Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ausmj

Mindfulness and job performance: Does creativity matter?

Liem Viet Ngo a, Nguyen Phong Nguyen b,∗, Jenny Lee (“Jiyeon”) a, Vasiliki Andonopoulos a
a
School of Marketing, UNSW Sydney, Kensington Campus, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
b
School of Accounting, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Mindfulness is being fully awake with the here-and-now moment. This study examines the mechanisms
Received 7 February 2019 through which mindfulness enhances job performance. Specifically, we hypothesise that the relationship
Revised 22 December 2019
between mindfulness and service employees’ job performance is mediated by creative process engage-
Accepted 23 December 2019
ment and employee creativity. Using a sample of 180 full-time employees working at a professional ser-
Available online 7 January 2020
vice company, we find that job performance is significantly affected by employee creativity. The mediat-
Keywords: ing effect of creative process engagement and employee creativity on the linkage between mindfulness
Mindfulness and job performance is also found to be significant.
Creative process engagement © 2019 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Employee creativity
Job performance
c h i n e s e a b s t r a c t

, .., 

. 180 , 
. 
 .
© 2019 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Prior research has suggested that employee mindfulness is

related to job performance (Shao and Skarlicki, 2009). Mindfulness
The practice of mindfulness is ample in meanings. As such, is found to have a positive linkage to the processes essential to
the paths towards achieving a state of mindfulness have been creativity (Colzato et al. 2012; Lutz et al. 2007). Such process
practised through history using a variety of methods. Mindfulness often referred to as creative process engagement, indicates “em-
is simply defined as a state of actively being able to focus on ployee involvement in creativity-relevant methods or processes,
the immediate moment and practice acceptance in the absence including (1) problem identification, (2) information searching
of judgment. Baer et al. (2006) conceptualise mindfulness as a and encoding, and (3) idea and alternative generation” (Zhang
complete set of skills rather than a concept; that is, it embraces and Bartol, 2010b, p.108). Some findings provided empirical evi-
the abilities (1) to pay attention to various stimuli through ob- dence of supporting the positive relationship between mindfulness
servation, (2) to focus and act with full awareness, (3) to give a and creativity. Nonetheless, the mediating effect of creativity on
non-evaluative verbal description of one’s observation, and (4) to the positive relationship between mindfulness and job perfor-
avoid immediate evaluation. Originated from ancient Eastern med- mance has yet been tested. Although it is possible to assume
itation and yoga traditions, this practice to the general population that creativity and creativity-related engagement are linked to
is conceived of paying attentions through intentional observation. the mindfulness-performance relationship, their linkages have
It is paired with a non-judgmental observation of present-moment not yet been simultaneously examined in the literature. In the
experiences, including bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, and current study, we extend classical and contemporary discussions
external stimuli from the environment to enhance the practice of the mindfulness-performance linkage by introducing creative
(e.g., Baer, 2003; Grossman et al. 2004). process engagement and employee creativity as novel mediators
for explaining the mindfulness effect. Specifically, we explore
how mindfulness activates creative process engagement, which
∗ in turns enhances employee creativity, providing insight into the
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: liem.ngo@unsw.edu.au (L.V. Ngo), mindfulness-performance linkage. Together, these advances pro-
nguyenphongnguyen@ueh.edu.vn (N.P. Nguyen), jylee@unsw.edu.au (J. Lee),
v.andonopoulos@unsw.edu.au (V. Andonopoulos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.12.003
1441-3582/© 2019 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
118 L.V. Ngo, N.P. Nguyen and J. Lee et al. / Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123

ies (Gunaratana, 2001), mindfulness has recently been drawn re-

searchers’ attention to deal with a large variety of physical and
psychological disorders (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Keng et al. 2011). Based
on a largely Buddhist concept in the Eastern world about 2600
years ago, this notion has been applied to Western mainstream
psychotherapy and psychology disciplines. Mindfulness in psychol-
ogy is described as “the awareness that emerges through paying
attention to purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally
Fig. 1. Conceptual model. to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn,
2003, p. 145). It is characterised by non-evaluative, dispassion-
ate, and sustained awareness of what is happening in the present
vide timely insights into the mindfulness-performance literature moment (Brown et al. 2007). In other words, it involves focusing
and foster movement in this direction. and enhancing the individuals’ attention towards their moment-
In the remainder of this paper, we provide a deeper discussion by-moment experiences. When one is mindful, one can keep close
of employee mindfulness, creative process engagement, and em- control of and observe thoughts and feelings from a distance. As
ployee creativity. We then develop our hypotheses, and present a such, the state of being mindful is considered as a key element
test of our theoretical model in a cross-sectional study of 180 full- in obtaining and maintaining a sense of happiness (Wallace and
time employees working at a professional service company that Shapiro, 2006). The core characteristics of mindfulness are featured
requires some degrees of creativity in the workplace. as receptive attention of present events reflected in a sustained
consciousness of ongoing experiences (Brown and Ryan, 2003) and
2. Literature review continuous and immediate awareness of physical perceptions, sen-
sations, affective thoughts, imagery and states (Grossman et al.,
2.1. Theoretical background 2004).

