Level 1: within person

Level 1 in the FLMEW is based on Weiss and Cropanzano's (Reference Weiss and Cropanzano1996) affective events theory (AET). At the core of this theory is the idea that ‘affective events’ emanating from the organization's environment (e.g., change, leader behavior) lead employees to experience particular emotions (e.g., fear, anger, happiness, or sadness) that are acute and object-oriented (e.g., fear of a threat or anger when goals are thwarted). Such reactions can then become moods, which tend not to be object-oriented and are longer lasting than emotions (Frijda, Reference Frijda1986).

Weiss and Cropanzano (Reference Weiss and Cropanzano1996) argue that both emotions and moods translate into one of two forms of behavior. The first is spontaneous ‘affect-driven’ behavior, which may be either positive (e.g., helping a colleague) or negative (e.g., shouting at a colleague). This form of behavior represents a direct response to the event, mediated by the employee's emotional or mood state. The second form is deliberative ‘judgment-driven’ behavior like deciding to quit or be more productive, which comes about because of attitudes (e.g., job commitment, job satisfaction, anomie) resulting from the affective event (and the subsequent emotional reaction).

At the within-person level, mindfulness is measured as a psychological state. To date, three state mindfulness questionnaires have been developed and validated. The first is a five-item mono-factorial measure derived from the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, Reference Brown and Ryan2003), operationalized as the extent to which individuals are experiencing mindfulness in the present-moment. The second is a 10-item bi-factorial measure called the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (Lau et al., Reference Lau, Bishop, Segal, Buis, Anderson, Carlson and Devins2006). The third is a 21-item bi-factorial measure called the State Mindfulness Scale (Tanay & Bernstein, Reference Tanay and Bernstein2013). Although each of these measures reflects a slightly different conceptualization of mindfulness (for further details, see Kay et al., Reference Kay, Masters-Waage, Skarlicki and Griffin2019), what they have in common is that they treat mindfulness as an ephemeral psychological state, like the emotions and moods that occupy this level of the FLMEW.

Mindfulness can influence both affect-driven and judgment-driven behaviors through a host of different mechanisms (for reviews, see Good et al., Reference Good, Lyddy, Glomb, Bono, Brown, Duffy and Lazar2016; Hölzel, Lazar, Gard, Schuman-Olivier, Vago, & Ott, Reference Hölzel, Lazar, Gard, Schuman-Olivier, Vago and Ott2011; Kay et al., Reference Kay, Masters-Waage, Skarlicki and Griffin2019; Kudesia, Reference Kudesia2019; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, Reference Shapiro, Carlson, Astin and Freedman2006; Teasdale, Reference Teasdale1999; Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012). With respect to affect-driven behaviors, Hafenbrack, Kinias, and Barsade (Reference Hafenbrack, Kinias and Barsade2014) found that state mindfulness decreases state negative affect. Accordingly, it has been shown to lower defensive behavior in the face of socio-evaluative threat (Heppner et al., Reference Heppner, Kernis, Lakey, Campbell, Goldman, Davis and Cascio2008) and mortality salience (Niemiec et al., Reference Niemiec, Brown, Kashdan, Cozzolino, Breen, Levesque-Bristol and Ryan2010), as well as to make individuals better able to overcome emotional exhaustion from discrimination at work (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, & Webster, Reference Thoroughgood, Sawyer and Webster2020), and indeed more willing to face aversive events in general (Arch & Craske, Reference Arch and Craske2006). Conversely, mindfulness has also been shown to augment the positive affective consequences of breaks on motivation and work engagement (Chong, Kim, Lee, Johnson, & Lin, Reference Chong, Kim, Lee, Johnson and Lin2020).

Second, regarding judgment-driven behaviors, state mindfulness can reduce various forms of cognitive bias and associated behaviors, such as affective forecasting caused by impact bias (Emanuel, Updegraff, Kalmbach, & Ciesla, Reference Emanuel, Updegraff, Kalmbach and Ciesla2010), ‘throwing good money after bad’ owing to sunk cost bias (Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, Reference Hafenbrack, Kinias and Barsade2014); and reducing gambling behaviors stemming from overconfidence (Lakey, Campbell, Brown, & Goodie, Reference Lakey, Campbell, Brown and Goodie2007). In addition, Weinstein, Brown, and Ryan (Reference Weinstein, Brown and Ryan2009) found mindfulness to be associated with benign stress appraisals and avoidant coping, while Jahanzeb, Fatima, Javed, and Giles (Reference Jahanzeb, Fatima, Javed and Giles2020) showed that it acts to limit the impact of experiencing ostracism on work performance through acquiescent silence.

