 26(5): 1099–1132.
Ihme KRM and Sundström P (2021) The mindful shield: The effects of mindfulness training on resilience and 
leadership in military leaders. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 57(2): 675–688.
Inceoglu I, Thomas G, Chu C, et al. (2018) Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated 
review and future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 29(1): 179–202.
Islam G, Holm M and Karjalainen M (2017) Sign of the times: Workplace mindfulness as an empty signifier. 
Organization 29(1): 3–29.
Kabat-Zinn J (2003) Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical 
Psychology: Science and Practice 10(2): 144–156.
Karjalainen M, Islam G and Holm M (2021) Scientization, instrumentalization, and commodification of 
mindfulness in a professional services firm. Organization 28(3): 483–509.
Karremans JC, Van Schie HT, Van Dongen I, et al. (2020) Is mindfulness associated with interpersonal for-
giveness? Emotion 20(2): 296–310.
Kay A and Young T (2022) Distanced from others, connected to self: Online mindfulness training fosters 
psychological well-being by cultivating authenticity. Academy of Management Learning & Education 
21(2): 261–281.
King E and Badham R (2020) The wheel of mindfulness: A generative framework for second-generation 
mindful leadership. Mindfulness 11(1): 166–176.
Urrila and Mäkelä 31
Kristeller J (2004) Meditation: Multiple effects, a unitary process? In: Blows M, Srinivasan S, Blows J, et al. 
(eds) The Relevance of Wisdom Traditions in Contemporary Society: The Challenge to Psychology. 
Delft: Eburon, 21–37.
Kwok N, Shen W and Brown DJ (2021) I can, I am: Differential predictors of leader efficacy and identity 
trajectories in leader development. The Leadership Quarterly 32(5): 101422.
Lange S and Rowold J (2019) Mindful leadership: Evaluation of a mindfulness-based leader intervention. 
Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation 50(3): 319–335.
Lincoln YS and Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Lippincott M (2018) Deconstructing the relationship between mindfulness and leader effectiveness. 
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 39(5): 650–664.
Liu Z, Venkatesh S, Murphy SE, et al. (2021) Leader development across the lifespan: A dynamic experi-
ences-grounded approach. The Leadership Quarterly 32(5): 101382.
Lundqvist C, Ståhl L, Kenttä G, et al. (2018) Evaluation of a mindfulness intervention for Paralympic 
leaders prior to the Paralympic games. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 13(1): 
62–71.
Mahfouz J (2018) Mindfulness training for school administrators: Effects on well-being and leadership. 
Journal of Educational Administration 56(6): 602–619.
Mumford MD, Zaccaro SJ, Harding FD, et al. (2000) Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving com-
plex social problems. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 11–35.
Nübold A, Van Quaquebeke N and Hülsheger UR (2019) Be(com)ing real: A multi-source and an interven-
tion study on mindfulness and authentic Leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology 35: 469–488.
Parker SC, Nelson BW, Epel ES, et al. (2015) The science of presence: A central mediator of the interpersonal 
benefits of mindfulness. In: Brown KW, Creswell JD and Ryan RM (eds) Handbook of Mindfulness: 
Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press, 225–244.
Pircher Verdorfer A (2016) Examining mindfulness and its relations to humility, motivation to lead, and 
actual servant leadership behaviors. Mindfulness 7(4): 950–961.
Purser R and Milillo J (2015) Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhist-based conceptualization. Journal of 
Management Inquiry 24(1): 3–24.
Purser RE (2018) Critical perspectives on corporate mindfulness. Journal of Management, Spirituality & 
Religion 15(2): 105–108.
Purser RE and Loy D (2013) Beyond McMindfulness. Huffington Post, 1 July. Available at: https://www.
huffpost.com/entry/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289 (accessed 5 January 2022).
Reb J, Narayanan J and Chaturvedi S (2014) Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of supervisor 
trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness 5(1): 36–45.
Reichard RJ and Johnson SK (2011) Leader self-development as organizational strategy. The Leadership 
Quarterly 22(1): 33–42.
Reina CS, Kreiner GE, Rheinhardt A, et al. (2022) Your presence is requested: Mindfulness infusion in work-
place interactions and relationships. Organization Science. Epub ahead of print 29 April. DOI: 10.1287/
orsc.2022.1596.
Roche M, Good D, Lyddy C, et al. (2020) A Swiss army knife? How science challenges our understanding of 
mindfulness in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics 49(10): 1016.
Rooney D, Küpers W, Pauleen D, et al. (2021) A developmental model for educating wise leaders: The role 
of mindfulness and habitus in creating time for embodying wisdom. Journal of Business Ethics 170(1): 
181–194.