We propose the conceptual model that mindfulness at work 2.3. Employee creativity and engagement in the creative process
has a positive effect on creative process engagement and employee
creativity, which in turn leads to job performance (see Fig. 1). Creativity is broadly defined as “a behaviour resulting from par-
As aforementioned, little work has been done to simultaneously ticular constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities,
examine the indirect impact of mindfulness on job performance and social environments” (Amabile, 1983, p. 358). Sternberg and
through employee engagement in the creative process and em- Lubart (1996) narrowly conceptualise this concept as having the
ployee creativity. ability to produce novel and appropriate ideas. In an organizational
Our model is derived from the psychological literature on mind- context, employee creativity is about either doing things in new
fulness meditation and cognition (Colzato et al., 2012; Moore and better ways or generating useful ideas related to processes,
and Malinowski, 2009) and the componential theory of creativity services, methods, products, or problems solutions to make contri-
(Amabile, 1983, 1996). It has suggested that mindfulness practice butions to business environment and development (Amabile, 1988;
significantly impacts cognitive states, which underlie our concep- George and Zhou, 2001; Woodman et al. 1993).
tual model. For instance, Moore and Malinowski (2009) find that Novel and useful solutions are produced through iterative
mindfulness achieved through meditation leads to a considerable processes that employees engage in creative acts (Drazin et al.
enhancement of attentional functions and cognitive flexibility. Sim- 1999; Gilson and Shalley, 2004). Creative processes usually involve
ilarly, Colzato et al. (2012) suggest a close linkage of meditation several steps, starting from identifying problems, constructing
types to cognitive-control states. hypotheses, and brainstorming ideas with others, to challenging
Amabile’s (1983, 1996) seminal work further sheds light on the the status quo (Torrance, 1988). Engagement in creative processes
mechanism that links individual employees’ characteristics and involves employees physically, cognitively, and emotionally seeking
capabilities and the working environment to creativity - both en- out better solutions to the identified problems (Kahn, 1990).
gagement in its process and outcome. The componential theory of Zhang and Bartol (2010b) refer it to as “employees’ engagement in
creativity proposed by Amabile (1983) highlights the importance creativity-relevant methods or processes, including problem identi-
of the social and psychological components (e.g., collaborative fication, information searching and coding, and idea and alternative
teamwork and supportive supervisors) necessary for employees to generation” (p. 107). As such, the construct in the current study is
produce creative outcomes. The theory underscores a close associ- defined as employees fully engaging in the process of identifying a
ation of employee engagement in the creative process—manifested problem and searching out all the possible solutions by weighing
by the flexibility with the attention given to a particular task, alternatives obtained from various information sources.
the exploration of cognitive pathways, and the extent to which a
particular pathway is followed to pursuit a solution—with creative 2.4. Development of hypotheses
outcomes (Amabile, 1996). With such cognitive processes being
interrupted, the critical information will not be accessed or used 2.4.1. Mindfulness and creative process engagement
in solving problems, which then results in low creativity (Shalley, Organisational psychologists have identified several factors that
1995). This theory of creativity has been adapted in prior research drive employee engagement in creative processes at work. For ex-
that explains how employees engage in creative processes to boost ample, Gilson and Shalley (2004) found that team creative pro-
their creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Gilson, 2008; Shalley et al. cesses within a strategic business unit of a large multi-national or-
20 04; Zhou and George, 20 03) and overall job performance (Zhang ganisation were positively related to employees’ perceptions of job
and Bartol, 2010a). requirements in terms of creativity, interdependence, and shared
goals, and supportive organisational climate. Zhang and Bartol
2.2. Employee mindfulness (2010b) also observed that intrinsic motivation and, to a lesser ex-
tent, psychological empowerment positively affected the creative
Primarily known as an element of the Buddhist tradition and process engagement of employees at an information technology
discussed mostly in the fields of philosophy and religious stud- company in China. Although these studies provide some insights
 L.V. Ngo, N.P. Nguyen and J. Lee et al. / Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123 119