Level 2: between-persons

Level 2 of the FLMEW refers to the effects of individual differences in personality and temperament. Ashkanasy (Reference Ashkanasy, Dansereau and Yammarino2003a) specifically examined two emotion-related individual differences: (1) emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, Reference Mayer, Salovey, Salovey and Sluyter1997) and (2) trait affect (Watson & Tellegen, Reference Watson and Tellegen1985). In line with AET, Ashkanasy argues that emotional intelligence moderates the effect of affective events on employees' subsequent emotional reactions. Thus, compared to low emotional intelligence employees, high emotional intelligence employees are better able to perceive, assimilate, understand, and ultimately manage (or regulate) their emotions. Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Härtel (Reference Jordan, Ashkanasy and Härtel2002a, Reference Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel and Hooper2002b) argue that relative to their low emotional intelligence colleagues, emotionally intelligent employees are less reactive to affective events such as job loss (see also Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, Reference Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall and Salovey2006). Regarding trait affect, high positive affect (PA) individuals should naturally be more likely to experience positive affect in response to positive affective events than their low PA peers; similarly, high negative affect (NA) individuals would be expected to be more reactive to negative affective events than their low NA colleagues (cf. Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, Reference Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel and LeBreton2012).

At the between-person level, mindfulness is measured as a psychological trait. To date, at least eight trait mindfulness measures have been validated. The most widely used measure is the MAAS, which is a 15-item mono-factorial measure of the tendency to experience present-moment attention and awareness (Brown & Ryan, Reference Brown and Ryan2003). The two other most commonly used measures of trait mindfulness are the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS; Baer, Smith, & Allen, Reference Baer, Smith and Allen2004) and the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., Reference Baer, Smith, Lykins, Button, Krietemeyer, Sauer and Williams2008). Both of these measures contain 39 items assessing multiple factors including observing internal stimuli (e.g., emotions), describing internal stimuli (e.g., moods), acting with awareness, and nonjudgmental acceptance (of thoughts and emotions). Additionally, the FFMQ measures nonreactivity to inner experience (e.g., emotion regulation). Although each measure conceptualizes mindfulness slightly differently, the one factor they all have in common is present moment attention and awareness. In all cases, these measures treat mindfulness as a stable dispositional trait (for further details, see Kay et al., Reference Kay, Masters-Waage, Skarlicki and Griffin2019), like emotional intelligence and trait affectivity at this level of the FLMEW.

Trait mindfulness is related to both emotional intelligence and trait affectivity, as well as the Big Five dimensions of personality. Emotional intelligence has not only been shown to relate positively with trait mindfulness (Schutte & Malouff, Reference Schutte and Malouff2011), but also to improve with mindfulness practice (Nadler, Carswell, & Minda, Reference Nadler, Carswell and Minda2020). Moreover, a major component of emotional intelligence is emotion regulation (Gross, Reference Gross2013). Indeed, so closely linked is mindfulness with emotion regulation that Chambers, Gullone, and Allen (Reference Chambers, Gullone and Allen2009) use the term ‘mindful emotion regulation.’ Heppner, Spears, Vidrine, and Wetter (Reference Heppner, Spears, Vidrine, Wetter, Ostafin, Robinson and Meier2015) note further that ‘mindfulness benefits emotion regulation, including increased willingness to experience negative emotions, reduced reactivity to emotional stimuli and situations, a decentered perspective, and increased emotional stability’ (p. 107).

Concerning trait affectivity and personality, Brown and Ryan (Reference Brown and Ryan2003) found that mindfulness tends to be associated positively with PA and inversely with NA. In meta-analytic research, Giluk (Reference Giluk2009) and Haliwa, Wilson, Spears, Strough, and Shook (Reference Haliwa, Wilson, Spears, Strough and Shook2021) also found that, of the Big Five dimensions of personality, neuroticism (the negative affective dimension) is most inversely associated with trait mindfulness. These findings are further supported in a meta-analytic study by Sedlmeier et al. (Reference Sedlmeier, Eberth, Schwarz, Zimmermann, Haarig, Jaeger and Kunze2012), in which the author reported finding that mindfulness practice can significantly lower both neuroticism and trait negative affect.

More recently, researchers have begun to turn their attention to the role of individual differences in the effectiveness of mindfulness training. Notably, de Vibe, Bjørndal, Fattah, Dyrdal, Halland, and Tanner-Smith (Reference de Vibe, Bjørndal, Fattah, Dyrdal, Halland and Tanner-Smith2017) found that mindfulness training is most effective at improving subjective well-being in individuals who are high in neuroticism. Similarly, Kay and Young (Reference Kay and Young2022) showed that online mindfulness training improves psychological well-being by facilitating authenticity, but only in those who are high versus low in trait conscientiousness.

Level 3: interpersonal relationships (how emotions are perceived and communicated)

At level 3 in the FLMEW, Ashkanasy (Reference Ashkanasy, Dansereau and Yammarino2003a) analyzes the way employees communicate emotions to others inside and outside their organization. At this level, interpersonal mindfulness – broadly defined as how mindful people are in their interactions with others – comes to bear (see Arendt, Pircher Verdorfer, & Kugler, Reference Arendt, Pircher Verdorfer and Kugler2019; Pratscher, Wood, King, & Bettencourt, Reference Pratscher, Wood, King and Bettencourt2019; Reina, Kreiner, Rheinhardt, & Mihelcic, Reference Reina, Kreiner, Rheinhardt and Mihelcic2022). Nonetheless, both state and trait mindfulness also have implications for interpersonal relationships, and a small but rapidly growing strand of the mindfulness literature (e.g., see Eby, Robertson, & Facteau, Reference Eby, Robertson, Facteau, Buckley, Wheeler, Baur and Halbesleben2020) investigates the effects of mindfulness on affective communication with others. The primary focus in research to date has been on how mindfulness attenuates hostile emotions and behaviors. For example, Long and Christian (Reference Long and Christian2015) showed that mindfulness buffers retaliation to injustice by reducing anger. Liang et al. (Reference Liang, Lian, Brown, Ferris, Hanig and Keeping2016) showed that mindfulness also weakens the link between hostility and abusive supervision.

