Search inside yourself: investigating the effects of a widely adopted mindfulness-at-work development program

Abstract

Purpose –

Workplace mindfulness training has many benefits, but designing programs to reach a wide audience effectively and efficiently remains a challenge. The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of a widely adopted workplace mindfulness program on the mindfulness, active listening skill, emotional intelligence, and burnout of employees in a large, multinational internet company.

Design/methodology/approach –

The study sample included 123 employees across three company offices who completed the two-day Search Inside Yourself (SIY) program. Data were collected using self-report measures pre-, post-, and four-weeks post-intervention and were analyzed using paired samples t-tests.

Findings –

Significant increases were detected in mindfulness and the “awareness of emotion” components of emotional intelligence four weeks post-course. No significant changes were found in participants’ self-reported levels of burnout, active listening skill or the “management of emotion” components of emotional intelligence.

Practical implications –

Teaching workplace mindfulness and emotional intelligence skills through a highly applied, condensed course format may be effective for increasing mindfulness and the “awareness” components of emotional intelligence. Longer courses with more applied practice may be necessary to help participants build emotional management and listening skills and to reduce burnout.

Originality/value –

The present study is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first academic, peer-reviewed assessment of SIY, a workplace mindfulness training program that has been taught to over 50,000 people worldwide.

Introduction

Academic and organizational interest in mindfulness in the workplace has rapidly grown in the past decade Jamieson and Tuckey, 2017). Defined as a psychological quality of enhanced present-moment attention and awareness, mindfulness has been linked to an array of workplace benefits, including improved well-being, performance and interpersonal relationships (Good et al., 2016). Importantly, mindfulness can be enhanced through simple training programs that teach mindfulness-increasing practices, including meditation (Eberth and Sedlmeier, 2012; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The benefits and simplicity of using mindfulness as a management practice (Lyddy and Good, 2017) has fueled rapid growth in organizational investment, leading mindfulness training to become a $1+ billion/year industry (Howe, 2017).

This rapid growth in investment has outpaced the evidence base regarding the efficacy of workplace mindfulness interventions. Several major issues have emerged. First, the majority of workplace mindfulness intervention research has assessed programs that were first designed as mental health treatments, such as the widely-used Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1982). While the efficacy of these interventions is well-established for individuals with clinical levels of distress, they may translate poorly to the workplace because of their content, length, format or other issues. This discrepancy has prompted many organizations to create their own custom-tailored interventions, which may vary greatly in their effectiveness (Lomas et al., 2017).

Second, the evaluation of workplace mindfulness programs has been almost exclusively focused on well-being to the point that it is now possible to conduct meta-analyses on their efficacy (Bartlett et al., 2019). Evidence linking mindfulness to other factors including job performance and work metrics has yielded mixed results (Bartlett et al., 2019; Rupprecht et al., 2019), and more studies targeting outcomes besides well-being are needed. Assessing the effectiveness of modified workplace programs using not only well-being but also functional measures of workplace impacts, such as burnout, is therefore imperative for understanding the value and effective deployment of mindfulness training at work.

Mindfulness training in the workplace

Although many definitions exist, mindfulness is often conceptualized as an “awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145). There is ample evidence that learning and applying these skills in the workplace has positive effects on employee health and well-being (for reviews see Jamieson and Tuckey, 2017; Lomas et al., 2017). Although evidence linking mindfulness to organizational outcomes has been less conclusive (Bartlett et al., 2019; Rupprecht et al., 2019), some evidence indicates that mindfulness practice and/or training reduces burnout and increases job satisfaction (Hülsheger et al., 2013); decreases perceived stress (Klatt et al., 2009); improves engagement (Leroy et al., 2013), hope (Mellor et al., 2016) and leadership (King and Haar, 2017); and even increases the ability to resist cognitive biases (Hafenbrack et al., 2014).

