Article

Journal of General Management

2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–13
Understanding possible personal correlates of © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
organizational citizenship behavior: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03063070221104587
journals.sagepub.com/home/gem
Mindfulness and oneness behaviors

Duysal Aşkun, PhD 

Group of Change, New York, NY, USA

Fatih Çetin 
Department of Business Administration, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkey

Abstract
The current study aims to understand the mechanisms underlying the predictive relationship between mindfulness and
organizational citizenship behaviors especially targeted for other individuals inside the organizations. As part of this
relationship model, oneness behaviors were suggested as an actor of mediation. A sample of 281 blue collar employees
participated for the study with employing a multi-source data gathering method. In line with the self-regulation and
Buddhist based conceptualizations, and previous related research, statistical analyses revealed significant effects of
mindfulness on organizational citizenship behavior towards individuals (OCBI) after controlling demographic variables,
and showed fully mediated roles of one and other sub dimensions in mindfulness-OCBI interaction. The current study
brings a novel approach to mindfulness and organizational citizenship relationship by including oneness behaviors inside
the research model while stressing the importance of interconnectedness and how it could be practiced inside the
organizations.

Keywords
Mindfulness, organizational citizenship behavior towards individuals, oneness behaviors, buddhist conceptualization, self-
regulation theory, interconnectedness in organizations