on identifying individual and contextual factors that impact cre- ity, by definition, is a behavioural outcome (Amabile, 1983) that
ative problem solving, the relationships among the constructs (i.e., can be promoted by employee engagement in the creative process
employees’ state of mind, engagement in creative processes, and (Amabile, 1996; Henker et al., 2015; Zhang and Bartol, 2010a,b).
creativity) have not been empirically tested yet. Furthermore, researchers have implicitly suggested a positive
Some earlier research has hinted at a possible relationship linkage of mindfulness to creativity. Brown et al. (2007) maintained
between mindfulness at work and employee creative process that mindful employees could suppress feelings of peer judgment
engagement. For instance, Moore and Malinowski (2009) com- in the workplace. As being in a state of creative process engage-
pared Buddhist meditators with non-meditators in terms of their ment particularly requires relinquishing feelings of self-doubt and
cognitive flexibility and attentional functions. They observed that insecurity, employees are often naturally confident enough to be
mediators who experienced high levels mindfulness (i.e., observ- outspoken or generate ideas. Given all employees are not natu-
ing, describing, acting with awareness, and accepting without rally predisposed towards confident behaviour, meditations are
judgment) by the completion of a minimum 6-week meditation beneficial for individuals who are socially prevented from being
course reported better task performance (e.g., greater attentional outspoken with their creative thoughts by means of transcending
control, accuracy of visual scanning, inhibitory control, carefulness, feelings of peer and workplace judgment (Ho, 2011). Baird et al.
cognitive flexibility, and performance quality) in comparison to (2012) demonstrated that some factors, such as loss of inhibition
their counterparts. Their findings suggest a positive linkage of and mind wandering, could enhance creativity after being in a
mindfulness to cognitive flexibility, defined as “the human ability complete state of mindfulness. Zabelina et al. (2015) also high-
to adapt cognitive processing strategies to face new and unex- lighted the process as being that of a complex set of emotions dis-
cepted conditions” (Moore and Malinowski, 2009, p. 177). Using tinctively different from the complete stillness that allows individ-
a sample of 19 practitioners, Colzato et al. (2012) also examined uals in a ‘mindful’ state to generate creative thoughts and output.
the association of mindfulness (measured by with meditation Accordingly, we argue that mindfulness, as a state of height-
techniques) creative process engagement (operationalised with ened attention and awareness, positively an employee’s willingness
divergent and convergent thinking). They observed that many new to engage in a creative process that will impact employee creativ-
ideas (i.e., divergent thinking) were generated by open-monitoring ity. That is, being mindful allows employees to activate their cre-
(“open to perceive and observe any sensation or thought without ativity through their engagement in the creative process to bring
focusing on a concept in the mind or a fixed item,” p. 1) more out novel ideas and useful solutions. Our hypothesis is constructed
effectively than focused-attention (“focusing on a particular item, as follows:
thought, and object,” p. 1), whereas there was no significant H2 : Creative process engagement mediates the effect of mind-
difference between mediating types in finding one best solution to fulness on employee creativity.
a particular problem (i.e., convergent thinking). To summarise, the
enhancement of positive mood induced by meditations is found to
impact creativity-related cognitive processes.
Therefore, it is conceivable that such practices enable individ-
uals who actively seek out meditative time to reach a state of
mindfulness by regulating their focus and acting with consistent
attention and awareness. Elevated mindfulness can improve one’s 2.4.3. Linking mindfulness to job performance through employee
working memory (Chiesa et al. 2011) and cognitive state (i.e., creative process engagement and creativity
awareness; Carson and Langer, 2006) that allows employees to The search for job performance enhancement and improving
partake in non-habitual behaviour and more readily generate employee efficiency from a managerial perspective is, in many
creative thoughts (Moore and Malinowski, 2009). Creativity is ways, eternal (Edvinsson et al. 2004). Being in a meditative state
often manifested in innovative work behaviour (Amabile, 1988). has been studied extensively in the literature (e.g., Colzato et al.,
As a state of mindfulness is conducive to emotional and interper- 2012; Ostafin and Kassman, 2012), all of which aim to pinpoint
sonal functioning (Sedlmeier et al., 2012), it enhances employees’ positive outcomes of the practice. These studies agreed that an en-
engagement to creativity during their collaboration activities. We hanced ability to solve problems is observed in individuals who
hence construct the following hypothesis: practice meditations. Meditative training also enhances creative
H1 : Mindfulness is positively related to creative process engage- thinking and job performance (Colzato et al., 2012) and facilitates
ment. creative elaboration (Zabelina et al. 2011). It is indeed evident that
experienced meditators outperform others in verbal fluency and
2.4.2. Linking mindfulness and creative process engagement to are better at finding novel solutions to a given problem (Greenberg
employee creativity et al. 2012). Both skills are found to be positively correlated to
Previous studies have suggested several antecedents that employee work performance. Similarly, Franco (2009) observe im-
influence employee creativity. They include leader’s type and provements in verbal flexibility, fluency, and originality as a result
relationship with employees (Henker et al. 2015; Zhang and Bartol, of meditations.
2010b) and employees’ career ambition (Friedman and Förster, The linkage of mindfulness to enhanced job performance can
2001; Henker et al., 2015), critical thinking (Jiang and Yang, 2015), also be explained from the practice-enhancing propensity to inno-
intrinsic motivation (Zhang and Bartol, 2010b), and affect (Amabile vate in the workplace. The desire and search for employee innova-
et al. 2005; Binnewies and Wörnlein, 2011; George and Zhou, tion have long been a known indicator of employee value and im-
2002). Additionally, creative process engagement is considered to proving firm efficiency (Amabile, 1996). An individual who is in a
be another strong precursor of employee creativity (Henker et al., mindful state can develop a heightened level of creativity, thereby
2015; Jiang and Yang, 2015; Zhang and Bartol, 2010a). As creativity generating frequent innovative thoughts and ideas. Employees who
process engagement embraces a range of creative activities, includ- co-and self-create new practices are capable of finishing their allo-
ing problem identification, environmental scanning, data gathering, cated tasks more efficiently (Ho, 2011). Based on the literature im-
unconscious mental activity, and solution generation, evaluation plicitly suggesting the role of creativity in linking mindfulness to
and implementation (Shalley, 1991), any possible solutions to a job performance, we, therefore, posit the following hypothesis:
problem may be put forth through by fully engaged employees H3 : Creative process engagement and employee creativity me-
who devote significant attentions to the creative process. Creativ- diate the effect of mindfulness on job performance.
120 L.V. Ngo, N.P. Nguyen and J. Lee et al. / Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123