Interpretation of the above data is complicated by a lack of consensus around what constitutes “mindfulness training.” Workplace mindfulness programs originally emerged from Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1982), which includes extensive meditation practice. However, despite various attempts to categorize programs and assert boundaries, a diversity of programs exists in practice, not all of which include meditation training (Chiesa and Malinowski, 2011; Crane et al., 2017). Some authors have argued that there has been an over-inclusion of meditation practice in mindfulness courses (Hayes and Shenk, 2004), while others criticize programs that lack meditation practice as straying from their roots (Rapgay and Bystrisky, 2009). This lack of standardization may introduce unhelpful variance into training content and research findings, making it more difficult to identify what should be taught and whether the training is working. In response to the proliferation of mindfulness programs in the past decade, Good et al. (2016, p. 134) note that “a critical area for future applied research is discovering how to optimally design and target mindfulness training at work for maximum efficacy and sustainability.”

Although diversity in program content and design may not be ideal from a research standpoint, it is often necessary due to practical needs or limitations in organizations. For example, workplace Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction trainings frequently deviate from the traditional format (Allen et al., 2015; Van Gordon et al., 2015). This deviation includes changes in the length and intensity of training (Crane et al., 2017) that may impact aspects of training efficacy. For example, a recent study by Slutsky et al. (2019) found that a six-week mindfulness training was comparable to a half day mindfulness seminar for generating improvements in job productivity. Furthermore, a growing body of research suggests that a limited “dosage” of mindfulness training can promote significant results (Good et al., 2016). For example, five minutes of mindfulness training led to improved task performance (Weger et al., 2012) and negotiation outcomes (Reb et al., 2014), while three hours of training yielded improvements in neural functioning (Moore et al., 2012).

In a review of mindfulness-based interventions for employees, Eby et al. (2019) found that the average length of intervention was 8.46 weeks. This is not to suggest that most workplace mindfulness programs run for this length of time; in reality, there is a trend toward delivering programs that are shorter in length (Mrazek et al., 2019). These findings do suggest that those programs that have been studied and published in peer-reviewed journals remain closer in length to traditional mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR), which highlights a potential research-practice gap. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of assessing individual programs for their effectiveness, while not assuming all workplace mindfulness programs have the same effects.

Background of the intervention

While many mindfulness-at-work interventions now exist, among the most widely used is the Search Inside Yourself (SIY) program. Developed by Google beginning in 2007 (Tan et al., 2012), this brief, two-day introduction to mindfulness practices rapidly became the company’s most subscribed-to leadership program. The program subsequently spun off into a stand-alone entity providing the SIY program to other organizations. Its popularity has since grown substantially, and it has become increasingly adopted by major organizations including American Express, Comcast, Proctor and Gamble, Netflix, Deutsche Telekom and Deloitte, as well as at leading business schools including the University of Michigan and University of Toronto (Search Inside Yourself, 2020). Use of the SIY program in these organizations has not been limited to pilot tests; for example, SAP is now providing the training to more than 20,000 employees (Thomasson, 2018). Although the SIY program has been delivered to over 50,000 people in 150+ cities worldwide (Search Inside Yourself, 2020), to our knowledge no studies have yet empirically reported on its efficacy in an academic, peer-reviewed journal.

While mindfulness training in general has been shown to deliver benefits to well-being, performance and relationships (Good et al., 2016), the most effective way to deliver this training to large, busy and diverse workplace populations remains unclear. Many barriers exist, including limited time to participate in programs and an aversion to mindfulness being countercultural (Lyddy and Good, 2017; Lyddy et al., 2016). In response, the SIY program attempts to distill the main principles and practices found in traditional MBSR and other in-depth programs into an introductory training package more palatable to large workforces that may have little exposure to mindfulness and mindfulness-enhancing practices. In this light, the SIY program may serve as a “gateway” training that can give initial exposure to otherwise mindfulness-naïve individuals and which could encourage subsequent participation and investment in mindfulness training.

The SIY program, led by a team of two facilitators, consists of two full days of lectures, guided experiential exercises and micro-skills practice, followed by a four-week, post-course practice period with daily emails and exercises. SIY situates mindfulness within the emotional intelligence framework, a widely accepted approach to leadership development within organizations that highlights the need to develop awareness and management of emotions (Goleman et al., 2002). Mindfulness has been shown to enhance all of the core capabilities of emotional intelligence (Schutte and Malouff, 2011; Eberth and Sedlmeier, 2012), suggesting that mindfulness training may produce synergistic effects when bundled emotional intelligence training (Good et al., 2016).