In a world which is more globally connected but also more
globally challenged compared to the past, business orga-
nizations today are faced with problems which may not be
solved through the traditional understanding of individual
remedies for separated entities. As each organizational
entity is also connected to the surrounding businesses,
communities, nations, it should now be more evident that
the problems faced by one entity also affect the surrounding
entities. In response to this awareness, personal factors in
the workplace promises solutions to more complicated
problems arising from changes in organizational processes
and structures.
Personal factors in the workplace have been defined in
relation to the experience of interconnectedness by all or-
ganizational entities (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003;
Marques et al., 2007; Tejeda, 2015). In their extensive
analysis involving how workplace spirituality might play out
in producing positive and healthy workplace outcomes,
Gupta et al. (2014) stated that spirituality is not only about
being positive towards our own selves, but also towards other
living beings. Tejeda (2015) who explored the supportive
effects of spiritual well-being on job satisfaction in adverse
work conditions, concluded that spirituality, apart from
helping employees to overcome stressful events through
enhanced well-being, might also serve to promote other
mechanisms such as mindfulness.
Looking at available literature related to healthy
workplace outcomes that might intersect with intercon-
nectedness, those healthy contributions by individual
employees have been studied under the name of Organi-
zational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). Tepper (2003) hy-
pothesized that experience of connectedness increases
employee sensitivity to the needs of the others and thus
produces helping behaviors. In addition, he said that cit-
izenship behaviors would be performed by spiritual em-
ployees as they would find greater meaning and purpose of
their work experiences.
Given the rising importance of employee well-being
and personal resources both for business research and
practice, the current study aims to understand certain
personal capacities and mechanisms that might play a
significant role in the demonstration of citizenship be-
havior as a healthy and positive workplace outcome. As
Corresponding author:
Fatih Çetin, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Department of Business
Administration, Central Campus, 51240 Niğde, Turkey.
Email: fatih_cetin@ymail.com
2 Journal of General Management 0(0)
humans are composed of both inner and outer beings
(Gupta et al., 2014), the way those inner mechanisms work
to produce healthy relationships with the outer world could
be a valuable area of study. The inner mechanism in this
study is represented by mindfulness concept that might
help to produce citizenship through the interconnectedness
principle which is currently treated as oneness behaviors.
Organizational citizenship behavior and
theoretical approaches: The missing
personal ingredient
Organizational Citizenship Behavior was defined as a discre-
tionary individual behavior, not being recognized by the formal
reward systems, but which eventually leads to the efficient and
effective functioning of the organization (Organ et al., 2006).
Organ et al. followed Barnard (1938)’s conception of an or-
ganization is a “cooperative system” which is composed of
those willing individuals without whose efforts the organization
cannot exist or evolve. More importantly, Barnard (1938) had
contended that the collective effort requires those individuals’
commitment which reflected a sense of being connected with
the larger whole. In more specific terms, those persons needed
to have a tendency to think with an interdependent con-
sciousness that represented an interconnectedness which they
truly believed to reflect the eventual benefit for the whole or-
ganization. Although it held many organizational benefits,
Barnard (1938) had strongly claimed that this “willingness to
cooperate” varied within and among different individuals in-
cluding the “we thinking” that was argued to be a necessary
ingredient of a performing organization.
Apart from Barnard (1938)’s approach which can be said
to stem more from a holistic view of the organization, Organ
et al. (2006) list the following theoretical approaches to OCB
which to them, have explanatory power in trying to locate this
construct in terms of its antecedents, consequences and or-
ganizational correlates.
`Blau’s social exchange theory
This theory takes into account the social exchange that
happens at every social living entity where each party gives
the other something which is valuable, and eventually, the
party on the receiving end is expected to feel some obligation
to reciprocate or pay something in return.
Leader-member exchange theory
This theory takes into account the different approaches of the
leader to a workgroup composed of individuals having
different abilities and attitudes. Depending on those different
subordinate characteristics, the leader rewards and reinforces
certain behaviors, which might result in more OCBs or might
originate from OCBs at the first place.
Approaches of Katz and Kahn
This approach takes into account “what is necessary” for an
effective organization to perform. Among those requirements,
there has to be three different contributions: 1. Attracting and
holding people within the organizational system; 2. Making
sure that organizational members demonstrate role perfor-
mance which is expected to be met and also to be exceeded
beyond minimal levels; 3. Innovative and spontaneous be-
havior which need to be evoked, performance that goes be-
yond role requirements. The third of these requirements
remind the necessity of some form of OCBs which are seen as
crucial to be able to achieve a cooperative and therefore highly
performing organization.
Williamson and transaction cost economics model
In an economically blurred environment where the trans-
action costs cannot be foreseen, the relationship and relevant
exchanges between the employer and the employee becomes
something of a contractual attempt where there is a wage paid
based on some level of agreed but ambiguous duties. In terms
of exchange, the employee understands this ambiguity and
does whatever he/she needs to do which may or may not
include OCB behaviors. This theory also takes into con-
sideration of an exchange nature of relationships albeit in an
ambiguous economic environment where there are costs and
payments.
Ouchi
Extending Williamson’s work, William Ouchi (1980) puts
hierarchies and bureaucracies as central for the market to
function efficiently. In the conditions where the formal hi-
erarchies would not be sufficient for an effective transaction,
the idea of “clan” is said to serve a viable function. Here the
OCB is said to serve this community by the individuals who
think and see the collective whole as not separate from their
own interests.
Mainly the common theme arising from each approach to
OCB relies on a certain exchange between the individual and
the larger whole, an organization, a community, a group of
people or a leader. Without such an exchange, it seems that
OCB cannot exist or be cultivated. Whatever the nature of
those exchanges might be, OCB, from those theoretical
perspectives, seems to serve an individual interest such as in a
form of job security, decreased role conflict and ambiguity
(Chen et al., 2009), job rewards, personal recognition or
professional promotion. As long as there is a social envi-
ronment of exchange (Ma and Qu, 2011), there seems to be a
chance for OCB to grow. But what if OCB, at least some parts
of OCB, especially those which are targeted for the other
individuals do not depend on such an exchange, but rather, is
an outcome of more of a dispositional characteristic such as
personality or an individual attribute?
Barnard (1938)’s view of organizations requires those
individuals who are holding consciousness of interde-
pendence, and who hold a holistic view of the organization.
Following his suggestion, this type of “we thinking” might
be representing a very individual and thus a very intimately
personal approach which may not be so sensitive to en-
vironmental constraints or resources, in other words, could
be free from certain organizational give and takes. One of
those personal attributes that could have both intra and
interpersonal quality and characteristics could be
mindfulness.
Aşkun and Çetin
Mindfulness as an individual-level capacity
Mindfulness was defined as a receptive attention to and
awareness of present events and experience, where the
mind simply remains in a nonjudgmental state (Brown and
Ryan, 2003; Brown et al., 2007). In terms of individual
capacity and resource, mindfulness is said to represent self-
regulation (Brown and Ryan, 2003) while the detailed
description of mindfulness and its nature is still rooted in
the Buddhist scholarly literature (Brown et al., 2007).
Brown et al. (2007) argued strongly for the necessity of
a sufficient degree of attention for an effective self-
regulation. To be able to reach desirable goals, people
need to be attentive to their inner states and also behaviors.
Here the important key element is willingness to look
inside to be able to carry regulated actions. Going beyond
this key attentive element, Brown et al. (2007) also in-
cluded a cognitive element to their theoretical approach to
mindfulness which is concentrated more on how an in-
dividual makes sense of his/her environment in a mindful
manner.
Research on mindfulness and organizational
citizenship behavior relationship
Over the recent course of research history, there have been
ample studies carried out about the relationship between
mindfulness and organizational citizenship behavior as a
positive outcome. Although some of those studies go back as
early as 2010s, remarkably larger number of studies were
carried out especially in the 2020s.
One of the early studies exploring the relationship be-
tween mindfulness and OCB found a positive relationship
between two constructs with their managerial sample in New
Zealand (Roche and Haar, 2013). Similar results were ob-
tained with an Indian employee and managerial sample
(Subramaniam and Panchanatham, 2015), with Vietnamese
employees (Nguyen et al., 2019) and with Turkish nurses
(Şahin et al., 2020).
An interesting finding about the strong predictive rela-
tionship between these two constructs was obtained espe-
cially when mindfulness served as an influential variable over
OCB in a workplace sample from the United States. In her
doctorate thesis where she explored the effects of mindful
practices on counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB)
and organizational citizenship behaviors, Patel (2017) has
come up with the finding that mindfulness became a sig-
nificant predictor of OCBs no matter what role the demo-
graphic variables played.
Coming to more recent studies where mindfulness still
acted as an influential variable over positive organizational
outcomes, Zheng et al. (2020) have found the buffering
effects of mindfulness over the Covid-19 stressors on work
engagement. Another significant effect was found in a
study carried out with public sector employees from
Pakistan. Mindfulness moderated the positive impact of
emotional intelligence over organizational citizenship
behavior in a significant way (Chughtai et al., 2020).
Similar positive effects were observed with Pakistani
university employees (Amen and Raziq, 2020). Finally, in
3
an experimental study that investigated the predictive
relationship of mindfulness and employee helping be-
havior amongst US employee sample, Sawyer et al. (2021)
found significant results.
In her theoretical article where she discussed the role of
integrity and mindfulness over corporate citizenship,
Waddock (2001) strongly emphasized that the leading
corporate citizens need new levels of mindfulness and
integrity at the individual and also organizational levels to
be able to develop constructive relationships with key
stakeholders. Following Waddock (2001)’s proposition
about citizenship and the extant research findings, mind-
fulness could be a valuable construct to study as a possible
antecedent of OCB.
Regarding the types of citizenship behaviors, Williams
and Anderson (1991) talked about the clear distinction
made between the OCB towards organization (OCBO) and
OCB towards individuals (OCBI). Therefore, investigating
OCBI behaviors that are directly targeted for the other
individuals instead of OCBO (such as civic virtue,
sportsmanship) would make more sense as the latter might
also be related with impression management motives
(Bolino and Turnley, 2003).
Therefore, locating mindfulness as a personal capacity and
resource within a self-regulation framework, the first hy-
pothesis of the study follows:
H1: People who perceive themselves more mindful show
more citizenship behaviors directed towards other individ-
uals (OCBI)
In a narrative outline of mindfulness described as a lived
experience of existential-phenomenological nature, Nanda
(2009) has drawn a picture related to the key points in mind-
fulness practice. The first and the most important point she
makes is about the relational stance where there seems to be no
separation between the subject and the object during the
practice. Referencing the Buddhist teacher and mindfulness
practitioner Hanh (2006), she talked about consciousness
having three aspects: subject, object and, wholeness which is the
base of the former two. This understanding implies insepara-
bility and an interrelated nature of the subject and the object.