Table 1 performance. The control variables included in our investigation

Demographics of the respondents (N = 180).
are gender, age, organisational tenure, and education level. For in-
Demographics Frequency Percentage stance, Shao and Skarlicki (2009), who examined the association
Gender of mindfulness with performance using 149 MBA students in a
Male 63 35.00 Canadian university, found that mindfulness interplayed with gen-
Female 117 65.00 der to predict performance; that is, their positive relationship was
Age stronger for female students than for male counterparts. Following
< 25 14 7.78
Janssen (2001), we also incorporated three demographic variables
25 - 29 82 45.56
30 - 34 51 28.33 of the informants (age, job tenure, and education level) as common
≥ 35 33 18.33 control variables of job performance.
Job tenure
< 2 years 25 13.89
4. Results
2 - 5 years 114 63.33
6 - 10 years 39 21.67
≥ 11 years 2 1.11 4.1. Testing a measurement model
Education level
High school 2 1.11 We deleted items that have outer loadings lower than the sug-
Undergraduate 163 90.56
gested benchmark of 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 2 re-
Postgraduate 15 8.33
ports the scale items and evaluation of the latent variables in that
all items in our measurement model had acceptable t-values (from
3. Method 10.55 to 39.42) and outer loadings (from 0.70 to 0.87) (Hulland,
1999). The average variance extracted (AVE) values for all con-
3.1. Sampling structs were uniformly acceptable, ranging from 0.57 to 0.67. More-
over, the composite reliability values ranged between 0.92 and
Our sample consisted of full-time professional employees of 0.96, indicating that the scale items possess high reliability.
a large professional service company in Vietnam. We decided to We performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS to
collect data from only a single company to minimise variations test our measurement model. The goodness-of-model fit was rea-
in different professional cultures. The company has approximately sonable: χ 2 /df = 1.15, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.97. Fur-
250 professionals and provides accounting, auditing, and consult- ther, the standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) value
ing services for more than 500 customers. We first contacted the of the composite model is also examined using SmartPLS3 to test
authorised managers of the company to obtain permission for a the model fit. The SRMR value of 0.06 was lower than the recom-
two-wave survey. In the first wave, employees were required to mended value of 0.08, indicating a good model fit (Henseler et al.
self-evaluate their mindfulness, creative process engagement, and 2016).
creativity. In this wave, we received 192 complete employee re-
sponses. In the second wave survey that conducted six months af- 4.2. Construct validity and multicollinearity test
ter the preceding survey, one direct supervisor of each employee
was asked to evaluate his[her] subordinate’ job performance. We The current study assessed the discriminant validity of the key
matched employees’ completed responses with their supervisor variables following procedures outlined by Fornell and Larcker
evaluations. After eliminating 12 employee responses without cor- (1981). As shown in Table 3, the square roots of the AVE values
responding supervisor evaluations, we obtained 180 completed are consistently greater than all corresponding correlations, thus
valid responses, which results in an effective response rate of demonstrating discriminant validity. Besides, discriminant valid-
78.3%. ity is evident when the correlation between two variables (the
Table 1 shows that as of 180 respondents in our sample, 65% off-diagonal entries) is not higher than their respective composite
were female; 77.89% were from 25 to 34 years of age; 85.00% reliability estimates. Table 3 demonstrates that no individual corre-
worked in less than ten years, and 98.89% had a bachelor’s degree lations of the latent constructs (from 0.29 to 0.52) exceeded their
or above. respective reliabilities (from 0.92 to 0.96), therefore indicating
satisfactory discriminant validity of all variables.
3.2. Measurement instruments Finally, the Heterotrait-Montrait (HTMT) ratios were calculated.
The HTMT test is a more recent and stringent assessment of
We used the existing scales to measure our main variables. discriminant validity than Fornell and Larcker’s criterion (Henseler
Specifically, mindfulness was measured using 15 five-point Lik- et al. 2015). As shown in Table 3, the HTMT ratios of all pairs
ert scale items proposed by Brown and Ryan (2003). Following of latent constructs ranged between 0.30 and 0.55, which are
Zhang and Bartol (2010a) and Zhou and George (2001), we as- below the threshold of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015), providing
sessed creative process engagement and employee creativity by 11 further evidence that all constructs used in the current study have
and 13 five-point Likert scale items, respectively. Employee job per- discriminant validity.
formance was rated by direct supervisors using a 12-item Likert Furthermore, we calculated the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
scale. This scale includes seven items measuring in-role job per- values, which ranged between 1.06 and 1.51. The VIF scores
formance adapted from Williams and Anderson (1991), four items were far below the critical value of 10, demonstrating that
regarding extra-role job performance adapted from Podsakoff et al. multicollinearity was not a problem.
(1982), and a global item called “Overall, this employee is perform-
ing very well.”. The scale items of the main variables are shown 4.3. Common method bias
in Table 2.
As this study collected cross-sectional data using a single-
3.3. Control variables informant approach, there might be common method bias effects
that lead to spurious relationships among the variables (Podsakoff
In line with the previous literature, we accounted for some et al. 2003). Therefore, this study applied the following statistical
variables that may have confounding impacts on employee job remedies to test for common method bias. First, Harman’s single
 L.V. Ngo, N.P. Nguyen and J. Lee et al. / Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123 121