In each of six modules – including mindfulness, self-awareness, self-management, motivation, empathy and leadership – SIY participants learn specific tools for first increasing awareness of self and other in the present moment and then apply this awareness to improving workplace outcomes. Micro-practices, which last 1–3 min and can be easily integrated into daily life, are an important element of SIY and are also found in many mindfulness- at-work programs (Allen et al., 2015; Bartlett et al., 2019). Each SIY module contains a set of applied practices, which are described as either “dedicated” (a practice that requires setting time aside, such as sitting or walking meditation) or “integrated” (micro-practices that can be done in-context throughout the day, such as taking a moment to become more present before entering a meeting).

Aim of the study

The extensive adoption of and investment in SIY is occurring with limited scientific documentation of its efficacy. Research is needed to answer key questions such as whether SIY benefits the core outcomes it aims to teach, including mindfulness and emotional intelligence. The aim of this study was to use a prepost design to investigate the degree to which SIY impacted four specific outcomes: mindfulness, active listening skill, emotional intelligence and burnout, in a population of employees across multiple offices of a large, multinational Internet company.

The following hypotheses were set:

• H1.The intervention will increase participants’ self-reported mindfulness level.
• H2.The intervention will increase participants’ self-reported active listening ability.
• H3.The intervention will increase participants’ self-reported work group emotional intelligence level.
• H4.The intervention will decrease participants’ self-reported burnout level.

Methods

Participants

Participants were employees of a large, multinational Internet company who were given the option to complete the SIY course. The course was administered to 216 employees at three locations (Chicago, IL; Bellevue, WA; London, United Kingdom) from March to June 2018. The current sample includes 123 employees who completed surveys at baseline and at least one follow-up time point (56.9% of participants). These response rates are comparable to previous employee survey research (e.g. Baruch and Holtom, 2008). There were no differences between participants included versus excluded from the sample in terms of age, baseline survey measures, current mindfulness practice (assessed using independent samples t-tests, ps ≥ 0.290), race/ethnicity, gender, manager status, job site or previous personal growth training (assessed using chi-square tests of independence, ps ≥ 0.284).

The sample included 52 participants from the Chicago office (42.3%), 40 participants from the London office (32.5%) and 31 participants from the Bellevue office (25.2%). Approximately, half (51.2%) of participants included in analyses were White (n = 63), 24.4% were South Asian (n = 30), 9.8% East Asian (n = 12) and 14.6% multiracial or another ethnicity (n = 18). Participants described their gender as 55.3% male (n = 68), 41.5% female (n = 51) and 3.2% did not report gender (n = 4). The average age of participants was 35.18 (SD = 8.38) with a range of 19–63. Approximately 50% of participants (n = 60) reported having at least some current mindfulness practice; 13% reported engaging in mindfulness practices for fewer than 15 min per day (n = 16), 12% reported 16–60 min per day (n = 15) and 24% reported over 60 min per day (n = 29).

Procedure

Participating employees were given the opportunity to take the SIY course and allowed to opt into the research program, which was ethically approved by the Institutional Review Board at [The University of Texas at Austin]. Employees provided informed consent and were informed that their fully anonymized data would be used for research purposes. Participants were further notified that they would be free to drop out of the course or stop completing surveys at any time without personal or professional penalty. Declining to opt into the course or the research did not carry any implicit or explicit workplace penalties. No incentives, financial or otherwise, were used to motivate employees to take the course or participate in research.

All participants completed the first survey, which included the full battery of measures as well as demographic information and information on previous personal growth training. This battery was given in the precourse survey at baseline. Participants then completed the two-day course and were emailed the second survey directly afterwards and were granted a seven-day window to complete it. Participants subsequently engaged in a four-week practice period where they received daily emails with practice reminders, exercises and tips and optionally attended a one-hour webinar at the end of the practice period. Participants were surveyed again at the end of the four-week practice period. All three surveys included measures of mindfulness, active listening, emotional intelligence and burnout measures. Precourse and four-week post-practice surveys also assessed the time per week (minutes) where participants spent engaging in mindfulness practices before the course and during the postpractice period, respectively.

Measures

Mindfulness.

To assess changes in mindfulness, we administered the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R; Feldman et al., 2006). The CAMS-R is a ten-item self-report (sample item: “I am able to focus on the present moment.”) Each item is rated on a four-point scale (1 = Rarely/Not at All, 4 = Almost always). Responses to items on the CAMS-R demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 in a sample of undergraduate psychology students (Baer et al., 2006).