Nanda (2009), in relation to this understanding, further said that
our beliefs, values, or attitudes are not separated from the world
around us even when we are alone by ourselves. In Hanh
(2006)’s terms, this is inter-being which is said to extend to the
interconnectedness aspect of the universe while also important
for us to be able to see all of our connectedness with all di-
mensions of our own personal being (social, cultural, personal,
and so on). In other words, this meant an ongoing relationship
between the collective and the individual which are basically
inseparable.
In accordance with the Buddhist ideology and literature,
Western researchers studying mindfulness have also theo-
rized its strong relation with connectedness (Amel et al.,
2009; Welwood, 1996) while Brown and Ryan (2003)
originally put forward its strong relation with relatedness.
Regarding how mindfulness relates strongly to connected-
ness, Aspy and Proeve (2017) contended that mindfulness
meditation leads to connectedness through increased
awareness of whatever is around us while leaves us being less
preoccupied with automatic thoughts which usually create
4 Journal of General Management 0(0)
disconnection from our environment, be it social or physical.
As a result of their experimental study carried out with
undergraduate students, those student participants who were
put into mindful meditation practice reported being more
socially connected at the post-test measures (Aspy and
Proeve, 2017).
While being so intertwined with the inside and the
outside world, living mindful, according to Kostanski and
Hassed (2008) meant being in the moment, connected with
our senses, while confronting situations with an attitude of
acceptance and yet acting when one needs to act. There-
fore, mindfulness is not totally equated with simple silence
and stillness, but it involves acting if/when the present
moment situation calls for it. The actions that are carried
out can be different in nature, ranging from being self-
protective to orientations of serving others which might as
well include citizenship behaviors that especially might
involve helping and behaving nicely towards others.
Mindfulness in action: Buddhist-based
conceptualization and model
In an extensive outline of a new and a more encompassing
understanding of mindfulness, Purser and Milillo (2015),
by taking the concept back to its Buddhist roots, argued
that mindfulness should not be a passive and a nonjudg-
mental attentiveness to the present moment, but by in-
volving a more enhanced cognitive process through
memory, should cover past, present and the future alto-
gether. Calling it “right mindfulness”, the authors suggest
that it should include knowing at all spheres of existence,
in other words, in the mind, body and the soul. While
involving a healthy state of mind and body, in Buddhist
notion, wholesome mind and body, this type of mindful-
ness is said to have a universal and a transcendent purpose
that includes virtuous behavior and an altruistic concern
for all beings (Flanagan, 2011; Forbes, 2012).
According to their new conceptualization of mindful-
ness, Purser and Milillo (2015) suggest a triadic mind-
fulness model where mindfulness is said to lead to skillful
and wholesome behaviors. The opposite becomes true if
the right mindfulness is not established, leading to less
favorable outcomes like unskillful states and behaviors.
They also refer to this as wholesome versus unwholesome
actions being classified into three categories: Bodily ac-
tions, verbal actions, and mental actions. Some examples
for the unwholesome bodily actions would be: Destroying
life, taking what is not given (stealing), lying, harsh
speech, and so on.
Those actions that might be directly influenced by
mindfulness practices could also remind us of other but
related attitude/action dimensions. Those dimensions can
include empathic thinking and approach (Hülsheger et al.,
2013), perspective taking (for reperceiving see Shapiro
et al., 2006), active listening, demonstrating respect for the
other person, engaging in fruitful dialogues, consideration
of the others in a relationship, effective communication
practices (Burgoon et al., 2000), appreciative inquiry
(Krahnke and Cooperrider, 2008), behaving ethically and
responsibly in social environments…and so on. Those
practices were listed very much under the possible out-
comes of mindfulness elsewhere.
How does the mindfulness mechanism work
to produce organizational citizenship
behavior: experiencing and acting
of oneness
As a concept, oneness is rooted in many theoretical per-
spectives and approaches especially from the East Asian
traditions of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism (Aşkun,
2019). Here oneness reflects a view of the world that sur-
rounds us including relationships between ourselves and
others, human and non-human. Following those family of
views, Ivanhoe (2015) proposed a ‘Oneness Hypothesis’ that
entailed a more expansive conceptualization of self with an
inherent relational nature and having a compassionate and
caring approach to all.
Humans could be considered systems, composed of
feelings, thoughts and behaviors as processes of the
structures which sometimes are named as mind-body and
soul. While separate entities, each structure has relation-
ships with one another, evidenced in the form of thoughts
influencing feelings and behaviors or vice versa. Similarly,
organizations are also systems surrounded by several other
systems (economy, ecology, politics, culture… and so on.).
And humans are parts of those organizational systems which
are also parts of other systems (Aşkun, 2019). The healthier
those parts would become, the more positive would be the
consequences for the larger whole. And if humans are
composed of thoughts, feelings and behaviors in all of their
existence, the wholeness of those parts would be important
for the healthiness of the whole. Following earlier discus-
sion by Purser and Milillo (2015), wholesome behaviors
could yield very positive outcomes for both inside and
outside the organizations.
Oneness behaviors. Originally proposed by Aşkun and Çetin
(2017), oneness behaviors represent acting in accordance
with “wholeness perspective” meaning that acting in one-
ness almost always considers other beings and environ-
ments while demonstrating respect, such as respecting
people in the line, in a theatre where they are silently
watching a movie, not carrying out any kind of social
loafing, accepting responsibility for one’s actions and de-
cisions, coming to meetings on time, listening to the others’
opinions while making a common decision, helping an
elderly crossing the street, understanding others’ emotions,
considering other person’s perspective during a
communication… and so on.
Oneness behaviors (Aşkun and Çetin, 2017) are made up
of two behavioral dimensions: Focus on one’s self versus
Consideration of the other. Focus on one’s self obviously
demonstrates an egocentric, solely self-oriented approach
when one is behaving especially in different social envi-
ronments including the organizations. In contrast, consid-
eration of the other entails taking into consideration other
people in one’s social/organizational environment before one
behaves with regard to a certain situation. Oneness behaviors
have been shown to positively associate with emotional
Aşkun and Çetin
intelligence, self-esteem and also altruism (Aşkun and Çetin,
2017).
While the concept is novel and open to exploration, be-
cause the available literature on mindfulness has demon-
strated a lot of concentrated thinking and discussion on the
wholeness idea and related praxis, it might be reasonable and
thus possible that mindfulness might be influencing behav-
iors of oneness which also might lead to organizational
citizenship behaviors. Therefore, the second hypothesis is as
follows:
H2: Mindfulness influences organizational citizenship be-
havior through oneness behaviors.
Given all the literature reviews, theoretical approaches
and rationale for the hypotheses, the main aim in this study is
to understand the type of contribution that mindfulness
makes for organizational citizenship behaviors targeted for
other individuals in an organization. The second aim is to
further understand a possible underlying mechanism (one-
ness behavior) through which mindfulness might be exerting
that influence.
Method
Participants
Data for this study were collected from a manufacturing
company which is one of the Turkey’s largest renowned
producers of gearboxes while being also a member of Is-
tanbul Chamber of Industry. After getting permissions from
top management and assured confidentiality of personal
information, our sample consisted of volunteered blue-collar
employees working in the production department. The two
different forms of self-rated questionnaires were prepared for
gathering data. The first self-rated one was for employees
asking their mindfulness along with their demographic in-
formation. The second self-rated one was for employees
asking their colleagues’ oneness and citizenship behaviors.
The questionnaires included numerical codes which were
previously generated for identification to allow matching of
each participant’s rating with his or her corresponding co-
worker’s rating. After generating a private numerical code for
each participant, we have paired it with all participants by
making a list. In the first application, participants filled the
self-questionnaire with writing their private codes, and in the
second application they filled the questionnaire for their close
friend by writing their close friend’s code from the list
previously prepared. The second application was applied to
participants individually for controlling possible selection
coincidences.
The multi-source data were collected in a week apart. A
total of 325 employees and their coworkers provided data,
resulting in 281 matched surveys (86.4% response rate). In
collecting multi-source data, it is important to select rele-
vant individuals to give information of the measured con-
struct. Since the purpose is to reach information about
oneness and citizenship behaviors, participants’ close co-
workers are determined and selected for collecting data with
thoughts that they have more chance to observe these be-
haviors in the workplace. On average, the participants were
32.5 years old (SD = 6.66) ranging in age from 22 to
5
55 years. Almost all of the participants were male (92.9%)
and were working in the same company for more than 1-
year (99.1%) with the average tenure of 7.56 (SD = 5.77)
years. With respect to level of education, 0.4% held a
master’s degree, 17.2% held bachelor’s degree, 35.5% high-
school degree, 30.5% a secondary school degree and 16.5%
an elementary school degree. Approximately 74.1% of the
participants were married.
Instruments
Mindfulness. We used Brown and Ryan’s (2003) Mindful
Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) to measure employees’
mindfulness. With its single-factor structure the scale con-
sisted of 15 items. The items indicated how frequently
participants have the experienced mindfulness described in
each statement using a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (almost
always) to 6 (almost never). Higher scores reflected more
mindfulness (sample item: ‘I find it difficult to stay focused on
what’s happening in the present’). Internal consistency, as
measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.86.
Oneness behavior. We used Aşkun and Çetin’s (2017) Oneness
Behavior Scale to measure employees’ oneness behaviors re-
ported by their peers. The scale consisted of two sub-
dimensions: one (focus on one’s self) and other (consider-
ation of the other). The subscale of one demonstrated focus on
one’s self while acting based on one’s own needs and interests.
The subscale of other indicated behaving by taking into con-
sideration who is also present in one’s environment. With its
two-factor structure the scale consisted of 27 items, indicating
how much the person demonstrated one or other behaviors
described in each statement using a 6-point Likert scale from 1
(not like) to 6 (completely like). Higher scores reflected more
focusing on one’s self (sample item of one sub dimension: ‘Tries
to figure out how s(he) can cut in line to become the first in line’)
or consideration of the other (sample item of other sub di-
mension: ‘Pays attention to how his/her style of expression
affects another’). The calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of the whole scale was 0.71, for the sub-dimension of one was
0.91, and for the sub-dimension of the other was 0.90.
Organizational citizenship behavior. We used an adapted scale
(Basım and Şeşen, 2006) to measure employees’ OCBs. The
scale consisted of five sub-dimensions: altruism, courtesy,
conscientiousness, civic virtue and sportsmanship. While the
sub dimensions of altruism and courtesy represented
individual-oriented (OCBI, sample item: ‘Willingly giving
time to help others who have work-related problems’), the
sub dimensions of conscientiousness, civic virtue and
sportsmanship reflected organizational-oriented (OCBO,
sample item: ‘He keeps abreast of changes in the organi-
zation’). The scale consisted of 19 items indicating how
much the person demonstrated citizenship behaviors de-
scribed in each statement using a 6-point Likert scale from 1
(never) to 6 (always). Higher scores indicated more citi-
zenship behaviors directed towards both for individuals and
organization. Internal consistencies of the whole scale, sub-
dimension of OCBI, and sub-dimension of OCBO, as
measured by Cronbach’s alpha, were 0.85, 0.80, and 0.83
respectively.
6 Journal of General Management 0(0)