Table 2
Scale items and latent variable evaluation.

Construct Outer loading t-value

Mindfulness (AVE = 0.58; CR = 0.93)

I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until sometime later∗ – –
I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something else 0.70 16.97
I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present∗ – –
I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way 0.83 32.82
I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab my attention 0.78 23.53
I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time∗ – –
It seems I am “running on automatic,” without much awareness of what I’m doing 0.80 29.15
I rush through activities without being really attentive to them 0.75 20.47
I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I’m doing right now to get there 0.72 16.79
I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing 0.74 14.85
I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time∗ – –
I drive places on “automatic pilot” and then wonder why I went there 0.81 29.71
I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past∗ – –
I find myself doing things without paying attention 0.73 17.22
I snack without being aware that I’m eating 0.74 18.64
Creative process engagement (AVE = 0.59; CR = 0.92)
I spend considerable time trying to understand the nature of the problem 0.72 14.66
I think about the problem from multiple perspectives 0.81 39.42
I decompose a difficult problem/assignment into parts to obtain a greater understanding 0.72 16.09
I consult a wide variety of information 0.78 17.20
I search for information from multiple sources (e.g., personal memories, others’ experience, documentation, Internet, etc.) 0.79 23.28
I retain large amounts of detailed information in my area of expertise for future use 0.73 10.69
I consider diverse sources of information in generating new ideas 0.82 20.44
I look for connections with solutions used in seeming diverse areas∗ – –
I generate a significant number of alternatives to the same problem before I choose the final solution 0.76 19.58
I try to devise potential solutions that move away from established ways of doing things∗ – –
I spend considerable time shifting through the information that helps to generate new ideas∗ – –
Employee creativity (AVE = 0.67; CR = 0.96)
Suggests new ways to achieve goals and objectives 0.83 25.31
Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance 0.84 18.39
Searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/ or product ideas 0.70 10.55
Suggests new ways to increase the quality 0.84 20.95
Is a good source of creative ideas 0.86 27.06
Not afraid to take risks 0.81 20.09
Promotes and champions ideas to others 0.76 16.11
Exhibits creativity on the job when given the opportunity to 0.80 17.84
Develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas 0.78 15.99
Often has new and innovative ideas 0.87 26.66
Comes up with creative solutions to problems 0.86 28.48
Often has a fresh approach to problems 0.83 25.31
Suggests new ways of performing work tasks 0.84 18.39
Job performance (AVE = 0.57; CR = 0.94)
Adequately completes assigned duties 0.76 24.07
Fulfils responsibilities specified in job description 0.74 24.66
Performs tasks that are expected of him/her 0.76 24.58
Meets formal performance requirements of the job 0.71 20.33
Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation 0.75 24.90
Does not neglect aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform 0.75 22.97
Successfully performs essential duties 0.78 27.53
This employee does more work than is required 0.75 22.82
This employee sets high goals for his/her self 0.76 24.21
This employee attained the goals he/she had set 0.79 28.72
This employee effectively spent time doing his/her work 0.76 23.34
Overall, this employee is performing very well 0.76 25.11

Note: AVE stands for average variance extracted, and CR refers to composite reliability; ∗ : items deleted due to low-outer loadings.