Similarly, Liang et al. (Reference Liang, Brown, Ferris, Hanig, Lian and Keeping2018) found that mindfulness decreases hostility and aggression by limiting the extent to which employees employ dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies like surface acting. Shaffakat, Otaye-Ebede, Reb, Chandwani, and Vongswasdi (Reference Shaffakat, Otaye-Ebede, Reb, Chandwani and Vongswasdi2021) further showed that mindfulness serves to down-regulate hostility by employees who experience psychological contract breach and the deviant workplace behaviors that flow therefrom.

By contrast, a growing body of research also shows that mindfulness fosters prosocial behaviors by facilitating positive emotional experience. For example, Hafenbrack et al. (Reference Hafenbrack, Cameron, Spreitzer, Zhang, Noval and Shaffakat2020) found that mindfulness increases prosocial behavior by augmenting empathy. Kay and Skarlicki (Reference Kay and Skarlicki2020) also demonstrated that mindfulness improves collaborative conflict management by facilitating cognitive reappraisal of emotions. Further, Sawyer et al. (Reference Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Stillwell, Duffy, Scott and Adair2021) showed that mindfulness fosters gratitude via positive affect and perspective taking, which in turn promotes helping workplace behaviors.

A budding line of research also shows that mindfulness can increase negative emotional experience and interpersonal behaviors. For example, Kay et al. (Reference Kay, Masters-Waage and Vlachos2023) show that mindfulness heightens moral outrage at third-party injustice and thereby incites deontic retribution against the offender. Hülsheger, van Gils, & Walkowiak (Reference Hülsheger, van Gils and Walkowiak2021) also showed that mindfulness can increase guilt for enacted incivility against colleagues without fostering reparation behaviors. It should be noted, however, that both Schindler, Pfattheicher, and Reinhard (Reference Schindler, Pfattheicher and Reinhard2019) and Hafenbrack, LaPalme, and Solal (Reference Hafenbrack, LaPalme and Solal2021) found the opposite; namely, that mindfulness lowers guilt for transgressing against others and thereby can reduce reparation behaviors. Given these opposing findings, further research on the effects of mindfulness on negative emotions and interpersonal behaviors at this level of the FLMEW is required.

Level 4: groups and teams

At this level of analysis, the FLMEW encompasses group processes and especially team leadership, which Ashkanasy (Reference Ashkanasy, Dansereau and Yammarino2003a) notes is a means to facilitate positive group emotions (Krzeminska, Lim, & Härtel, Reference Krzeminska, Lim, Härtel, Petitta, Härtel, Ashkanasy and Zerbe2018). To date, a nascent body of research shows mixed results on the relationship between team mindfulness and team affect. Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn (Reference Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn2018: 324) define team mindfulness as ‘a shared belief among team members that their interactions are characterized by awareness and attention to present events, and experiential, non-judgmental processing of within-team experiences.’ Operationalizing team mindfulness in this way, these authors found that it reduces the association between task conflict and relationship conflict at the team level, and social undermining that results from such conflict at the individual level. Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn (Reference Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn2018) did not theorize a role for negative affect in their model; however, they did control for it. Results showed no relationship between team mindfulness and negative affect.

Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Xin, Shen, He and Liu2020) found that team mindfulness enhances the positive relationship between individual mindfulness and recovery from stress or boredom at work, thereby leading to higher levels of engagement. Although they did not model affect, considering on the one hand the strong association between stress and negative affect and, on the other, the close link between work engagement and positive affect, it seems reasonable to infer from these findings that team mindfulness may facilitate positive group emotions.

Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Xin, Shen, He and Liu2020) further examined whether and how the individual mindfulness of team members affects team mindfulness via relational stress. Again, although these authors did not theorize a role for affect, they controlled for positive team affectivity and team emotional intelligence. Results showed no significant relationship between either control variable and team mindfulness. Xie (Reference Xie2021) found a positive relationship between individual team members' ability to regulate their emotions and team mindfulness.