Demographic variables. We controlled demographic variables
of gender, age, tenure, education and marital status in the
analysis, as some previous studies found association between
OCB and demographics.
Procedure
For determining the validity of measures, we firstly con-
ducted confirmatory factor analysis to test the factorial
structure of study variables by using Amos v23.0 statistical
program. We employed chi square-degree of freedom ratio
(χ 2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) to examine the model fit (Hair et al., 2006). The
results confirmed both the one-factor solution of mindfulness
scale and two-factor solution of oneness behavior scale (see
Table 1). Then we compared the five-factor and two factor
solutions of OCB scale, and found better model fit indices for
the two-factor solution. Therefore, we provided separate
analysis for OCBI and OCBO sub dimensions.
To test the mediational effect, we focused on the model of
using bootstrapping procedure to compute SEs and 95%
confidence intervals around the indirect effect (the impact of
mindfulness on OCBI through both one and other oneness
behaviors). We used 5000 bootstrapping samples to estimate
the bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.
Indirect effects were referred significant when the confidence
intervals did not include zero. The SPSS macros (PROCESS
v2.16) were used for this procedure (Hayes, 2017). To test
hypotheses we firstly controlled gender, age, tenure, edu-
cation and marital status in the analysis and then examined
the indirect effects of mindfulness on OBCI through one and
other sub dimension of oneness (see Figure 1).
Results
The means, standard deviations and correlations of study
variables were presented in Table 2. The mean scores of other,
mindfulness and OCBI were above the midpoint. Mindfulness
was positively related with other (r = 0.248, p < .01) and OCBI
(r = 0.206, p < .01), and was negatively related with one (r =
-.411, p < .01). While one as a sub dimension of oneness was
negatively related with OCBI (r = -.503, p < .01), other was
positively related with OCBI (r = 0.550, p < .01). There were
also negative relationships between one and other sub di-
mensions (r = -.441, p < .01).
Hypothesis 1 posited that people who perceive themselves
more mindful demonstrate more citizenship behaviors di-
rected towards other individuals (OCBI). The effects of
mindfulness on OCBI were significant after controlling other
demographic variables (in Model 1 and Model 2, B = 0.19, p
< .001). Thus Hypothesis 1 was accepted (Table 3).