factor analysis was conducted. The first factor accounted for 34.5% To provide a more robust check for common method bias, we
of the 58.4% variance explained, suggesting that common method performed the common latent factor test suggested by Podsakoff
bias is not problematic (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, the marker et al. (2003). Using AMOS, we loaded all 43 indicators represent-
variable technique was conducted (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) to ing four latent constructs in the structural model onto a common
examine common method bias further, using the item “I am satis- latent factor and examined the changes in the indicators’ stan-
fied with the telecommunication service provider I have chosen.” dardised factor loadings. The result shows that the inclusion of
The average absolute correlation between this item and all other the common latent factor does not have any significant effect on
constructs in the model was 0.05 (rm). The average difference the indicators’ standardised factor loadings. The absolute changes,
between the correlations among all constructs in the model after which ranged between 0.08 and 0.17, were well-below the cut-
partialling out the effect of rm was 0.02, and the intercorrelations off value of 0.20 (Chin, 1998), suggesting no problem of common
between all the constructs in the model remained significant after method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
partialling out the effect of rm. This result suggests that “the
results cannot be accounted for by common method variance”
(Lindell and Whitney, 2001, p.118).
122 L.V. Ngo, N.P. Nguyen and J. Lee et al. / Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123

Table 3
Construct means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Mindfulness 3.80 0.71 0.76

2. Creative process 3.70 0.58 0.34∗ ∗ 0.77
engagement 0.35
3. Employee 3.59 0.56 0.40∗ ∗ 0.52∗ ∗ 0.82
creativity 0.42 0.55
4. Job performance 3.97 0.78 0.29∗ ∗ 0.39∗ ∗ 0.44∗ ∗ 0.76
0.30 0.41 0.46
5. Gender 1.65 0.48 (0.08) (0.05) (0.08) 0.06 1.00
0.09 0.07 0.10 0.08
6. Age 3.57 0.88 0.10 0.19∗ 0.06 0.29∗ ∗ (0.12) 1.00
0.10 0.19 0.06 0.32 0.12
7. Job tenure 3.81 2.20 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.32∗ ∗ 0.06 0.42∗ ∗ 1.00
0.14 0.07 0.07 0.32 0.06 0.42
8. Education level 2.07 0.30 (0.03) 0.01 (0.07) 0.05 0.06 0.08 (0.14) 1.00
0.05 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.14

Notes: SD: Standard deviation; 1st value = Correlation between variables (off diagonal); 2nd value = HTMT ratio; square root of average variance extracted (bold diagonal);
∗
and ∗∗ indicate correlations significant at 5% and 1% levels, respectively (2-tailed t-test).

Table 4
Path analysis results (N = 180).

Main effects Creative process engagement Employee creativity Job performance

Mindfulness 0.26∗ ∗ (4.41) 0.22∗ ∗ (4.06) 0.04 (0.52)

Creative process engagement 0.44∗ ∗ (6.67) 0.19 (1.90)
Employee creativity 0.53∗ ∗ (5.17)
Controls
Gender 0.00 (0.03) −0.04 (−0.49) 0.16 (1.56)
Age 0.12∗ (2.30) −0.02 (−0.35) 0.12∗ (2.00)
Tenure −0.02 (−0.78) −0.02 (−0.93) 0.09∗ ∗ (3.54)
Education −0.04 (−0.26) −0.13 (−1.06) 0.24 (1.44)
R2 0.36 0.59 0.61
Indirect effects Estimate LLCI UCLI
Mindfulness → Employee creativity (via Creative process engagement) 0.11∗ 0.0603 0.1807
Mindfulness → Job performance (via Creative process engagement and Employee creativity) 0.06∗ 0.0283 0.1021

Notes: LLCI = lower level of the 95% confidence interval; UCLI = upper level of the 95% confidence interval.
∗
p < 0.05.
∗∗
p < 0.01.