Regarding leadership in teams, Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (Reference Sy, Côté and Saavedra2005) found that leaders have a special role to play in engendering a positive emotional tone. This effect is thought to be facilitated by emotional contagion (see Barsade, Reference Barsade2002; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, Reference Hatfield, Cacioppo and Rapson1993; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, Reference Sy, Côté and Saavedra2005). As Gooty, Connelly, Griffith, and Gupta (Reference Gooty, Connelly, Griffith and Gupta2010) argue, groups whose leaders foster a positive emotional tone become both more cohesive and more effective (see also Humphrey, Reference Humphrey2002). Given that mindfulness is associated with higher positive affect and lower negative affect at the individual level, it follows that leaders who are relatively mindful should also experience more positive affect and less negative affect. Moreover, self-reported mindfulness in leaders has been positively associated with greater psychological need satisfaction among subordinates (Reb, Narayanan, & Chaturvedi, Reference Reb, Narayanan and Chaturvedi2014), less stress (Liu, Zhao, & Lu, Reference Liu, Zhao and Lu2021), and emotional exhaustion (Schuh, Zheng, Xin, & Fernandez, Reference Schuh, Zheng, Xin and Fernandez2019), as well as higher subordinate ratings of Leader Member Exchange (LMX, see Amina, Hadi, Waheed, & Fayyaz, Reference Amina, Hadi, Waheed and Fayyaz2021; Tan, Wang, & Huang, Reference Tan, Wang and Huang2021; Wang, Shi, & Wang, Reference Wang, Shi and Wang2021), servant leadership (Verdorfer, Reference Verdorfer2016), and transformational leadership (Lange, Bormann, & Rowold, Reference Lange, Bormann and Rowold2018).

Level 5: the organization as a whole

At level 5 of the FLMEW, the organization's climate and culture become the focus of attention. Here it is important to differentiate between the concepts of climate and culture. Organizational climate, on the one hand, represents employees' collective conscious perceptions of their work environment (Schneider, Reference Schneider, Ashkanasy, Wilderom and Peterson2000; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, Reference Schneider, Ehrhart, Macey, Ashkanasy, Wilderom and Peterson2011). In terms of an affective dimension, climate is seen as ‘an objective (emotional) phenomenon that can be palpably sensed’ (de Rivera, Reference de Rivera and Strongman1992: 2). Organizational culture, on the other hand, has been characterized by Härtel and Ashkanasy (Reference Härtel, Ashkanasy, Ashkanasy, Wilderom and Peterson2011) as akin to a ‘fossil record.’ It derives from the organization's founder and evolves as a reflection of the collective experiences of organizational members (Schein, Reference Schein1992). In terms of the effects of culture, this may be seen in norms of emotional expression (or display rules; see Diefendorff & Richard, Reference Diefendorff and Richard2003) that the organization adopts. Note especially that, while organizational culture and climate represent different constructs, affect serves an important role in both (Ashkanasy, Reference Ashkanasy, Clegg and Bailey2007; James et al., Reference James, Choi, Ko, McNeil, Minton, Wright and Kim2008). In this regard, according to Virtanen (Reference Virtanen, Ashkanasy, Wilderom and Peterson2000), ‘climate is … more manifest than culture, and culture more latent than climate’ (p. 349). Thus, in effect, organizational members experience positive or negative affect as a consequence of the affective (or emotional) climate of their organization that is, in turn, determined by their organization's culture (cf. Pizer & Härtel, Reference Pizer, Härtel, Härtel, Zerbe and Ashkanasy2005).

As an example, consider the popularly conceived idea of a ‘climate of fear.’ In this regard, Ashkanasy and Nicholson (Reference Ashkanasy and Nicholson2003) found that this form of (negative) climate derives from the day-by-day management of individual units within the organization. In the extreme, such a negative climate can lead to what Frost (Reference Frost2007) characterizes as ‘toxic emotions’ that, in turn, lead to negative outcomes for employees, both in terms of productivity and well-being (see Ashkanasy & Daus, Reference Ashkanasy and Daus2002; Leavitt, Reference Leavitt2007). According to Härtel (Reference Härtel, Cooper and Ashkanasy2008; see also Härtel & Ashkanasy, Reference Härtel, Ashkanasy, Ashkanasy, Wilderom and Peterson2011), the antidote to such negativity lies in the development of a positive work environment (PWE). Härtel (Reference Härtel, Cooper and Ashkanasy2008) notes in this regard that employees working in an organization characterized by a PWE are, ‘respectful, inclusive and psychologically safe; leaders and co-workers as trustworthy, fair and open to diversity; and characterized by ethical policies and decision-making’ (p. 584).

Importantly, PWEs do not just arise spontaneously. Fujimoto, Härtel, and Panipucci (Reference Fujimoto, Härtel, Panipucci, Härtel, Zerbe and Ashkanasy2005) argue that this form of environment comes about because of positive leadership and human resource management (HRM) practices (see also Dutton & Ragins, Reference Dutton and Ragins2017). Fujimoto and her associates found further that such HRM policies and practices (i.e., PWEs) determine employees' positive attitudes to diversity. Ashkanasy, Härtel, and Bialkowski (Reference Ashkanasy, Härtel, Bialkowski, Yang, Cropanzano, Martinez-Tur and Daus2020) argue in addition that development of positive HRM policies and practices enable effective managing and monitoring of employees' affective experiences, especially by ensuring that managers are appropriately educated and trained. Ashkanasy, Härtel, and Bialkowski (Reference Ashkanasy, Härtel, Bialkowski, Yang, Cropanzano, Martinez-Tur and Daus2020) conclude (p. 379) that a PWE is a consequence of ‘facilitating positive workplace relationships (Krzeminska, Lim, & Härtel, Reference Krzeminska, Lim, Härtel, Petitta, Härtel, Ashkanasy and Zerbe2018), constructive conflict management (Ayoko & Härtel, Reference Ayoko, Härtel, Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Härtel2002), trust (Kimberley & Härtel, Reference Kimberley, Härtel, Härtel, Ashkanasy and Zerbe2007), diversity openness (Härtel & Fujimoto, Reference Härtel and Fujimoto2000), and organizational justice (Kimberley & Härtel, Reference Kimberley, Härtel, Härtel, Ashkanasy and Zerbe2007).’