Rosch DM and Villanueva JC (2016) Motivation to develop as leader. In: Reichard RJ and Thompson SE 
(eds) Leader Developmental Readiness: Pursuit of Leadership Excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey 
Bass, 49–60.
Rostron A (2022) How to be a hero: How managers determine what makes a good manager through narrative 
identity work. Management Learning 53(3): 417–438.
Rudolph CW, Allan B, Clark M, et al. (2021) Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial 
and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 14(1–2): 1–35.
Rupprecht S, Falke P, Kohls N, et al. (2019) Mindful leader development: How leaders experience the effects 
of mindfulness training on leader capabilities. Frontiers in Psychology 10(1): 1081.
32 Management Learning 00(0)
Salovey P and Mayer JD (1990) Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9(3): 
185–211.
Shapiro SL, Carlson LE, Astin JA, et al. (2006) Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 
62: 373–386.
Shapiro SL, Wang MC and Peltason EH (2015) What is mindfulness, and why should organizations care 
about it? In: Reb J and Atkins PWB (eds) Mindfulness in Organizations: Foundations, Research, and 
Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–41.
Shonin E and Van Gordon W (2015) Managers’ experiences of meditation awareness training. Mindfulness 
6(4): 899–909.
Shonin E, Van Gordon W and Griffiths MD (2014) Are there risks associated with using mindfulness in the 
treatment of psychopathology? Clinical Practice 11(4): 389–392.
Simonsen Abildgaard J, Hasson H, Von Thiele Schwarz U, et al. (2020) Forms of participation: The devel-
opment and application of a conceptual model of participation in work environment interventions. 
Economic and Industrial Democracy 41(3): 746–769.
Simonsen Abildgaard J, Nielsen K, Dyrlund Wåhlin-Jacobsen C, et al. (2020) ‘Same, but different’: A mixed-
methods realist evaluation of a cluster-randomized controlled participatory organizational intervention. 
Human Relations 73(10): 1339–1365.
Skoranski A, Coatsworth JD and Lunkenheimer E (2019) A dynamic systems approach to understanding 
mindfulness in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Child and Family Studies 28(10): 2659–2672.
Sutton A, Williams HM and Allinson CW (2015) A longitudinal, mixed method of self-awareness training in 
the workplace. Journal of Training and Development 39(7): 610–627.
Svalgaard L (2018) The critical moment of transition: Staying with and acting on newly gained self-and social 
awareness. Management Learning 49(3): 278–294.
Thorndike EL (1920) Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine 140: 227–235.
Uhl-Bien M (2006) Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. 
The Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 654–667.
Urrila L (2022) From personal well-being to relationships: A systematic review on the impact of mindfulness 
interventions and practices on leaders. Human Resource Management Review 32(3): 100837.
Varela FJ and Shear J (1999) First-person methodologies: What, why, how? Journal of Consciousness Studies 
6(2–3): 1–14.
Vich M, Lukeš M and Burian J (2020) Out of sight, out of mind? Exploring the long-term effects of Relational 
Mindfulness Training (RMT). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 16: 162–171.
Vonderlin R, Müller G, Schmidt B, et al. (2021) Effectiveness of a mindfulness- and skill-based health-
promoting leadership intervention on supervisor and employee levels: A quasi-experimental multisite 
field study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 26(6): 613–628.
Vu MC and Burton N (2020) Mindful reflexivity: Unpacking the process of transformative learning in mind-
fulness and discernment. Management Learning 51(2): 207–226.
Vu MC and Gill R (2018) Is there corporate mindfulness? An exploratory study of Buddhist-enacted spiritual 
leaders’ perspectives and practices. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion 15(2): 155–177.
Vu MC and Nguyen LA (2022) Mindful unlearning in unprecedented times: Implications for man-
agement and organizations. Management Learning. Epub ahead of print 13 January. DOI: 
10.1177/13505076211060433.
Walsh Z (2018) Mindfulness under neoliberal governmentality: Critiquing the operation of biopower in cor-
porate mindfulness and constructing queer alternatives. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 
15(2): 109–122.
Warren E, Melendez-Torres GJ, Viner R, et al. (2020) Using qualitative research to explore intervention 
mechanisms: Findings from the trial of the Learning Together whole-school health intervention. Trials 
21(1): 774.
Wasylkiw L, Holton J, Azar R, et al. (2015) The impact of mindfulness on leadership effectiveness in a health 
care setting: A pilot study. Journal of Health Organization and Management 29(7): 893–911.
White DE, Oelke ND and Friesen S (2012) Management of a large qualitative data set: Establishing trustwor-
thiness of the data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11(3): 244–258.
Yu L and Zellmer -Bruhn M (2018) Introducing team mindfulness and considering its safeguard role against 
conflict transformation and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal 61(1): 324–347.