Table 1. Measures of model fit for confirmatory factor analyzes.

χ2 d.f. p χ 2/d.f. CFI TLI RMSEA

Mindfulness (one factor) 228.33 90 0.001 2.537 0.90 0.90 0.078

Oneness (two-factor) 784.77 323 0.001 2.430 0.93 0.91 0.054
OCB Five-factor solution 845.26 142 0.001 5.952 0.87 0.84 0.049
OCB Two-factor solution 438.69 151 0.001 2.901 0.94 0.94 0.041
Note: χ 2: Chi square; d.f.: degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index, TLI: tucker-lewis index; RMSEA::root mean square error of approximation.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations of study variables (N = 281).

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Gender 1.93 0.25 1 — — — — — — —

2 Age 32.5 6.66 0.023 1 — — — — — —
3 Tenure 7.56 5.77 -0.225** 0.180** 1 — — — — —
4 Marital status 1.29 0.51 -0.126** -0.352** 0.009 1 — — — —
5 Education 2.68 0.94 -0.226** -0.151* 0.379** 0.136** 1 — — —
6 Oneness (One) 1.83 0.98 0.034 -0.034 -0.036 0.057 -0.049 1 — —
7 Oneness (Other) 4.79 1.13 -0.096* 0.028 0.068 0.040 0.187** -0.441** 1 —
8 Mindfulness 4.29 1.34 -0.063 -0.098 0.035 0.052 0.090 -0.411** 0.248** 1
9 OCBI 5.09 1.0 -0.063 0.073 0.024 0.024 0.078 -0.503** 0.550** 0.206**
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
 Aşkun and Çetin

Table 3. Regression results of the study.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Predictors B SE T P B SE t P B Se t p

OCBI OCBI OCBI

Constant 3.42 0.86 3.96 001 2.45 0.88 2.78 .006 3.96 0.74 5.34 .001
Gender 0.02 0.29 0.09 .922 0.07 0.28 0.27 .785 0.19 0.20 0.94 .343
Age 0.01 0.01 1.55 .121 0.02 0.01 1.84 .066 0.01 0.00 1.35 .177
Tenure 0.11 0.33 0.33 .740 0.06 0.33 0.20 .836 -0.04 0.24 -0.17 .861
Marital status 0.09 0.14 0.66 .510 0.09 0.13 0.67 .502 0.13 0.10 1.30 .192
Education 0.24 0.08 2.86 .005 0.24 0.08 2.92 .004 0.05 0.06 0.91 .362
Mindfulness — — — — 0.19 0.05 3.65 .001 -0.06 0.04 1.38 .167
Oneness (One) — — — — — — — — -0.54 0.06 8.55 0.001
Oneness (Other) — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.05 4.87 0.001
— R2.= 0.05, F= 2.64, p < .024 R2 = 0.10, F= 4.53, p < .001 R2.= 0.51, F= 31.31, p < .001