We propose that the positive affective climate and culture that reflect a PWE are associated with mindfulness at level 5 of the FMLEW. In their seminal work in this area, Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (Reference Weick, Sutcliffe, Obstfeld, Staw and Sutton1999) described ‘organizational mindfulness’ as an organization-level phenomenon that is comprised of five interrelated processes. First, mindful organizations are preoccupied with failure, meaning they are vigilant against liabilities of success, including over-confidence and complacency. Second, mindful organizations are reluctant to simplify their interpretations of the world, meaning they actively question assumptions in order to uncover blind spots. Third, mindful organizations have a heightened sensitivity to their operations, meaning they strive always to maintain an integrated understanding of operations. Fourth, mindful organizations have a commitment to resilience, meaning they cultivate a capacity to respond to unexpected events by adapting, improvising, and learning from mistakes (Everly, Reference Everly2011). Fifth, mindful organizations have a fluid authority structure, meaning they subordinate hierarchical rank to expertise in order to better address problems as they arise.

These five aspects of organizational mindfulness are captured in both validated scales of mindful organizing to date. The first is a 9-item measure that encapsulates all five facets in a single dimension (Vogus & Sutcliffe, Reference Vogus and Sutcliffe2007a). The second is a 42-item measure in which the five facets split out into separate dimensions (Ray, Baker, & Plowman, Reference Ray, Baker and Plowman2011).

Sutcliffe, Vogus, and Dane (Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus and Dane2016) are careful to note that although organizational mindfulness may be facilitated by individual-level mindfulness, it is ‘not grounded in an assumption that individual level mindfulness is a necessary precondition for it’ (p. 73). More than an aggregate of individual-level mindfulness, organizational mindfulness is the result of collective practices that heighten attention to operational details in context so as to foster learning and adaptability in the name of minimizing error and maximizing performance (Vogus & Sutcliffe, Reference Vogus and Sutcliffe2012). In other words, organizational mindfulness is a truly collective phenomenon that is inextricably linked to an organization's culture (Sutcliffe, Vogus, & Dane, Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus and Dane2016).

Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on the relationship between organizational mindfulness and culture (Petitta & Martínez-Córcoles, Reference Petitta and Martínez-Córcoles2022). We argue nonetheless that organizations are more likely to engage effectively in mindful organizing when they have a PWE. Not only are organizations with a PWE more resilient (cf. Vogus & Sutcliffe, Reference Vogus and Sutcliffe2007b), but they also engender the psychological safety needed by employees to question assumptions (Edmondson, Reference Edmondson2002), defer to the expertise of subordinates (Nembhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006), and share their mistakes without fear of reprisal and thereby enable organizational learning (Skarlicki, Kay, Aquino, & Fushtey, Reference Skarlicki, Kay, Aquino and Fushtey2017).

Extending the notion that organizational mindfulness is supported by a PWE, a nascent literature suggests that organizational mindfulness may also be reflected in a positive ethical climate (Akca, Yavuz, & Atca, Reference Akca, Yavuz, Atca, Yadav, Panday and Sharma2021; Nguyen, Wu, Evangelista, & Nguyen, Reference Nguyen, Wu, Evangelista and Nguyen2020). In support of this notion, Lawrie, Tuckey, and Dollard (Reference Lawrie, Tuckey and Dollard2018) found that a safe work climate is associated with organizational and individual mindfulness. Similarly, organizational mindfulness may also engender a climate of trust that protects employees from the deleterious effects of controlling work environments leading to increased employee well-being (Schultz, Ryan, Niemiec, Legate, & Williams, Reference Schultz, Ryan, Niemiec, Legate and Williams2015).

PWE may foster mindfulness and well-being in employees at the individual level as well. For example, Reina and Kudesia (Reference Reina and Kudesia2020) showed that workplace environments characterized by positive social interactions help foster mindfulness in employees, which is well-known to foster individual well-being (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, Reference Brown, Ryan and Creswell2007). In other words, while the literature on organizational mindfulness is still underdeveloped, it seems that mindful organizing likely helps maintain an affective climate and culture that supports mindfulness and wellbeing at lower levels of the FLMEW.

Summary of the five levels

Up to this point, we have addressed the relationship between mindfulness and emotions at each of the five levels set out by Ashkanasy (Reference Ashkanasy, Dansereau and Yammarino2003a) in the FLMEW. Citing Weiss and Cropanzano's (Reference Weiss and Cropanzano1996) AET, at level 1 of the model (within-person temporal variability), we proffer the idea that state mindfulness is a phenomenon that can vary temporally depending on situation contingencies such as positive interactions with others. At level 2 (between-person and individual differences), we argue that individuals who are high in trait mindfulness tend to be more aware of emotions and better able to regulate them in self and others. At level 3 in the FLMEW, the focus is on interpersonal emotional exchanges and communication of emotion. By being able to control aggressive urges, interpersonally mindful employees are better equipped to communicate an air of calmness when under pressure at work, and to engage in prosocial behaviors. This suggests in addition that mindful employees would be more likely than others to engage in processes such as ‘co-regulating’ emotions with other parties (Troth et al., Reference Troth, Lawrence, Jordan and Ashkanasy2018).