Active listening.

To assess changes in listening attitudes, we administered the Listening Attitude subscale of the Active Listening Attitude Scale (Mishima et al., 2000). The Listening Attitude subscale is a 12-item self-report (sample item: “I begin to talk before the other person finishes talking.”) Each item is rated on a four-point scale (0 = Disagree, 3 = Agree). Responses to items on the Listening Attitude subscale demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and a test-retest reliability of 0.83 in a sample of manufacturing company workers (Mishima et al., 2000).

Group emotional intelligence.

To assess changes in group emotional intelligence, we administered the Work Group Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S; Jordan and Lawrence, 2009). The WEIP-S is a 16-item self-report (sample item: “I can explain the emotions I feel to team members.”) Each item is rated on a seven-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Responses to items in the WEIP-S demonstrated Cronbach’s alphas on each of the four subscales between 0.73 and 0.88, as well as strong test–retest reliability in a sample of employees from a large public sector organization (Jordan and Lawrence, 2009).

Workplace burnout.

To assess changes in physical and cognitive exhaustion and disengagement, we administered the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI; Demerouti et al., 2003). The OLBI is a 16-item self-report (sample item: “There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work.”) Each item is rated on a seven-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Responses to items in the OLBI demonstrated Cronbach’s alphas of 0.73 for the exhaustion subscale and 0.83 for the disengagement subscale in a sample of Greek employees across a diversity of sectors (Demerouti et al., 2003).

Results

Preliminary analyses indicated no significant differences in baseline survey measures based on job site, ps ≥ 0.112 (assessed using one-way analyses of variance) or completion of surveys at all three timepoints versus two timepoints, ps ≥ 0.329 (independent samples t-tests). According to bivariate correlations (Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.01), current mindfulness practice (minutes per week) was not significantly associated with baseline scores on active listening, r = 0.19, p = 0.035, emotional awareness (own, others’), r = 0.04, p = 0.666; r = 0.18, p = 0.047, emotion management (own, others’), r = 0.21, p = 0.019; r = 0.18, p = 0.046, or burnout (disengagement, exhaustion), r = −0.06, p = 0.488; r = −0.01, p = 0.958. Participants who reported more engagement with a current mindfulness practice had higher scores on the mindfulness survey measure at baseline, r = 0.26, p = 0.005.

We used paired-samples t-tests to assess changes in mindfulness, active listening, emotional intelligence and burnout from baseline to each of the follow-up surveys. In the current sample, 44 participants completed all three surveys (35.8%), 52 completed the baseline and postcourse surveys (42.3%) and 27 completed the baseline and four-week follow-up survey (21.9%). Because paired sample t-tests use listwise deletion to handle missing data, tests of change from baseline to postcourse included all employees who completed both of these surveys (n = 96, 78% of the original sample). Tests of change from baseline to the four-week follow-up included all employees who completed both of these surveys (n = 71, 57.7% of the original sample). Means and standard deviations of outcome variables are found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Scale descriptives and comparisons of study variables from baseline to postintervention and postpractice period assessments

	Scale descriptives		Paired t-tests
	M (SD)	N	t-value	df	p-value
Mindfulness (CAMS) (=0.77)
Baseline	26.83 (4.05)	123
Postintervention	26.20 (4.34)	96	−0.95	95	0.344
Postpractice period	28.53 (4.10)	71	3.76	70	<0.001
Active listening (ALAS) (=0.80)
Baseline	24.98 (5.16)	123
Postintervention	23.77 (6.05)	93	−1.77	92	0.080
Postpractice period	26.32 (4.02)	66	1.23	65	0.222
Emotional int. (WEIP) aware of own (=0.91)
Baseline	4.34 (1.36)	123
Postintervention	4.49 (1.34)	92	1.44	91	0.154
Postpractice period	4.99 (1.23)	63	4.61	62	<0.001
Emotional int. (WEIP) aware of other (=0.91)
Baseline	4.77 (1.04)	123
Post-intervention	4.92 (1.04)	92	2.16	91	0.034
Post-practice period	5.17 (1.04)	63	2.88	62	0.005
Emotional int. (WEIP) mgmt. of own (=0.71)
Baseline	5.80 (0.64)	123
Postintervention	5.73 (0.77)	92	−0.43	91	0.666
Postpractice period	5.93 (0.73)	63	1.42	62	0.162
Emotional int. (WEIP) mgmt. of other (=0.90)
Baseline	4.98 (1.09)	123
Postintervention	5.14 (1.00)	92	2.65	91	0.010
Postpractice period	5.29 (0.99)	63	1.92	62	0.060
Burnout (OLBI) exhaustion (=0.81)
Baseline	2.34 (0.46)	123
Postintervention	2.23 (0.41)	91	−1.48	90	0.143
Postpractice period	2.15 (0.47)	63	−0.89	62	0.379
Burnout (OLBI) disengagement (=0.75)
Baseline	2.20 (0.46)	123
Postintervention	2.29 (0.41)	91	−0.52	90	0.607
Postpractice period	2.28 (0.60)	63	−0.64	62	0.522