Bootstrap results for indirect effects of mindfulness on OCBI Effect SE LL %95 CI UL %95 CI
Total 0.25 0.03 0.179 0.330
Oneness (One) 0.20 0.03 0.136 0.271
Oneness (Other) 0.05 0.02 0.015 0.125
N: 281; Bootstrap sample size: 5000; LL: lower limit; UL: upper limit; CI: confidence interval. Bold numbers show significant effects.
7
8 Journal of General Management 0(0)
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the effect of mindfulness on
organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by oneness
behaviors. The direct effect of mindfulness on OCBI became
not significant (in Model 3, B = -.06, p < .167) when both sub
dimensions of oneness were added to the model. The indirect
effect of mindfulness on OCBI through the both one (indirect
effect = 0.20) and other (indirect effect = 0.05) sub dimension
of oneness was significant, because confidence interval didn’t
contain zero (through one: LL 95% CI = 0.136, UL 95% CI =
0.271; through other: LL 95% CI = 0.015, UL 95% CI =
0.125). Thus, one and other sub dimensions played full
mediation role in between mindfulness and OCBI. Thus
Hypothesis 2 was accepted (Figure 2).
In addition to these findings, education played role in
predicting both in OCBI. In the mindfulness-OCBI relation
(Model 2), people whose education level was higher sig-
nificantly showed more OCBI (B = 0.24, p < .004). It could be
concluded that education level is the main significant factor
in predicting OCBI within these individual variables.
Discussion
According to analysis of the study results, both of the hy-
potheses are supported. Mindfulness scores were in direct
positive relationship with OCBI scores and Oneness be-
haviors acted as a mediator variable in the current research
model.
The regression analyses revealed a significant predictive
influence from mindfulness towards OCBI. As self-
regulation theory proposes, mindfulness is related to one’s
self-regulation by enabling a positive approach to what one
experiences, thinks and feels especially in a nonjudgmental
way. As the definition of mindfulness implies, it is an ob-
jective experiential awareness and is believed to be a psy-
chological property which can be both cultivated or depleted
(Brown and Ryan, 2003). Regarding measure of mindfulness
in studies using MAAS, there were indications of strong
associations also with psychological well-being which is in
line with what self-regulation theory holds (MacKillop and
Anderson, 2007). In addition, mindfulness having this type of
positive effect on the self is also in congruence with the self-
determination theory which describes mindfulness as a
foundation for healthy self-regulation (Ryan and Deci, 2004).
For mindfulness to take this type of positive effect over
positive outcomes such as organizational citizenship be-
havior, Shapiro et al. (2006) talk about a mechanism called
reperceiving which means developing the capacity to observe
inner states such as anxiety, fear or stress without any
judgment. Reperceiving disables automatic behavioral pat-
terns, and instead leads us to attend to our emotional states,
Figure 2. Mediation by oneness of mindfulness and organizational citizenship behavior towards individuals relationship.
while choosing to self-regulate that leads to further health and
well-being (Shapiro et al., 2006). In terms of the choice of
healthy behaviors, a person practicing mindfulness can act in
ways which are consistent and very much in line with his/her
personal values and interests (Brown and Ryan, 2003). Or-
ganizational citizenship behaviors in this sense reflect a form
of ethical behavior at the workplace. As an example, a
subordinate who is new to the organization with probably less
skills might hold a positive attitude and still might contribute
by initiating OCBs (Borman, 2004) . In support, Weick and
Sutcliffe (2006), in their conceptual analysis of mindfulness
and the organizational attention quality, discussed that, be-
cause of mindfulness, people become more aware of the
mind’s contents and differently, begin to see that content as
resources for collective action. This way, they happen to be in
a better position to initiate wise action.
However, this predictive relationship between mindful-
ness and citizenship also connotes a bit of a western-
individualistic-self oriented approach where the autono-
mous individual having the ability or the capacity to self-
regulate produces beneficial organizational outcomes (Brown
et al., 2007). As a response to this self-focus, Brown et al.
(2007) argued that the studies of the mindfulness effects over
social relationships are very new and that available research
seems mostly to have concentrated on the romantic aspects of
those relationships. While the original Brown and Ryan
(2003) mindfulness research had found important correla-
tions between mindfulness and emotional intelligence, later
studies found additional links with better social skills, per-
spective taking, cooperative response patterns…and so
on.(Schutte et al., 2001). As a result, Brown et al. (2007)
called for further research especially in the area where
mindfulness relates to social connectedness as it very much
relates to the inherent need of relatedness (Deci and Ryan,
1991).
In terms of the direct relationship between mindfulness
and OCB, as mentioned in the introduction section of this
paper, there were some very recent studies conducted. As an
example, Asthana (2021) in her study with a group of MBA
students has found that the mindfulness is a significant
predictor of OCB and also of the student grades as a measure
of performance. In a quasi-experimental study that involved
mindful and positive leadership interventions, there were
significant increases in terms of civic virtue and procedural
justice perceptions amongst French employee and managers
from a pharmaceutical industry (Giraud et al., 2021). In
another experimental study with a group of employees from a
telecommunications service provider in Indonesia, it was
found that mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention
significantly increased the participants’ service commitment-
Aşkun and Çetin
a variable that is measured as a subset of the OCB
(Puswiartika2021).
In terms of specific relations between mindfulness, al-
truism and courtesy, there are also related research findings.
As an example, in an experimental study where they explored
the effects of Buddhist meditation intervention over altruistic
orientation, Wallmark et al. (2013) have found that altruistic
orientations were increased in the meditation intervention
group. Similarly, Frost (2016), in another experimental study
where he explored the effect of a short calming meditation
practice over altruism, found significant increases in altruism
as a result of this intervention. As there are no specific studies
carried out especially regarding the relationship between
mindfulness and courtesy, the above studies related to al-
truism research should also be approached with caution as
organizational type of altruism has different criteria of
measurement albeit related.
Findings related to oneness behavior having a
mediating role
Study results have proven a significant mediating role of
Oneness behaviors in the relationship between mindfulness
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Mindfulness lost its
significant predictive power when behaviors of oneness were
entered into the equation. As described briefly in the intro-
duction section of this paper, oneness behaviors (Aşkun and
Çetin, 2017) are made up of two behavioral dimensions:
Focus on one’s self versus Consideration of the other. Both
approaches involve paying attention and that attention has a
focus, one’s own self versus the other person. Therefore, it
should be no surprise that mindfulness would be in a positive
relationship also with oneness behaviors.
In terms of the mediating role, oneness behaviors might
be evidencing a sort of expanded mindfulness concept as
discussed by Purser and Milillo (2015). Borrowing an ex-
panded version of mindfulness concept from Buddhism, the
authors had argued for a more encompassing understanding
of mindfulness as it relates to positive outcomes. Regarding
its current use, Purser and Milillo (2015) have criticized the
mindfulness conception adopted by many organizations
today. Purser and Milillo (2015) argued for a better con-
ceptualization that involves more than just a free instru-
mental technique. For them, mindfulness should reflect a
form of consciousness that involves wholesome and un-
wholesome mental, emotional and physical states. In the
current study, a new dimension to mindfulness was added
including its effect on organizational outcomes which are
especially positive, ethical and healthy. This actually means
adopting a triadic model of mindfulness where the right
effort, right view and the right mindfulness hold the power
to influence prosocial and ethical behaviors such as citi-
zenship behaviors.
By linking mindfulness to OCB in this way, it is also
possible to bring together eastern and western approaches to
mindfulness. As an example, eastern thought promotes
paying attention to the inner workings of the mind, whereas
the western thought promotes attending to the external events
and to the mind content (Weick and Putnam, 2006). Here in
the current study sample, mindfulness predicted organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors especially targeted for other
9
individuals thru oneness behaviors. The findings are con-
sistent with the eastern views in a way that they reflect a
positive and nonjudgmental attitude of mindfulness as a
process, whereas they are also consistent with especially
western organizational literature which mostly focuses on the
content of mindfulness (Weick and Putnam, 2006) which all
lead to positive organizational outcomes such as improved
coordination, reduced organizational accidents in addition to
citizenship behaviors in the current case (Weick et al., 1999).
One final finding from the results analyses is about dif-
ferences that one’s education level makes with regard to the
demonstration of OCBI. The regression analyses revealed
that people whose education level is higher show more
citizenship behaviors towards individuals. This result might
be important for the difference education level makes in one’s
expanded understanding of his/her surrounding social
environment.
Managerial and practical implications. The current study has
several managerial and practical implications. First of all,
mindfulness as a practice once again proves its important
benefits for positive organizational outcomes. From indi-
viduals to departments and towards the organization as a
whole, mindfulness is a valuable practice to cultivate and
develop inside organizations. As an example, for its bene-
ficial impact for the organization as a whole, Hales and
Chakravorty (2016), in their case study with a healthcare
organization, have demonstrated evidence for creating high
reliability organizations through mindfulness training. The
techniques that were used included quiet meditation, mindful
reflection and communication.
In her theoretical analysis of integrity and mindfulness
discussed to be foundations of corporate citizenship,
Waddock (2001) concluded that mindfulness, through pro-
viding the opportunity and time for reflection, for dialogue,
for mutual problem solving(Argyris, 1993; Schön, 1983)
helps towards the formation of a learning organization
(Senge, 1990). And she suggested that learning could be the
necessary foundation for the mindfulness and integrity which
are important for corporate citizenship.
As mindfulness and oneness implies processes at both
intra and interpersonal levels, it is important to mention the
integration of mind, body and soul as an implication of
oneness and the healthy state that could be reached through
mindfulness practices. Following the understanding of the
‘whole individuals’ (Aşkun, 2019), to be able to reach that