At the group (level 4) and organizational (level 5) levels of analysis, the focus of the FLMEW shifts to collective behavior. While the mindfulness literature at the team level is still emerging and shows somewhat mixed results, research to date suggests that team mindfulness likely promotes a positive team climate and healthier exchanges between team members. For example, Druskat and Wolff (Reference Druskat, Wolff, Cherniss and Goleman2001) found that emotionally intelligent groups tend to be psychologically adjusted and therefore outperform less emotionally intelligent groups, and given the strong association between mindfulness and emotional intelligence, we expect that mindful teams enjoy similar benefits. When the organization is considered as a whole, budding evidence supports a similar conclusion: a PWE should tend to promote employee and organizational mindfulness and the benefits associated therewith.

The FLMEW as a dynamic system

That dynamism is an inherent property of the FLMEW is apparent beginning at level 1, which is based on Weiss and Cropanzano's (Reference Weiss and Cropanzano1996) concept of AET. Indeed, AET was developed specifically to address the constant changing nature of emotions and affect. In making their case for scholars to begin to tackle emotions and affect in organizations, Ashforth and Humphrey (Reference Ashforth and Humphrey1995) noted that this variability seemed to be largely responsible for their reluctance to do so. As a consequence, the within-person dimension of organizational behavior had been neglected in prior research, although this lack is now being addressed with methods like experience sampling (Fisher & To, Reference Fisher and To2012).

Ashkanasy and Härtel (Reference Ashkanasy, Härtel, Schneider and Barbera2014) argue that the temporal variability that characterizes emotions at level 1 can just as easily be applied to an organization's climate. In other words, depending on environmental factors affective climate can vary, irrespective of whether the culture in the organization represents a generally PWE. Thus, organizational members can still experience setbacks that result in stress and (state) negativity notwithstanding whether or not the organization's leadership and HRM policies are conducive to a PWE. The critical issue here is that, when setbacks occur, a PWE is helpful for facilitating the resilience that characterizes organizational mindfulness (Vogus & Sutcliffe, Reference Vogus and Sutcliffe2007b). Härtel and Ganegoda (Reference Härtel, Ganegoda, Zerbe, Härtel and Ashkanasy2008) argue in addition that, in a PWE, leaders are more likely to provide positive support to organizational members during difficult periods, which Reina and Kudesia (2020) show is conducive to state mindfulness at the individual level.

Dreison, Salyers, and Sliter (Reference Dreison, Salyers and Sliter2015) posit that mindfulness training needs to consider both employees' personality (at level 2) and the organization's culture (at level 5). These authors argue that to be effective, mindfulness training must meet the needs of the individual – as demonstrated by Kay and Young (Reference Kay and Young2022) – as well as the needs of the organization. In this instance, a PWE may be an important condition for promoting employee mindfulness. Thus, employees working in a ‘toxic’ organizational environment (cf. Frost, Reference Frost2007) may be more inclined to react negatively to their circumstances than their more mindful co-workers.

It is important to note, however, that under some circumstances mindfulness may become a conduit for negative emotions. In this regard, Britton (Reference Britton2019: 159) asked, ‘[c]an mindfulness be too much of a good thing?’ Britton suggests that, like other psychological variables, mindfulness is a ‘nonmonotonic’ variable (i.e., conforms to an inverted U-shaped relationship), where there is an optional ‘sweet spot,’ after which the benefits begin to drop away. Thus, a mindful employee might, under some circumstances, be highly sensitized to environmental stimuli, leading to negative emotions and consequent negative attitudes and behaviors.

In support of this idea, Kay et al. (Reference Kay, Masters-Waage and Vlachos2023) found that individuals who are high versus low in mindfulness experience greater moral outrage upon witnessing the mistreatment of others – but only when the mistreatment is subtle as opposed to exaggerated. The reasoning proffered for this finding is that even nonmindful individuals are affected by the extreme mistreatment of others, whereas mindfulness helps them recognize more subtle (and therefore more common) instances of third-party injustice.

The cross-level interactive nature of the FLMEW

The apparent simplicity of the FLMEW belies the fact that processes and emotions at each level interact with each other in a complex cross-level fashion. For example, Gross and John (Reference Gross and John2003) found in this regard that temporal variations in emotions at level 1 are moderated by individual differences at level 2. Ashkanasy (Reference Ashkanasy, Dansereau and Yammarino2003b; see also Ashkanasy & Dorris, Reference Ashkanasy and Dorris2017; Ashkanasy & Humphrey, Reference Ashkanasy and Humphrey2011) notes further that, although an individual employee's behaviors and emotions (at level 1) vary moment-by-moment, this can also depend on their level of emotional intelligence (at level 2), their ability to read and communicate emotions (at level 3), as well as their environment, in terms of the team they are working in (at level 4), and their organization's broader climate and culture (level 5).