4.4. Testing hypotheses empirically validate a claim that creative process engagement and
employee creativity are of paramount importance in turning mind-
Table 4 reports the results of the proposed hypotheses test- fulness into job performance. The relationship between creative
ing. We first proposed that mindfulness positively influences process engagement and employees’ job performance is scant and
creative process engagement. Results indicate that mindfulness inconsistent in the creativity literature (Groza et al. 2016). Being
was positively related to creative process engagement (β = 0.26, mindful enables employees to slow down in order to go deeper
t-value = 4.41), supporting H1 . We also hypothesised that creative into the creative process instead of skimming the surface. Being
process engagement mediates the effect of mindfulness on em- mindful can help to center and foster clarity with less noise and
ployee creativity (H2 ). We found the significant indirect effect clutter in one’s mind. Mindfulness can also help increase focus
of creative process engagement on the mindfulness-creativity and decreasing disconnection. However, there is no report or
relationship (β =0.11, p < 0.05; 95% CI [0.0603, 0.1807]), which study of testing to what extent the impact of mindfulness on the
supports our second hypothesis. process through which creative process engagement enhances job
Hypothesis 3, which posited that creative process engage- performance. Creativity is the ability to produce work that is both
ment and employee creativity sequentially mediate the effect novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adap-
of mindfulness on job performance, received empirical support. tive concerning task constraints) (Sternberg, 1988). Our finding is
Indeed, the indirect impact of mindfulness on job performance via in line with prior research that open-minded meditation induced
both creative process engagement (the first stage mediator) and a control state that promoted to generate new ideas and feelings
employee creativity (the second stage mediator) was significant and reduced cognitive rigidity (Ostafin and Kassman, 2012).
(β =0.06, p < 0.05; 95% CI [0.0283, 0.1021]). In addition, our study has some managerial implications. First,
by confirming that the role of mindfulness helps in cultivating
5. Conclusion and discussion creative process engagement and employee creativity, our research
provides practitioners with guidelines on how employees can
Our findings show that (a) creative process engagement me- improve job performance and help employees grow and further
diates the effect of mindfulness on employee creativity, (b) em- develop their creativity via practicing mindfulness at work. Sec-
ployee creativity mediates the effect of creative process engage- ond, organisations should encourage employees to engage in the
ment on job performance, (c) and creative process engagement and creative process, which is a mechanism that can transfer employee
employee creativity serially mediate the mindfulness to job perfor- mindfulness to enhanced employee creativity and subsequent job
mance relationship. performance.
Regarding the theoretical contributions, our study extends the Despite the above contributions, our study has several lim-
extant literature by examining the mechanism through which itations that provide directions for future research. First, our
mindfulness contributes to job performance. We theorise and model, which includes only variables at the individual level, i.e.,
 L.V. Ngo, N.P. Nguyen and J. Lee et al. / Australasian Marketing Journal 28 (2020) 117–123 123