state and capacity inside the organizations, one can talk about
‘competency development’ at the most practical level. Here
the role of individual consciousness and its level should be
specifically stressed. As Aşkun (2019) states, individual
consciousness tells us a lot about the healthiness of the
humans as systems (Sadhguru, 2016) and could be under-
stood as one’s own personal experience related to one’s own
rather than to the others’ (Marques, 2012).
At the interpersonal realm, we can definitely talk about
consciousness expressed in relationships in the form of re-
lational consciousness (Hay and Nye, 1998) while also
outward behaviors. As Aşkun (2019) states, behaviors are
visible and observable parts of humans and thus can lend
themselves more easily also for measurement in the scientific
arena. And when we talk about the healthiness of the humans
10
and their practices, we could be expecting positive outcomes
in return.
Coming back to the competency development, Aşkun
(2019) lists those which could be highly relevant for cul-
tivation in today’s organizations. At the intra-personal level
she talks about consciousness, mindfulness, work motiva-
tion, resilience, organizational identification and commit-
ment. At the interpersonal level, relational consciousness,
organizational citizenship behaviors, emotional intelli-
gence, organizational communication, and effective lead-
ership practices were listed. As we think of organizations as
systems surrounding and surrounded by systems, the de-
velopment of these competencies could have far reaching
consequences in terms of organizational performance and
beyond.
Particularly in terms of the industry specifics and the blue-
collar workforce characteristics, most of the interventions
carried out in the form of training for these types of workers
are informative and very conventional (Miroshin et al.,
2018). And the motivation of these employees could be
sometimes low (Arnolds et al., 2010). And due to the nature
of their work, sometimes those workers’ mental health thus
work performance might be at stake (Tsutsumi et al., 2009).
In fact, in a study that explored the antecedents of job sat-
isfaction and OCB among agency-hired blue-collar con-
tractual workers in the Philippines, especially job
characteristics and job satisfaction scores predicted their
OCB. As the job itself could be demotivating and repeating,
the motivation and satisfaction of these workers could be
understandably low. Relatedly, there are studies that showed
promising results in terms of reduced depression levels after a
stress-reduction program carried out (Kawakami et al., 1997).
In terms of motivation sources of white versus blue-collar
workers, there are stark differences outlined by Furnham
(2005) who stated that white-collar workers cite their sources
of satisfaction as work which is intrinsically interesting,
opportunities for skill development, and opportunity to see
the work results. And pay is one of the items listed latest. For
the blue-collar workers, those sources of satisfaction are
reversed in the list where pay comes first followed by support
and job security. However, given the demanding conditions
for their daily jobs, stress management thus performance and
related positive outcomes such as OCB could still be con-
sidered significant amongst these worker groups. As there are
ample studies that demonstrated the positive influence of
mindfulness-based interventions over stress at the workplace,
the current study results could be instrumental in increasing
those efforts to promote mindfulness practice both by
managers and employees.
For seeing the larger picture inside the organizations,
Furnham (2005) also discussed that it would be difficult or
almost irrelevant for the blue-collar workers to see the link
between their day-to-day job and the mission-values-strategy
of the organization. As the nature of their daily work is very
routine and repetitive, very much unlike those of the white-
collar workers, mindfulness and related practices could
provide opportunities especially for these workers to connect
to a larger whole therefore see the bigger picture. This might
not only help with increased motivation and performance, but
also create a sense of meaning they could derive from their
work.
Journal of General Management 0(0)
Relatedly, maybe the most important practical implication
of the study could be about mindfulness combined with
oneness behaviors to produce healthy workplace outcomes
such as citizenship behaviors. As oneness behaviors repre-
sent those behaviors which are clearly distinct from a self-
focused concern in social relationships (Aşkun and Çetin,
2017), enabling and encouraging those behaviors especially
targeted for the other individuals would nurture the inter-
connectedness principle. In essence, every type of organi-
zation be it social, professional, or physical, works in a
system of interconnected relationships. To be able to co-
create interconnectedness in an organization, mindfulness
practices, as well as oneness behaviors would work as a
practical and behavioral guide for all employees, including
managers, top managers and all stakeholders. For an orga-
nization to function and perform and eventually evolve in an
ever-changing society, world and the universe, endorsement
of these types of practices and behaviors would trigger a
strong and vibrant ripple effect in a constant evolving sea of
consciousness.
Limitations of the study and directions for future
research. Although having very important findings for the
future of mindfulness related research in the context of or-
ganizations, the current study also has some obvious limi-
tations which are useful to mention. First of all, using MAAS
for the measure of mindfulness might also bring its own
setbacks. Although having important associations with
positive outcomes, MAAS also has been criticized on several
grounds regarding original operational definition (Shapiro,
2009), scope, being too narrow in terms of its content and
also some possible unfavorable outcomes (Hülsheger et al.,
2013). One of the most important criticisms is by Shapiro
(2009) who contended that the one-dimensional definition of
mindfulness may not truly capture the richness of the con-
struct. The other and a very important criticism comes from
Purser and Milillo (2015) who argued very strongly that
mindfulness should not be equated simply with nonjudg-
mental awareness as mindfulness should be covering past,
present and the future states altogether. In addition, Purser
and Milillo (2015) argue that the definition put forward by the
original MAAS, does not truly capture the real essence of
mindfulness which actually has to reflect more of its original
Buddhist conceptualization. Therefore, the usage of MAAS,
albeit practical for the current research aims, actually is a
shortcoming for the research model. In the future, multi-
dimensional mindfulness measures or more qualitative
methods (see Purser and Milillo, 2015) could be more helpful
to be able to understand these relationships better.
Regarding measuring OCB as two separate dimensions,
Podsakoff et al. (2009), in their meta-analysis of individual
and organizational level consequences of OCB, found little
support for the differential relationships between OCBO and
OCBIs and individual-level outcomes. While the authors
mention that the number of studies that were conducted to test
the differences between two types of OCBs is quite small, this
is noteworthy to mention for future research to be conducted
concerning OCBI or OCBO.
About oneness behaviors it could be easily said that it is a
novel and an unexplored behavioral domain, therefore our
results concerning its influential role should be approached
Aşkun and Çetin
with that in mind. As a new concept, oneness behaviors need
to be tested with different cultures and also with normative
studies which should be carried out for a further under-
standing of the construct validity.
In terms of methodology, while the strength of the current
study would be using a multi-source method, the sample size
for the managers was quite small therefore only peer ratings
could be included in the analysis. Even the multi-source data
gathering method has some advantages over the single-
source method there is also a possible limitation. We have
used the data collected from coworkers as observers of
participants’ oneness and citizenship behaviors. Since the
data are coming from situation-specific observations there
may be situations in where some behaviors are not being
observed by coworkers, for instance, some citizenship be-
haviors towards organizations. Increasing the number of
sources such as supervisors or customers and exploring the
source agreement among them may produce more infor-
mative and objective results in the future. In addition, this
type of data was obtained only from a single company, which
limits the generalizability of the research results.
Future research would benefit from a better measure of
mindfulness may be by using more qualitative approaches
(Purser and Milillo, 2015), using different organization types,
and also samples that render cross-cultural comparisons
possible.
Concluding remarks
The current study is important firstly because it brings a novel
approach to mindfulness and organizational citizenship re-
lationship by including oneness behaviors inside the research
model. Firstly, any research effort to better explain organi-
zational citizenship behavior is important since studies of
dispositional factors in OCB research are still scarce (Organ
et al., 2006) compared to contextual factors such as
organizational/managerial support, attitudinal factors such as
satisfaction, commitment, and so on. The importance of
exploring the role of individual factors in OCB lies in the fact
that no matter what type of organizational/professional en-
vironment one is working in, some individuals may just be
more likely or predisposed to demonstrate OCB compared to
others (Bolino and Turnley, 2003). Among those individual
factors, personality dimensions, cultural dimensions (indi-
vidualistic vs collectivistic), being emphatic and altruistic
and some others were the focus of previous research. In terms
of mindfulness, the current study would be among the very
few (Allred, 2012) that tried to explore its influential role in
OCB.
By bringing oneness into the picture in an effort to further
understand the determinants of positive organizational out-
comes, the importance of interconnectedness and how it could
be practiced inside the organizations are especially stressed.
Following from Barnard (1938)’s original conception of “we
thinking” in organizations, today, as management of diversity
and inclusion of other cultures, values and individuals to our
organizational systems is more of a rule rather than an ex-
ception, the performance and further growth of the healthy
organizations depend on being in a constant learning state
enabled through our practices that welcome and accept others.
As Kawalilak (2006) beautifully puts, otherness is an
11
opportunity that leads us to harmonious pathways where we
welcome otherness by exploring each other beyond our cul-
tural differences in a never-ending discovery of our
connectedness.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Fatih Çetin  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2487-9553
References
Allred CM (2012) ‘Mindfulness and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors: Recognizing when to Help Others in the Work-
place’, Master’s Thesis. Greenville, NC: East Carolina
University.
Amel EL, Manning CM and Scott BA (2009) Mindfulness and
sustainable behavior: Pondering attention and awareness as
means for increasing green behavior. Ecopsychology 1(1):
14–25.
Amen U and Raziq A (2020) Dimensions of workplace spirituality
and organizational citizenship behavior with the mediating role
of job satisfaction. Journal of Critical Reviews 7(19):
