Does Mindfulness Increase Leader Moral Action Through Unveiling Organizational Politics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distressing trends and the destructive effects of leadership are widespread, yet the revival of morality in leaders’ behaviors remains poorly understood. This study, drawing on behavioral integrity and dynamic (managerial) capabilities theory, investigates how leaders’ moral actions are activated through personal resources while tapping into contextual factors. More specifically, employing a quasi-experimental research design with a waitlist control group (n = 30 in total), the current study examines the effects of an 8-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program on psychological well-being, proactive coping, locus of control, awareness of organizational politics, moral foundations, and the subsequent enactment of moral actions among middle-level leaders. The findings uncover a paradox: while mindfulness enhances leader mindfulness, psychological well-being, internal locus of control, and valuation of fairness as one of the moral foundations; its translation into political awareness and moral action is complex. Increased personal resources do not directly result in improved political awareness or moral behavior among leaders, indicating a complex interplay between mindfulness and moral leader behavior. This study adds to the growing body of literature on mindfulness and leadership, advocating for further research into how mindfulness unveils morality in leadership while navigating the challenging dynamics of organizational politics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".