How and when leader mindfulness influences team member interpersonal behavior: Evidence from a quasi-field experiment and a field survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although studies have verified the beneficial effects of individual mindfulness in the workplace, the knowledge of how leader mindfulness crosses over to team members’ interpersonal behavior via affective-related mechanisms as well as when leader mindfulness is ineffective remains limited. Based on motivated empathy theory and the mindfulness literature, this research develops a model in which leader mindfulness enhances leader empathic concern, thereby improving team members’ empathic concern and, in turn, increasing their interpersonal organizational citizenship behavior and decreasing their interpersonal counterproductive work behavior. When workplace hindrance stressors within a team are lower (vs higher), the effect of leader mindfulness on leader empathic concern becomes ineffective. We tested this model using two studies: (1) a quasi-field experiment in which 72 front-line leaders were assigned to either a mindfulness intervention condition or a waitlist control condition and (2) a three-wave, time-lagged survey using a sample of 84 leaders and 697 members. Both studies provide consistent support for our hypotheses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".