3198–3208.
Argyris C. (1993) Education for leading-learning. Organizational
Dynamics 21(3): 5–17.
Arnolds C, Boshoff C, Mazibuko N, et al. (2010) The motivational
impact of job security, recognition, monetary incentives and
training on the job performance of blue- collar employees.
South African Journal of Labour Relations 34: 86–102.
Aspy DJ and Proeve M (2017) Mindfulness and loving-kindness
meditation: effects on connectedness to humanity and to the
natural world. Psychological Reports 120(1): 102–117.
Aşkun D (2019) Organizational oneness: a possible vision or an
inescapable reality? In: Marques J (ed) The Routledge Com-
panion to Management and Workplace Spirituality. New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis.
Aşkun D and Çetin F (2017) How do we demonstrate Oneness as a
behavior? Operationalizing oneness through scale measure-
ment. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health 19(1): 34–60.
Asthana AN (2021) Organizational citizenship behavior of MBA
students: the role of mindfulness and resilience. The Inter-
national Journal of Management Education 19: 1–11.
Barnard CI (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Basım HN and Şeşen H (2006) An adaptation and comparison of
organizational citizenship behavior scale. Ankara University
SBF Journal 61(4): 83–101.
Bolino MC and Turnley WH (2003) Going the extra mile: culti-
vating and managing employee citizenship behavior. The
Academy of Management Executive 17(3): 60–71.
Borman W. C. (2004) The Concept of Organizational Citizen-
ship. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13(6):
238–241.
12
Brown KW and Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present:
mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 84(4): 822–848.
Brown KW, Ryan RM and Creswell JD (2007) Mindfulness: the-
oretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.
Psychological Inquiry 18(4): 211–237.
Burgoon JK, Berger CR and Waldron VR (2000) Mindfulness and
interpersonal communication. Journal of Social Issues 56(1):
105–127.
Chen LC, Niu HJ, Wang YD, et al. (2009) Does job standardization
increase organizational citizenship behavior? Public Personnel
Management 38(3): 39–49.
Chughtai MS, Shah SZA, Hafeez M, et al. (2020) Emotional in-
telligence and organizational citizenship behavior: psycho-
pathic trait as mediator and mindfulness as moderator.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
29(8): 317–333.
Deci E. L. and Ryan R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self:
Integration in personality. In Dienstbier R. A. (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 1990: Perspectives on motivation
(pp. 237–288). University of Nebraska Press.
Flanagan O (2011) The Bodhisattva’s Brain: Buddhism Naturalized.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forbes D (2012) Occupy Mindfulness. New York, NY: City Uni-
versity of New York, Brooklyn College. Online publication.
Frost K (2016) Calming meditation increases altruism, decreases
parochialism, BioRxiv, 1–16. doi: 10.1101/060616
Furnham A (2005) Motivating Blue-Collar Workers. Palgrave
Macmillan Books’, the People Business. London, UK: Pal-
grave Macmillan, 116–118.
Giacalone RA and Jurkiewicz CL (2003) Toward a Science of
Workplace Spirituality. In: Giacalone R and Jurkiewicz CL
(eds) Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organiza-
tional Performance. ‘Armonk: NY: M.E. Sharpe Publishers,
3–28.
Giraud L, Frimousse S, Bihan YL, et al. (2021) Mindful and positive
leadership interventions: impacts on positive experiences,
traits, and behaviors. In: AGRH Congress 2021: Mutations De
L’environnement, Mutations Des Organisations, Mutations De
La GRH?, 13-15 October 2021, Paris, UK.
Gupta M, Kumar V and Singh M (2014) Creating satisfied em-
ployees through workplace spirituality: a study of the private
insurance sector in Punjab (India). Journal of Business Ethics
122: 79–88.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2006) Multivariate Data
Analysis. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Edu-
cation Inc.
Hales DN and Chakravorty SS (2016) Creating high reliability
organizations using Mindfulness. Journal of Business Re-
search 69: 2873–2881.
Hanh TN (2006) The Sun My Heart: The Companion to the Miracle
of Mindfulness. Berkeley, CA: Parallax press.
Hay D and Nye R (1998) The Spiritual of the Child. London, UK:
Found paperbacks.
Hayes AF (2017) The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS.
Available at: http://www.processmacro.org/index.html (ac-
cessed 1 March 2017).
Hülsheger UR, Alberts HJ, Feinholdt A, et al. (2013) Benefits of
mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion
regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. The
Journal of Applied Psychology 98(2): 310–325.
Journal of General Management 0(0)
Ivanhoe P (2015) Senses and values of oneness. In: Bruya B (ed)
The Philosophical Challenge from China. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 231–251.
Krahnke K and Cooperrider D (2008) Appreciative inquiry: in-
quiring new questions and dreaming new dreams. In: Tischler
L and Biberman G (eds) Spirituality in Business: Theory,
Practice, and Future Directions. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kostanski M and Hassed C (2008) Mindfulness as a concept and a
process. Australian Psychologist 43(1): 15–21.
Kawakami N, Araki S, Kawashima M, et al. (1997) Effects of work-
related stress reduction on depressive symptoms among Jap-
anese blue-collar workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health 23(1): 54–59.
Kawalilak CA (2006) Seeking oneness in a world of difference.
International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Com-
munities & Nations 5(5): 51–60.
Ma E and Qu H (2011) Social exchanges as motivators of hotel
employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: the proposition
and application of a new three-dimensional framework. Inter-
national Journal of Hospitality Management 30(3): 680–688.
Marques J, Dhiman S and King R (2007) Spirituality in the
Workplace: What it Is, Why it Matters, How to Make it Work for
You. Fawnskin, CA: Personhood Press.
MacKillop J and Anderson EJ (2007) Further psychometric vali-
dation of the mindful attention awareness scale (MAAS).
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 29(4):
289–293.
Marques J (2012) Consciousness at work: a review of some im-
portant values, discussed from a Buddhist perspective. Journal
of Business Ethics 105: 27–40.
Miroshin D, Borodina N, Kostina O, et al. (2018) Modular tech-
nology of corporate formation of blue-collar workers’ pro-
fessional competency. Eurasian Journal of Analytical
Chemistry 13.
Nanda J (2009) Mindfulness: a lived experience of existential-
phenomenological themes. Existential Analysis 20(1):
147–162.
Nguyen T, Ngo LV and Surachartkumtonkun J (2019) When do-
good meets empathy and mindfulness. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 50: 22–29.
Ouchi WG (1980) Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative
Science Quarterly 25: 129–141.
Organ DW, Podsakoff PM and MacKenzie SB (2006) Organization
Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Conse-
quences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Patel TG (2017) Benefits of Mindfulness in the Workplace: The
Effects of Mindful Practices on Counterproductive Workplace
Behaviors and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Auburn,
AL: Auburn University. [Unpublished doctorate thesis].
Podsakoff NP, Whiting SW, Podsakoff PM, et al. (2009) Individual-
and organizational-level consequences of organizational citi-
zenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 94(1): 122–141.
Purser RE and Milillo J (2015) Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhist-
based conceptualization. Journal of Management Inquiry
24(1): 3–24.
Puswiartika D, Bettega M, Ratu B, et al. (2021) The effect of
mindfulness-based intervention on service commitment of the
employees of telecommunication service provider in Covid-19
pandemic. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 27(5): 1–7.
Aşkun and Çetin
Roche M and Haar JM (2013) A metamodel approach towards self-
determination theory: a study of New Zealand managers’ or-
ganizational citizenship behaviors. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 24(18): 3397–3417.
Ryan R. M. and Deci E. L. (2004) Autonomy Is No Illusion: Self-
Determination Theory and the Empirical Study of Authenticity,
Awareness. In: Greenberg Will.J., Koole S. L. and Pyszczynski
T. (eds). Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology.
Guilford Press, 449–479.
Sadhguru (2016) Inner Engineering. New York, NY: Penguin
Random House.
Sawyer KB, Thoroughgood CN, Stillwell EE, et al. (2021) Being
present and thankful: a multi-study investigation of mindful-
ness, gratitude, and employee helping behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.
1037/apl0000903
Schön D. A. (1983) Reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schutte N. S., Malouff J. M., Bobik C., Coston T., Greeson C.,
Jedlicka C., Rhodes E. and Wendorf G. (2001) Emotional
Intelligence and Interpersonal Relations. Journal of Social
Psychology 141: 523–536.
Senge P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the
learning organization. London: Random House.
Shapiro SL (2009) The integration of mindfulness and psychology.
Journal of Clinical Psychology 65(6): 555–560.
Shapiro SL, Carlson LE, Astin JA, et al. (2006) Mechanisms of
mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62(3): 373–386.
Subramaniam M and Panchanatham N (2015) Impact of spiritual in-
telligence and mindfulness on organizational citizenship behavior.
International Journal of Scientific Research 4(1): 228–230.
Şahin S, Özcan NA and Arslan BR (2020) The mediating role of
thriving: mindfulness and contextual performance among
Turkish nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 28: 175–184.
Tejeda MJ (2015) Exploring the supportive effects of spiritual well-
being on job satisfaction given adverse work conditions.
Journal of Business Ethics 131: 173–181.
13
Tepper BJ (2003) Organizational citizenship behavior and the
spiritual employee. In: Giacalone RA and Jurkiewicz CL
(eds) Handbook of workplace spirituality and organiza-
tional performance. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
181–190.
Tsutsumi A, Nagami M, Yoshikawa T, et al. (2009) Participatory
intervention for workplace improvements on mental health and
job performance among blue-collar workers: a cluster ran-
domized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational and Envi-
ronmental Medicine 51(5): 554–563.
Waddock S (2001) Integrity and mindfulness: foundations of cor-
porate citizenship. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 1(1):
25–37.
Williams LJ and Anderson SE (1991) Job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment as predictors of organizational citi-
zenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17(3):
601–617.
Wallmark E, Safarzadeh K, Daukantaitė D, et al. (2013) Promoting
altruism through meditation: an 8-week randomized controlled
pilot study. Mindfulness 4(3): 223–234.
Weick KE and Putnam T (2006) Organizing for mindfulness: eastern
wisdom and western knowledge. Journal of Management
Inquiry 15(3): 275–287.
Weick KE and Sutcliffe KM (2006) Mindfulness and the quality of
organizational attention. Organization Science 17(4):
514–524.
Weick K. E., Sutcliffe K. M. and Obstfeld D. (1999) In: Staw B. M.
and Cummings L. L. (eds). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc,
(Vol. 21,, 81–123.
Welwood J (1996) Reflection and presence: The dialectic of self-
knowledge. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 28(2):
107–128.
Zheng MX, Masters-Waage TC, Yao J, et al. (2020) Stay mindful
and carry on: mindfulness neutralizes COVID-19 stressors on
work engagement via sleep duration. Frontiers in Psychology
11: 1–13.