I am happy to see the topic of mindfulness at work find its way into this journal as a focal article (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, Reference Hyland, Lee and Mills2015), and I read it with great interest. Although I agree with most of the points made, I want to elaborate on some critical issues that were not or were only briefly touched on and that I deem worthy of further exploration and discussion.

With the current surge in popularity of mindfulness trainings in organizations, it is our responsibility as (mindfulness) researchers to ensure that mindfulness interventions are used for the right goals and implemented so that they benefit the participating individuals. Given the current publicity about mindfulness in the media and comparatively little empirical evidence on mindfulness in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, there is a risk that mindfulness interventions will be sold as a panacea to fix well-being, motivation, and performance-related problems in organizations without changing potentially underlying structural problems. In order to be able to manage organizational expectations about mindfulness interventions and to safeguard the proper use and promotion of mindfulness in organizations, it is important to address a number of critical issues. These issues refer to commonly held (mis)conceptions and research foci that limit not only our understanding of the role of mindfulness at work but also the appropriate use of mindfulness in organizations. I first discuss these points and then delineate how research in I-O psychology may help shed light on these issues:

1. 1. the danger that mindfulness interventions may be seen as a quick fix;

2. 2. the idea that encouraging employees to engage in mindfulness practices always is a win–win situation, benefitting individuals and organizations alike;

3. 3. the exclusive focus on antecedents of mindfulness at the level of the individual.

Related to the first point, the authors of the focal article describe how the classic mindfulness-based stress reduction program (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn1990) has been adapted in format, content, and duration to better fit the needs of organizations and employees. These changes include reductions in overall duration of the training (8 weeks in classic MBSR), reductions in duration of group meetings (2.5 hours in classic MBSR), and reductions in duration of daily individual practice (45 minutes in classic MBSR). Overall, research has documented positive effects of slimmed versions of MBSR for employees’ psychological functioning and well-being (Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, Reference Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt and Lang2013; Hülsheger, Feinholdt, & Nübold, Reference Hülsheger, Feinholdt and Nübold2015; Klatt, Buckworth, & Malarkey, Reference Klatt, Buckworth and Malarkey2009; Michel, Bosch, & Rexroth, Reference Michel, Bosch and Rexroth2014; Wolever et al., Reference Wolever, Bobinet, McCabe, Mackenzie, Fekete, Kusnick and Baime2012). Importantly, however, all studies cited above measured training effects immediately or shortly (up to 2 weeks) after the training. When engaging in mindfulness training and practice, positive effects may appear rather quickly, but they may also fade out quickly once one stops practicing. We consequently know little about the sustainability of effects found for mindfulness interventions in general and for low-dose interventions in particular. In the absence of such evidence, we should thus be cautious not to perceive mindfulness as a quick fix to well-being and health-related problems. Jon Kabat-Zinn (Reference Kabat-Zinn2013), who developed MBSR, describes mindfulness as a skill that can only be developed through continuous practice. Comparing it with a muscle, he explains how mindfulness can only grow, become stronger, and become more flexible when we continuously work on it and challenge it. This implies that long-term benefits can only be reaped if participants keep practicing mindfulness on a regular basis and incorporate it into their everyday life. By being offered low-dose interventions, employees can be familiarized with the concept of mindfulness, and they can learn how to perform basic mindfulness practices. Most important, they can learn what it means to become more mindful and experience how this may benefit their own lives in a variety of ways. Low-dose interventions may thus help to jumpstart a more mindful way of living and working, but it is just a first step toward a longer journey for both individuals and organizations. As I-O researchers we should therefore ensure that we do not lead individuals and organizations to mistake mindfulness training as a quick and easy solution to their problems. In order to be able to do so, we may address a number of related research questions. For instance, how far can we go in reducing the time and effort invested in mindfulness-based trainings before they lose effectiveness? What is the relative importance of the duration and number of group sessions versus the time invested in daily individual practice for training effectiveness? How long do training effects persist once the training is finalized? What individual, environmental, or training-related factors predict whether or not participants keep practicing mindfulness after the training is finalized? What kinds of measures or tools may support the continuous practice of mindfulness?