In this regard, Lakey et al. (Reference Lakey, Campbell, Brown and Goodie2007) found that in-the-moment mindfulness (level 1) helps employees overcome the effects of personal biases (level 2). In addition, Hafenbrack et al. (Reference Hafenbrack, Cameron, Spreitzer, Zhang, Noval and Shaffakat2020) reported links between state mindfulness (level 1) and empathy (level 3). Further, Thoroughgood, Sawyer, and Webster (Reference Thoroughgood, Sawyer and Webster2020) found that trait mindfulness (level 2) enables employees to better deal with a discriminatory work environment (level 5). For example, mindful individuals (at level 2) are more likely than their less mindful colleagues to deal appropriately with colleagues who are reacting emotionally (at level 1) following a group-level conflict (at level 4). Similarly, at the group level (level 4), Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn (Reference Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn2018) report finding that team mindfulness helps team members deal with interpersonal conflicts (at level 1). Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Xin, Shen, He and Liu2020) found in addition that trait mindfulness (level 2) can influence team mindfulness (level 4), while Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Zheng, Yu, Owens and Ni2022) also found that team mindfulness (level 4) helps to improve relationships between team members (level 3) (see also Amina et al., Reference Amina, Hadi, Waheed and Fayyaz2021; Tan, Wang, & Huang, Reference Tan, Wang and Huang2021; Wang, Shi, & Wang, Reference Wang, Shi and Wang2021). Finally, in line with the cross-level interactive nature of the FLMEW, Sutcliffe, Vogus, and Dane (Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus and Dane2016) suggest that organizational mindfulness (level 5) is associated with mindfulness at lower levels of the FLMEW, which raises promising avenues for future research.

Level 1: within-person

Much work still needs to be done at this level of analysis to examine the effects and dynamics of mindfulness on state affect and discrete emotions. For example, the vast preponderance of mindfulness research to date has focused on negative as opposed to positive affect. Although studies have started to show that mindfulness training is beneficial for both negative and positive state affect (Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, Chin, Greco, Young, Brown, Wright and Creswell2018), relatively little is known about the relative strength and durability of these effects.

Research is also needed to examine the implications of mindfulness for a host of discrete emotions that commonly arise in the workplace. For example, research is needed to understand the effects of mindfulness on emotional experiences such as boredom, interest, pride, shame, and excitement, each of which has important implications for workplace behavior (e.g., see Hayward, Ashkanasy, & Baron, Reference Hayward, Ashkanasy, Baron, Lindebaum, Geddes and Jordan2018). A further question that arises here is whether some discrete emotions might increase mindfulness in certain circumstances. For example, experiencing emotions such as awe, authentic pride, or elevation might make employees feel more mindful in the moment, and thereby lead them to respond to affective workplace events differently than they otherwise would. On this note, given the challenges of studying emotions in real time, researchers would do well to employ more experience sampling methods to investigate the implications of mindfulness for these and other discrete emotions at work (cf. Beal, Reference Beal2015; Gabriel et al., Reference Gabriel, Podsakoff, Beal, Scott, Sonnentag, Trougakos and Butts2019), including the potential for reverse causation.

Level 2: individual differences

Research at this level has only just started to scratch the surface of the relationship between mindfulness and personality and affective traits like emotional intelligence. For example, extending the findings by Nadler, Carswell, and Minda (Reference Nadler, Carswell and Minda2020) that mindfulness training can improve emotional intelligence, research is needed to investigate whether and to what extent these effects are lasting, or whether they degrade over time after training ends.

Additionally, building from the discovery by Kay, Hafenbrack, and Skarlicki (Reference Kay, Hafenbrack and Skarlicki2017) that mindfulness training improves eudaimonic well-being only among individuals who are low in dispositional authenticity, research is needed to examine possible ceiling effects in mindfulness training. For example, if individuals are already highly emotionally intelligent, it seems reasonable to expect that the effects identified by Nadler, Carswell, and Minda (Reference Nadler, Carswell and Minda2020) may not be as pronounced as they would be for those who are low in emotional intelligence. Amidst growing research showing that mindfulness does not have exclusively positive outcomes (Hafenbrack & Vohs, Reference Hafenbrack and Vohs2018; Lyddy, Good, Bolino, Thompson, & Stephens, Reference Lyddy, Good, Bolino, Thompson and Stephens2021), research is needed on the effects of mindfulness training for individuals with dark personality traits like psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (Kay et al., Reference Kay, Masters-Waage, Skarlicki and Griffin2019). Indeed, since emotionally intelligent Machiavellians have been shown to engage in more interpersonally deviant workplace behaviors (Côté, DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef, & Hideg, Reference Côté, DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef and Hideg2011), the question arises as to whether cultivating emotional intelligence in such individuals through mindfulness training might yield similarly negative outcomes.

Level 3: interpersonal relationships

At this level, research is needed to investigate the implications of mindfulness on the experience and expression of moral emotions and virtue ethics. For example, in light of conflicting findings in the literature to date on the effects of mindfulness on affective guilt (Hafenbrack, LaPalme, & Solal, Reference Hafenbrack, LaPalme and Solal2021; Hülsheger, van Gils, & Walkowiak, Reference Hülsheger, van Gils and Walkowiak2021), research is needed to resolve this contradiction, such as by examining when mindfulness is more likely to heighten versus dampen guilt and resulting repair behaviors (i.e., contextual moderator), or for whom it might do so (i.e., individual difference moderator).