mindfulness, creative process engagement, employee creativity to Gunaratana, H., 2001. Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness: Walking the Buddha’s Path.
explain employee job performance, is quite limited in its scope. Wisdom Publications, SomervilleMA.
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., 2015. Transformational leadership and em-
Future research should consider incorporating some variables at ployee creativity: the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process
the organisational level in a multiple level analysis towards more engagement. J. Bus. Psychol. 30 (2), 235–247.
interesting findings. The organisational level variables, such as Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P.A., 2016. Using PLS path modeling in new technology
research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (1), 2–20.
the extent of formalisation in the projects, or the use of project Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discrimi-
teams as lateral relations between departments, may influence the nant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
individual employee creative process engagement and employee 43 (1), 115–135.
Ho, L.A., 2011. Meditation, learning, organizational innovation and performance. Ind.
creativity. Furthermore, our study only examines job performance
Manag. Data Syst. 111 (1), 113–131.
as the individual level without linking it to overall organisational Hulland, J., 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management re-
performance. Thus, it might be useful for future studies to connect search: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20 (2), 195–204.
Janssen, O., 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relation-
some organisational effects, such as the number of successful
ships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Acad.
projects, to the existing individual-level job performance in a more Manag. J. 44 (5), 1039–1050.
comprehensive research model. Jiang, J., Yang, B., 2015. Roles of creative process engagement and leader–member
exchange in critical thinking and employee creativity. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 43
(7), 1217–1231.
References Kabat-Zinn, J., 2003. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and
future. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 10 (2), 144–156.
Amabile, T.M., 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptu- Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengage-
alization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45 (2), 357–376. ment at work. Acad. Manag. J. 33 (4), 692–724.
Amabile, T.M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Or- Keng, S.L., Smoski, M.J., Robins, C.J., 2011. Effects of mindfulness on psychological
gan. Behav. 10 (1), 123–167. health: a review of empirical studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31 (6), 1041–1056.
Amabile, T.M., 1996. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Cre- Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross–
ativity. Westview Press, Inc, Boulder, CO. sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114–121.
Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., Staw, B.M., 2005. Affect and creativity at Lutz, A., Dunne, J.D., Davidson, R.J., 2007. Meditation and the neuroscience of con-
work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50 (3), 367–403. sciousness. In: Zelazo, P.D., Moscovitch, M., Thompson, E. (Eds.), Cambridge
Baer, R.A., 2003. Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: a conceptual and Handbook of Consciousness. University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 499–555.
empirical review. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 10 (2), 125–143. Moore, A., Malinowski, P., 2009. Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility.
Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., Toney, L., 2006. Using self-re- Conscious. Cogn. 18 (1), 176–186.
port assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment 13 (1), Ostafin, B.D., Kassman, K.T., 2012. Stepping out of history: mindfulness improves
27–45. insight problem solving. Conscious. Cogn. 21 (2), 1031–1036.
Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M.D., Kam, J.W., Franklin, M.S., Schooler, J.W., 2012. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method bi-
Inspired by distraction: mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychol. ases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
Sci. 23 (10), 1117–1122. remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Binnewies, C., Wörnlein, S.C., 2011. What makes a creative day? A diary study on Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.M., Skov, R., 1982. Effects of leader contingent and non-
the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. J. Organ. Behav. 32 contingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and
(4), 589–607. satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 25 (4), 810–821.
Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., 2003. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S.,
role in psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 (4), 822–848. Kunze, S., 2012. The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysis. Psy-
Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., Creswell, J.D., 2007. Mindfulness: theoretical foundations chol. Bull. 138 (6), 1139–1171.
and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychol. Inq. 18 (4), 211–237. Shalley, C.E., 1991. Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal dis-
Carson, S.H., Langer, E.J., 2006. Mindfulness and self-acceptance. J. Ration. Emot. cretion on individual creativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 76 (2), 179–185.
Cognit. Behav. Ther. 24 (1), 29–43. Shalley, C.E., 1995. Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on cre-
Chiesa, A., Calati, R., Serretti, A., 2011. Does mindfulness training improve cognitive ativity and productivity. Acad. Manag. J. 38 (2), 483–503.
abilities? A systematic review of neuropsychological findings. Clin. Psychol. Rev. Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., Oldham, G.R., 2004. The effects of personal and contextual
31 (3), 449–464. characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? J. Manag. 30 (6),
Chin, W.W., 1998. Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. 933–958.
MIS Q. 22 (1) vii-xvi. Shao, R., Skarlicki, D.P., 2009. The role of mindfulness in predicting individual per-
Colzato, L.S., Szapora, A., Hommel, B., 2012. Meditate to create: the impact of formance. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 41 (4), 195–201.
focused-attention and open-monitoring training on convergent and divergent Sternberg, R.J., 1988. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspec-
thinking. Front. Psychol. 3, 1–5. tives. University Press, Cambridge, England.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A., Kazanjian, R.K., 1999. Multilevel theorizing about creativity Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I., 1996. Investing in creativity. Am. Psychol. 51 (7),
in organizations: a sensemaking perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2), 286–307. 677–688.
Edvinsson, L., Dvir, R., Roth, N., Pasher, E., 2004. Innovations: the new unit of anal- Torrance, E.P., 1988. The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In: Stern-
ysis in the knowledge era: the quest and context for innovation efficiency and burg, R.J. (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspec-
management of IC. J. Intellect. Cap. 5 (1), 40–58. tives. University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 43–75.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable vari- Wallace, B.A., Shapiro, S.L., 2006. Mental balance and well-being: building bridges
ables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18 (3), between Buddhism and Western psychology. Am. Psychol. 61 (7), 690–701.
382–388. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
Franco, J.C., 2009. Effects of a meditation program on verbal creative levels in a as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 17
group of students in late secondary education. Suma Psicológica 16 (2), 113–120. (3), 601–617.
Friedman, R.S., Förster, J., 2001. The effects of promotion and prevention cues on Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W., 1993. Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 (6), 1001–1013. creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 293–321.
George, J.M., Zhou, J., 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are Zabelina, D.L., O’Leary, D., Pornpattananangkul, N., Nusslock, R., Beeman, M., 2015.
related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (3), Creativity and sensory gating indexed by the P50: Selective versus leaky sensory
513–524. gating in divergent thinkers and creative achievers. Neuropsychologia 69, 77–84.
George, J.M., Zhou, J., 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and Zabelina, D.L., Robinson, M.D., Ostafin, B.D., Council, J.R., 2011. Manipulating mind-
good ones don’t: the role of context and clarity of feelings. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 fulness benefits creative elaboration at high levels of neuroticism. Empir. Stud.
(4), 687–697. Arts 29 (2), 243–255.
Gilson, L.L., 2008. Why be creative: a review of the practical outcomes associated Zhang, X., Bartol, K.M., 2010a. The influence of creative process engagement on em-
with creativity at the individual, group, and organizational levels. In: Zhou, J., ployee creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assess-
Shalley, C.E. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Erlbaum, MahwahNJ, ment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (5), 862–873.
pp. 303–322. Zhang, X., Bartol, K.M., 2010b. Linking empowering leadership and employee cre-
Gilson, L.L., Shalley, C.E., 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: an examination ativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and
of teams’ engagement in creative processes. J. Manag. 30 (4), 453–470. creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 53 (1), 107–128.
Greenberg, J., Reiner, K., Meiran, N., 2012. “Mind the trap”: Mindfulness practice Zhou, J., George, J.M., 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging
reduces cognitive rigidity. PLoS One 7 (5), e36206. the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (4), 682–696.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., Walach, H., 2004. Mindfulness-based stress Zhou, J., George, J.M., 2003. Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emo-
reduction and health benefits: a meta-analysis. J. Psychosom. Res. 57 (1), 35–43. tional intelligence. Leadersh. Q. 14 (4-5), 545–568.
Groza, M.D., Locander, D.A., Howlett, C.H., 2016. Linking thinking styles to sales per-
formance: the importance of creativity and subjective knowledge. J. Bus. Res. 69
(10), 4185–4193.