Blending mindfulness practices and character strengths increases employee well‐being: A second‐order meta‐analysis and a follow‐up field experiment

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Lucas Monzani,Jordi Escartín,Lucia Ceja,A. B. Bakker
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12360

Received: 28 October 2019

-

Revised: 4 March 2021

-

Accepted: 13 April 2021

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12360

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Blending mindfulness practices and character

strengths increases employee well‐being: A

second‐order meta‐analysis and a follow‐up f‌ield

experiment

Lucas Monzani

1

|Jordi Escartín

2

|Lucia Ceja

3

|

A. B. Bakker

4,5

1

Ivey Business School at Western University,

London, Canada

2

Department of Social & Quantitative

Psychology, Universitat de Barcelona,

Barcelona, Spain

3

Chair in Family Business, IESE Business

School, Barcelona, Spain

4

Institute of Psychology at Erasmus

University Rotterdam, Erasmus University

Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

5

University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg,

South Africa

Correspondence

Lucas Monzani, Ivey Business School, 1255

Western Road – Rm 2359, London, Ontario,

Canada.

Email: lmonzani@ivey.ca

Abstract

This study summarises the existing literature on

Mindfulness‐Based Interventions (MBIs) and their effect on

employee well‐being criteria and extends it by testing MBIs

against a Mindfulness‐Strengths‐Based Intervention (MSBI).

Given that extant MBIs focus on restoring well‐being, our

f‌irst hypothesis was that MBIs would perform better on

reducing negative emotional states than on promoting well‐

being. To test our f‌irst hypothesis, we conducted a second‐

order meta‐analysis, which summarised 13 f‌irst‐order

meta‐analyses (k=311). MBIs had stronger effects on

reducing negative emotions (g= −0.74) than on increasing

well‐being (g=0.58). Then, we conducted a follow‐up f‌ield

experiment, comparing how an MSBI performed against an

MBI on employee well‐being criteria. An MSBI combines

mindful meditation, mindful living and Character‐Strengths‐

Abbreviations: AU, autonomy; B S‐E, between‐subjects effect; B‐W S‐E, between–within subjects effect; CFAs, conf‌irmatory factor analyses; CSBI,

character‐strengths‐based interventions; EM, environmental mastery; EWB, eudaimonic well‐being; HRM, human resource managers; HWB, hedonic

well‐being; MBCT, mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy; MBIs, mindfulness‐based interventions; MSBR, mindfulness‐based strengths reduction;

MBSR, mindfulness‐based stress reduction; MSBI, mindfulness‐strengths‐based Intervention; PA, positive affect; PG, personal growth; PL, purpose in

life; PNF, psychological needs fulf‌ilment; PR, positive relations; PWB, psychological well‐being; RM‐ANOVA, repeated‐measures analysis of variance;

RM‐MANCOVA,repeated‐measures covariate model; SA,self‐acceptance;T1, time 1; T2, time 2;TG,treatment group; WTS, wald‐type statistic; W S‐E,

within‐subjects effects.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which per-

mits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modif‌ica-

tions or adaptations are made.

© 2021 The Authors. Human Resource Management Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hum Resour Manag J. 2021;31:1025–1062. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

-

1025

Based Interventions. Our second hypothesis was that an

MSBI would outperform an MBI on increasing employee

well‐being criteria. During an MSBI, participants (a) attain a

conscious state of mindful awareness, and (b) direct their

attention towards the discovery and habitual exercise of

their character strengths. To test our second hypothesis, we

randomly assigned employees of a small Spanish healthcare

organisation to either an MSBI or an MBI intervention group.

We measured employee well‐being, before and after the

intervention, using two well‐established measures of he-

donic and eudaimonic well‐being. Our results show that both

interventions were successful and had a large effect on both

well‐being criteria. Further, as predicted, the MSBI group

reported higher absolute scores of well‐being than the MBI

group. Implications for theory and practice are discussed,

and detailed appendices for practitioners are provided.

KEYWORDS

character strengths, eudaimonia, hedonia, mindfulness, Positive

Affect, Psychological Well‐being

1

|

INTRODUCTION

In the United States alone, human resource managers (HRM) of large‐sized f‌irms spent approximately 3.6 million

USD on well‐being programmes during 2019 (Starner, 2019). Such a substantive investment in employee well‐being

seems justif‌ied, given that, according to the Society for Human Resources Management, HRMs declared an ROI

ranging from $1 to $4 per dollar invested in developing employee well‐being (Milligan, 2017). Employee well‐being

refers to ‘the overall quality of an employee's experience and functioning at work’ (Good et al., 2016, p. 126).

Besides productivity increases, employee well‐being relates to job satisfaction, extra‐role performance and reduced

turnover (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Wright et al., 2007). Thus, investing in promoting well‐being seems to be

good for business.