A second frequently seen (implicit) assumption is that encouraging employees to become more mindful will necessarily benefit the individual and the employing organization alike. The authors of the focal article touch on this issue by describing that mindfulness may have consequences that are not in line with organizational goals. A common understanding is that mindfulness enhances good things that are good for individuals and for organizations (e.g., performance, psychological and physical health, coping with stress, engagement) while reducing bad things that are bad for individuals and for organizations (e.g., burnout, negative affect, health complaints). Offering mindfulness-based interventions to employees thus seems to be a win–win situation, and this is what might make it so attractive to consultants and organizations. Yet we should be aware that encouraging employees to become more mindful might have immediate “costs” for organizations if one thinks about gains and costs from a performance- and profit-oriented perspective. Professional mindfulness trainers report that once individuals get more access to their emotions and become more aware of their fundamental values and ideals, they may see the sources of sorrow and happiness more clearly and be willing to make radical life-changing decisions, such as leaving a partner or searching for a new job. For instance, a hedge fund manager may realize that earning money by betting on crop failures and crises is not in line with his values and may identify it as a source of constant discomfort, which encourages him to quit his job. In a similar but less radical way, employees may realize that “what one has is enough” (Brown, Kasser, Ryan, Linley, & Orzech, Reference Brown, Kasser, Ryan, Linley and Orzech2009) and thereby experience a reduced need to strive for promotions that would be associated with a higher status and pay grade. Or employees may become aware that their work–life balance is out of control, and they may stop working on evenings and weekends and enjoy leisure activities or time with kids and family instead. One may argue that in the long run, organizations benefit if they only retain employees who feel comfortable with the work they are doing and who have a satisfactory work–life balance. Unfortunately, however, there are to date no empirical data to shed light on the question of whether and to what extent the benefits of mindfulness interventions for individuals may have costs for organizations and to what extent these costs are short or long term. Yet, such empirical evidence is crucial if we seek to gain a comprehensive understanding of the role of mindfulness in the context of work. Research into the benefits of mindfulness for individuals may thus be extended to incorporate the short- and long-term consequences from the point of view of organizations.

Gaining empirical data on this issue may also help prevent the risk that with increasing popularity, mindfulness may be turned into a marketable product that is alienated from its Buddhist origins and core ethical ideas (for such concerns see, e.g., Purser & Loy, Reference Purser and Loy2013). It may preserve mindfulness from being advertised as a panacea for organizations that helps improve performance, engagement, and well-being, among other desirable things. In this context it may be helpful to recall two core attitudinal foundations of mindfulness practice: “nonstriving” and “letting go” (Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn2013). In the spirit of a nonstriving attitude, patients of the Stress Reduction Clinic, where MBSR was developed, are asked in the beginning of the program to identify three goals they hope to achieve by doing the program, only to be encouraged to let go of these goals after they have listed them. The underlying idea is that at times the best way to achieve something is to stop pushing hard and to focus on becoming aware of what is and accepting things as they are instead. The idea may be exemplified by the fact that consciously trying to fall asleep has the paradoxical effect that it becomes even harder to find sleep. The fundamental idea in mindfulness interventions consequently is that with a nonstriving attitude and other key elements of mindfulness, including patience and regular practice, progress will come naturally (Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn2013). Just as individuals following a mindfulness intervention are encouraged to let go of their intervention-related goals and take on a nonstriving attitude, organizations wishing to facilitate mindfulness should be made aware of this core attitudinal foundation of mindfulness. To support this process, it would be helpful to draw on empirical findings that document the various potential consequences of mindfulness practice for individuals and organizations, including the ones that may be less beneficial for organizations in the short term.

The third issue I want to discuss is the current one-sided focus on antecedents of mindfulness at the level of the individual. Encouraged by the wealth of evidence on the salutary effects of mindfulness for individuals from the clinical and personality psychology literature, I-O practitioners and also researchers have predominantly focused on mindfulness at the level of the individual. Accordingly, the research questions being addressed in extant studies (e.g., Allen & Kiburz, Reference Allen and Kiburz2012; Dane & Brummel, Reference Dane and Brummel2014; Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, Reference Hafenbrack, Kinias and Barsade2014; Hülsheger et al., Reference Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt and Lang2013, Reference Hülsheger, Feinholdt and Nübold2015, Reference Hülsheger, Lang, Depenbrock, Fehrmann, Zijlstra and Alberts2014; Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, Reference Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova and Sels2013; Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy, Reference Marzuq and Drach-Zahavy2012; Michel et al., Reference Michel, Bosch and Rexroth2014; Reb, Narayanan, & Chaturvedi, Reference Reb, Narayanan and Chaturvedi2014; Reb, Narayanan, & Ho, Reference Reb, Narayanan and Ho2015; Wolever et al., Reference Wolever, Bobinet, McCabe, Mackenzie, Fekete, Kusnick and Baime2012) may be roughly summarized as follows: What are the work-related consequences of employee mindfulness, and how can individual mindfulness be enhanced through training? This research focus implies that if organizations want to deploy the benefits of mindfulness, they need to develop mindfulness by providing trainings to their employees. Although this certainly is an effective way of enhancing mindfulness (as evidenced by the studies cited above), it may not be the only way to promote mindfulness in organizations. As I-O psychologists we have become more and more aware that work-related psychological phenomena occur and interact at different levels of analysis. Taking this into consideration, different research questions may be asked that have direct practical implications: What aspects of organizational or team climate promote individual mindfulness? Is there something like an organizational or team mindfulness climate, and how does it influence team and individual outcomes? How does such a mindfulness climate emerge within teams? Does leader mindfulness spill over to team members such that, for example, more visionary and mindful leaders have more mindful followers? How can a climate of mindfulness be enhanced within teams and through organizational policies and practices? Addressing these questions would signalize that organizations can do more than offering mindfulness trainings in that they can contribute to promoting mindfulness by implementing corresponding organizational- and team-related policies and practices.