In addition, little is yet known about the relationship between mindfulness and trust in the workplace. Given that trusting others is inherently risky, while mindfulness tends to lower anxiety (Hayes, Bond, & Barnes-Holmes, Reference Hayes, Bond and Barnes-Holmes2006), it seems reasonable to expect that mindfulness may increase the propensity to trust others. Similarly, building from research demonstrating that mindfulness fosters forgiveness between romantic partners (Karremans et al., Reference Karremans, van Schie, van Dongen, Kappen, Mori, van As and van der Wal2020), research is needed to test whether and under what circumstances mindfulness may promote forgiveness in the workplace. Finally, building from findings that mindfulness increases moral outrage in observers of injustice in a third-party context (Kay et al., Reference Kay, Masters-Waage and Vlachos2023), research is needed to examine the implications of mindfulness in other third-party contexts, such as whether it heightens prosocial emotions like elevation in individuals who witness uncommon acts of moral virtue.

Level 4: groups and teams

Here, a great deal of research still needs to be done. In particular, psychological safety – which Edmondson (Reference Edmondson1999) defines as the shared belief by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking – appears to be a particularly promising line of inquiry. Indeed, given the fundamental importance of psychological safety for team functioning (Edmondson & Lei, Reference Edmondson and Lei2014) as well as the benefits of mindfulness for prosocial behavior (Donald et al., Reference Donald, Sahdra, Van Zanden, Duineveld, Atkins, Marshall and Ciarrochi2019), it is surprising that so little research to date has been done on the relationship between team mindfulness and psychological safety.

Similarly, although team mindfulness has been shown to be inversely associated with affective team conflict (Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, Reference Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn2018), research is needed on the implications of team mindfulness for outcomes like voice, trust, and team cohesion. Further, a paucity of research has examined if mindfulness training can cultivate team mindfulness, or whether it might causally reduce team conflict or indeed any other affective outcome at the individual or team level. Such research is important to determine whether mindfulness and the prosocial emotions and behaviors that tend to flow from it can be improved in work teams. Finally, although a small body of research has investigated the association between self-reported trait mindfulness in supervisors and subordinate outcomes (Reb, Narayanan, & Chaturvedi, Reference Reb, Narayanan and Chaturvedi2014; Schuh et al., Reference Schuh, Zheng, Xin and Fernandez2019), the term ‘mindful leadership’ has now made its way into common parlance (Carroll, Reference Carroll2008) with little supporting research about whether this is truly a valid and measurable leadership style. Such research has the potential to open-up a new field in leadership studies.

Level 5: the organization

This level is arguably the least developed in terms of research on mindfulness and the FMLEW, and it is in particular need of scholarly attention. In this sense, it might be called the ‘final frontier’ of research on the affective implications of mindfulness at work. At this level, we regard at least two avenues of future research as holding special promise.

The first concerns the relationship between organizational mindfulness and affective phenomena at level 5 of the FMLEW. We have argued in this article that organizational mindfulness is associated with a PWE, and a nascent body of research offers tentative support for this view. For example, evidence has started to emerge that organization-level mindfulness is positively associated with organizational trust (Tabancali & Öngel, Reference Tabancali and Öngel2020) and collaborative climate (Tabancali & Öngel, Reference Tabancali and Öngel2022). Future research is needed to chart the affective nomological network of organizational mindfulness at the organizational level. As noted by Suttcliffe Vogus, and Dane (Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus and Dane2016), organizational mindfulness may also be reciprocally related to various aspects of organizational culture like psychological safety climate, to which we also add emotional display rules and affective climate. While organizational mindfulness is likely linked with organizational culture (Petitta & Martínez-Córcoles, Reference Petitta and Martínez-Córcoles2022), future research is needed to tease out whether organizational mindfulness is an antecedent or outcome of its various contents.

A second avenue for future research concerns the relationship between organizational mindfulness and affective phenomena at other levels of the FLMEW. We have highlighted in this article that mindfulness at one level of the FLMEW can have cross-level effects on affective outcomes at other levels. In a similar vein, Sutcliffe, Vogus, and Dane (Reference Sutcliffe, Vogus and Dane2016) suggest that there may be a relationship between mindfulness at the individual and organizational levels; however, research is still needed to test whether individual mindfulness is related to mindfulness at the organizational level (Shahbaz & Parker, Reference Shahbaz and Parker2021). Johnson, Park, and Chaudhuri (Reference Johnson, Park and Chaudhuri2020) identify no research to date on the effects of mindfulness training on organization-level phenomena, which may in part be due to the challenge of recruiting enough participants to reliably measure level 5 outcomes. Rupprecht, Koole, Chaskalson, Tamdjidi, and West (Reference Rupprecht, Koole, Chaskalson, Tamdjidi and West2019) further suggest the effects of mindfulness training on organization-level phenomena may be enhanced if accompanied by a focus on organizational processes. Though potentially true, such research would need to be carefully designed to tease out the differential effects of training in mindfulness versus other organizational processes.