In line with H1, participants’ mindfulness scores significantly increased from baseline to the four-week follow-up. In line with H3, awareness of own emotions and awareness of others’ emotions each significantly increased from baseline to four-week follow-up. However, although management of others’ emotions significantly increased postcourse, neither management of own emotions nor management of others’ emotions were significantly higher at the four-week follow-up, as compared to baseline. Findings did not support H2 or H4; there were no significant changes in active listening or burnout from baseline to either the postcourse or the four-week follow-up survey. According to bivariate correlations, engagement in mindfulness activities (minutes/week) during the practice period (between the postcourse and four-week follow-up surveys) was not significantly associated with four-week follow-up scores on mindfulness, r = 0.20, p = 0.117, active listening, r = 0.16, p = 0.222, emotional awareness (own, others’), rs = 0.08, −0.01, ps ≥ 0.543, emotion management (own, others’), rs = 0.07, 0.10, ps ≥ 0.431, or burnout measures (disengagement, exhaustion), rs = −0.08, −0.02, ps ≥ 0.567. Practice period mindfulness engagement was also unrelated to change from baseline to four-week follow-up in mindfulness, r = −0.04, p = 0.748, active listening, r = 0.06, p = 0.638, emotional awareness, rs = −0.09, 0.14, ps ≥ 0.280, emotion management, rs = −0.06, 0.70, ps ≥ 0.593, or burnout measures, rs = 0.08, −0.10, ps ≥ 0.453.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide a preliminary investigation of the effects of SIY on four specific outcomes: mindfulness, active listening, emotional intelligence and burnout. We found that participants reported significant increases in mindfulness and the “awareness of emotions” components of emotional intelligence four weeks post program. The finding that SIY is able to generate measurable changes in mindfulness lends support to the program’s rapid growth and serves as a response to calls for studies that examine mindfulness training programs that are explicitly tailored for work settings (Clarke, 2006) and that target corporate employees outside the healthcare setting (Lomas et al., 2017). Notably, results suggest SIY may be able to generate increases in mindfulness for individuals with no prior mindfulness experience and also for individuals with significant prior experience (half of participants reported some degree of daily mindfulness practice and nearly a quarter of participants reported having an existing practice exceeding 60 min per day).

Contrary to our hypotheses, we did not find that participation in the SIY program was associated with decreases in work disengagement and burnout. It is possible that factors not affected by the SIY program are responsible for much of the variance in burnout and work engagement. These factors may include relationship with one’s supervisor, company culture and workload, which are difficult to impact through individual personal development. This measure was included based on the relatively few studies that have previously assessed work engagement, and our findings integrate well with previous reports that changes in work engagement (Bartlett et al., 2019) and burnout (Lomas et al., 2017) tend to be mixed.

We also did not find significant changes in the “management of emotions” components of emotional intelligence or in participants’ self-reported active listening skill. These findings are consistent with a previous trial of emotional intelligence training programs assessed using the WEIP measure, which similarly found the least amount of change in the managing emotion dimension (Moriarty and Buckley, 2003). It is likely that longer timeframes are required to develop concrete skills such as emotional management or active listening ability than are needed to develop emotional awareness. Our study did find a significant increase in participants’ self-reported ability to manage others’ emotions from baseline to postcourse, but not from baseline to the four-week follow-up. This may be due to a module in the SIY program that specifically focuses on managing challenging interactions with others. It is possible that changes in emotional management or active listening skill could be detected if more program time were focused on these areas.