The practice of mindfulness at work is an eff‌icient way of promoting employee well‐being (Good et al., 2016;

Lomas et al., 2019). Mindfulness has been broadly def‌ined as ‘present‐centred attention and awareness’ (Good

et al., 2016, p. 115). Thirteen meta‐analyses support the link between the habitual practice of mindfulness and

several well‐being outcomes, such as reduced distress, increased positive affect and life satisfaction across work

sectors. Such improvements also occur within short‐term structured interventions, or Mindfulness‐Based In-

terventions (MBI). In an MBI, participants practise entering a mindful state by focusing on their breathing, their

body or their surroundings (see Kabat‐Zinn, 1990).

However, there is a substantive variation in the reported MBI meta‐analytic effects on well‐being criteria. For

example, in our review of 13 meta‐analyses, the effect sizes of MBIs on hedonic well‐being criteria ranged from

moderate (g= −0.32) to large (g= −0.66), and the effects on eudaimonic well‐being criteria ranged from small

(g=0.23) to large (g=0.68). Such variation warrants further study due to its important implications for the study

and the application of MBIs in work settings. Without precise effect sizes, statistical power analyses (Cohen, 1988)

would provide inaccurate sample size estimations for studies exploring the effect of MBIs on employee well‐being.

1026

-

MONZANI ET AL.

Similarly, without a trustworthy benchmark about how much improvement in employee well‐being can be expected,

HR practitioners might ‘oversell’ or ‘undersell’ the importance of exercising mindfulness at work. Thus, our work's

f‌irst contribution is to summarise the effect sizes of MBIs on employee well‐being by conducting a ‘bare‐bones’

second‐order meta‐analysis (Oh, 2020; Schmidt & Oh, 2013).

An interesting feature of the extant MBIs is their f‌lexibility and compatibility with other positive practices.

Most of the MBIs identif‌ied in our review were ‘hybrid’ in nature, meaning that they combine mindful meditation

with other types of well‐being‐promoting activities. The main rationale behind such a combination is that entering a

mindful state through meditation allows participants to better direct and sustain their attention towards the ac-

tivities of an MBI than if they did not enter a mindful state (Good et al., 2016).

A myriad of studies evidenced the restorative effect of MBIs and their potential to elicit changes in states, trait‐

like states or even stable traits. For example, the habitual practice of mindfulness increased reports of positive

affect (state), or mindfulness‐trait (trait‐like state), or even stable traits such as conscientiousness and neuroticism

(Giluk, 2009; Kiken et al., 2015). Further, the mechanisms underlying a mindfulness state (conscious attention and

awareness; experiential processing) can provide employees with new insights about their psychological strengths in

a way that elevates their habitual functioning. In turn, such change in strengths should elicit higher levels of in-

dividual well‐being (Niemiec et al., 2012).

Niemiec's (2014) Mindfulness‐Strengths‐Based Intervention (MSBI) is a hybrid MBI that combines mindful

meditation, mindful living, and Character‐Strengths‐Based interventions (CSBI). Character strengths are trait‐like,

foundational personal resources whose habitual activation elicits an optimal level of human functioning (Crossan

et al., 2017; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). But why would an MBI study combines mindfulness meditation with

character strength development practices when there are several other positive intervention activities available,

such as gratitude journals, acts of kindness, and so forth?

There are theoretical and empirical arguments for incorporating CSBI practices into an MBI. As support for the

theoretical argument, Niemiec (2012) explains how the ‘Five Mindfulness Trainings’ proposed by Thich Nhat

Hanh (1993) contribute to the development of character strengths. In turn, Niemiec et al. (2012) also argued that

the habitual exercise of character strengths supports mindful living on a positive developmental spiral. As support

for the empirical argument, a meta‐analysis comparing f‌ive types of positive interventions revealed that CSBI had

the strongest effect on well‐being (g=0.35; SE =0.10; Donaldson et al., 2019). However, no study has yet

compared how an MSBI performs against an MBI in promoting employee well‐being.

Niemiec's MSBI relies on meditation exercises to elicit a mindful state and then to target a person's experiential

attention ‘towards what is strong rather to what is wrong’ (Lottman et al., 2017, p. 7; Niemiec et al., 2012). In

Niemiec's words, ‘mindfulness and character strengths provide a mechanism for looking and a common language for

Practitioner Notes

Existing Mindfulness‐Based Interventions (MBIs) are more effective in increasing hedonic well‐being

(through the reduction of negative states; g= −0.74) than in the promotion of eudaimonic well‐

being (g=0.58).

In a f‌ield experiment among healthcare workers, we compared an MBI against a Mindfulness‐

Strengths‐Based Intervention (MSBI), an intervention designed to improve both hedonic and eudai-

monic well‐being.

As expected, both interventions had a large effect on employee well‐being. Yet, the MSBI group par-

ticipants reported higher post‐intervention scores on every facet of employee well‐being (hedonic and

eudaimonic) than the participants in the MBI group.

MONZANI ET AL.

-

1027