Study implications

The present study supports the idea that meaningful changes to mindfulness may not be dependent on long periods of meditation practice. SIY follows many of the essential ingredients of mindfulness-based programs outlined in Crane et al. (2017), both at the level of the program (e.g. is informed by contemplative and scientific traditions, fosters greater attentional and emotional regulation) and at the level of the teacher (e.g. embodies qualities of mindfulness, has engaged in appropriate training and commits to ongoing practice). However, less than an hour of the two-day SIY program is devoted to traditional meditation practice. Indeed, in our study, mindfulness practice in the four-week postcourse period was not associated with increases in mindfulness ability (although each individual reporting mindfulness practice postcourse also reported some degree of mindfulness practice prior to the course). These findings coincide with prior research suggesting it is unclear whether meditation practice is the primary driver for increases in mindfulness ability following workplace mindfulness training (Allen et al., 2015). Our findings suggest that a two-day, condensed course with reduced emphasis on dedicated meditation practices such as sitting meditation may be effective for teaching mindfulness skills. This provides an avenue for broader dissemination of these beneficial workplace skills through further development of applied, short-duration programs that do not spend extensive time on meditation.

Additionally, results suggest that combining mindfulness and emotional intelligence training into a single workplace training course may be effective. Both mindfulness and emotional intelligence focus on increasing awareness of the present moment, including an awareness of emotional states in oneself and others, and using this to more deliberately guide one’s reactions. Given increasing interest in emotional intelligence on the part of both researchers and organizations (Hodzic et al., 2018; Mattingly and Kraiger, 2019), the possibility of effectively combining mindfulness and emotional intelligence workplace trainings opens up avenues for future program development and research, as suggested by mindfulness scholars (Good et al., 2016).

Finally, the present research suggests that short-duration workplace mindfulness courses may be more effective for generating awareness (e.g. mindfulness or emotional awareness) than for changing behaviors (e.g. increasing meditation practice or improving listening or emotional management skills). These findings coincide with previous research suggesting that courses occurring over longer time frames with more time for sustained practice may result in greater skill development (Hodzic et al., 2018; Slutsky et al., 2019). Given that SIY brands itself as teaching “practical mindfulness, emotional intelligence and leadership tools” (Search Inside Yourself, 2020), the finding that SIY may be more effective at generating changes in awareness than at changing behaviors is notable and worthy of further research.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged when considering results. First, the present study was single-arm and did not include a control group. Thus, we cannot conclude that the observed changes were a direct result of completing the course. The current design is a sensible first step in assessing the SIY program and is consistent with most research on mindfulness at work, which usually involves quasi-experimental rather than intervention-based designs (Liang et al., 2018; Reb et al., 2013). However, future research should build on this preliminary study using more rigorous research methodology.

Second, some participants did not complete the study, which may be related to the absence of incentives for attending the course or completing surveys. Although these response rates are comparable to previous employee survey research (e.g. Baruch and Holtom, 2008), we addressed this possible limitation by testing for differences between completers and noncompleters. Nonetheless, noncompletion may have also been influenced by other unmeasured factors.

Third, our study relied on self-report data, much like the majority of other workplace mindfulness studies (Allen et al., 2015). Although self-report data have been found to be valid in studies of emotional intelligence (Joseph et al., 2015), some responses may be influenced by social desirability. Future studies would benefit from including external measures, such as job productivity, performance evaluations or peer evaluations, to augment self-report data.

Conclusion

Mindfulness skills have a diversity of benefits for employee well-being and performance, but many employees do not receive training. This study, a preliminary assessment of a widely adopted mindfulness-at-work training program, found that participation was associated with significant improvements in mindfulness and the “awareness of emotion” components of emotional intelligence. These results support further research on the SIY program using objective measures of individual work performance and engagement, as well as outcomes on the team and organizational level. Additionally, results provide initial proof of concept that short-duration programs, which prioritize theory and applied skills over extensive sitting meditation practice, may be effective. Even if less potent than longer interventions, short, applied mindfulness-at-work training programs may serve as practical and effective mechanisms for spreading mindfulness and emotional awareness skills, and their benefits, to a larger number of employees than could be reached through traditional mindfulness programs.