The concept of mindfulness, which refers to “a state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment phenomena occurring both externally and internally” (Dane, 2011, p. 1000), has progressively attracted more attention from researchers in recent years (Good et al., 2016), and is considered to be a prerequisite of effective leadership (Day & Gregory, 2017). Some leader-related studies have explored the positive outcomes of leader mindfulness. For example, leader mindfulness has been linked to employees’ high job performance (Schuh et al., 2019), improved well-being and job satisfaction (Reb et al., 2014), and to the development of a high-quality relationship between leaders and their members, that is, leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships (Reb et al., 2019).

Despite promising progress in the extant literature in identifying the effects of leader mindfulness, this aspect of leadership research is still in a nascent stage (Good et al., 2016). Specifically, the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee extrarole behavior, which is not described in employment contracts, has received little attention. Van Dyne et al. (1995) suggested that organizational citizenship behavior and voice are traditionally defined as two forms of extrarole behaviors. A few researchers have examined the link between leader mindfulness and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Reb et al., 2014). However, to our knowledge, no study has yet been conducted to examine the effect of leader mindfulness on followers’ voice behavior. As Good et al. (2016) noted, there is still a lack of understanding of whether and how leader mindfulness shapes employee outcomes.

One of the ways that mindfulness affects organizational functioning is through its influence on workplace climate (Good et al., 2016). A high-quality LMX relationship can build a supportive and harmonious climate, enhancing employee voice (Jiang et al., 2020). Thus, our objective was to explore the relationships among leader mindfulness, LMX, and employee voice behavior, and to examine whether LMX mediates the link between leader mindfulness and voice behavior.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Voice behavior, defined as employees expressing work-related constructive opinions, concerns, or ideas (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), is regarded as an essential tool in enhancing the performance of organizations (Kim et al., 2010). In previous research, many factors have been considered to analyze the employee voice mechanism (Morrison, 2011). Among these, leaders are considered essential in fostering voice behavior (Farh & Chen, 2018). Scholars have reported that leader characteristics, such as humility and integrity, contribute to the facilitation of employee voice (Li et al., 2018; Peng & Wei, 2020). Mindfulness is often conceptualized as a personal characteristic (Brown & Ryan, 2003), and positively associated with humility and integrity (Goldman Schuyler, 2010; Verdorfer, 2016). Hence, leader mindfulness might contribute to enhancing employees’ voice behavior. Moreover, mindful leaders can better understand employees’ needs and emotions, and demonstrate care and concern for their followers (Reb et al., 2014). These leader behaviors entailed in expressed mindfulness create an environment of psychological safety in which employees can voice their opinions and concerns freely (Chughtai, 2016). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader mindfulness will be positively associated with employee voice behavior.

Employees show trust and respect for their leaders when developing a high-quality LMX relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), which is considered as the premise of employees’ likelihood to speak up to their leaders (Gao et al., 2011; Yan, 2018). According to Tierney and Bauer (1996), when employees perceive a high-quality relationship with their leaders, they feel obliged to reciprocate with their leaders by exhibiting extrarole behaviors. Previous research has also reported that LMX contributes to the enhancement of employees’ voice behavior (see, e.g., Hu et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Leader–member exchange will be positively associated with employee voice behavior.

The broader literature on social psychology has provided convincing evidence that mindfulness has positive effects on relationship quality (e.g., Karremans et al., 2017; Quaglia et al., 2015). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies, people’s level of mindfulness was demonstrated to be significantly and positively related to their level of relationship satisfaction (McGill et al., 2016). In an industrial and organizational psychology context, Good et al. (2016) reviewed the literature on mindfulness at work and provided an integrative framework linking mindfulness with outcomes in the workplace, including relationships, performance, and well-being. They argued that mindfulness may affect the quality of dyadic and work-group relationships in multiple ways, such as improving communication quality, sustaining attention to interaction partners, and exhibiting empathy and compassion. Mindfulness helps leaders to communicate well and clearly with their followers, strengthening their connection with employees (Decuypere et al., 2020; Kearney et al., 2013). Scholars have revealed that leader mindfulness is positively associated with high-quality LMX (Reb et al., 2019). Good et al. (2016) pointed out that one of the ways that mindfulness affects organizational functioning is through its impact on workplace climate. On the basis of these arguments, we believed that LMX may serve as a mediator of the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee voice behavior. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: Leader mindfulness will be positively associated with leader–member exchange.
Hypothesis 4: Leader–member exchange will mediate the leader mindfulness–employee voice behavior relationship.

Figure 1 depicts the theoretical framework of this study.

Method

Procedure

We collected data from frontline employees and their immediate leaders employed at a retailing company in East China that is a member of the China Chain-Store and Franchise Association. After obtaining ethical approval from the company and from the Ethics Committee of Xi’an University of Science and Technology, we invited 250 frontline subordinates and 75 of their immediate supervisors to participate in the survey. No specific reward was given for survey completion. Written informed consent was obtained from participants and confidentiality was assured. The paper-and-pencil survey forms were sent separately to supervisor and subordinate participants. Supervisor participants were asked to assess their own mindfulness and their subordinates’ voice behavior; subordinate participants were asked to assess LMX. Each pair of forms was numbered to enable matching of the supervisor–subordinate data.

Participants

After excluding surveys with missing data and unmatched responses, we received 197 valid forms from supervisor–subordinate dyads (response rate = 78.8%). Subordinates (116 women and 81 men) had a mean age of 30.6 years (SD = 5.73, range 25–37 years); 19.8% had a bachelor’s degree, 44.7% had a junior college degree, and 35.5% had graduated from senior high school. Supervisors (20 women and 42 men) had a mean age of 38.4 years (SD = 10.28, range 30–43 years); 64.5% of them had a bachelor’s degree, 33.9% had a junior college degree, and 1.6% had a senior high school degree.

Measures

All the measures were subject to back-translation. Two doctoral students who had two years’ experience of studying in the United States helped the authors with the translation. Participants responded to the items based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

Leader Mindfulness
To measure leader mindfulness we used the 14-item scale developed by Walach et al. (2006). A sample item is “I am able to smile when I notice how I sometimes make life difficult for myself.” In our study Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

Leader–Member Exchange
We measured LMX using Janssen and Van Yperen’s (2004) seven-item Quality of Leader–Member Exchange Scale. A sample item is “My supervisor considers my suggestions for change.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .85.

Employee Voice Behavior
We measured employee voice behavior with the five-item scale developed by Maynes and Podsakoff (2014). A sample item is “This employee regularly proposes ideas for new or more effective work methods.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .90.

Results

Table 1 sets out scale means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. Consistent with our expectations, there is a significant positive correlation between leader mindfulness and both LMX and employee voice behavior. Further, there is a significant positive correlation between LMX and employee voice behavior.

A series of confirmatory factor analyses was conducted to evaluate the distinctiveness of the study variables using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The hypothesized three-factor model yielded an acceptable fit to the data, χ²/df = 1.95, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .06. A two-factor model combining leader mindfulness and LMX offered a poor fit, by contrast, χ²/df = 3.74, CFI = .72, TLI = .74, RMSEA = .12. Likewise, a one-factor model combining all three variables into a single factor yielded a poor fit, χ²/df = 5.68, CFI = .55, TLI = .52, RMSEA = .20. These results provide evidence for the discriminant validity of leader mindfulness, LMX, and employee voice behavior as variables in the study.

The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling through Amos 22.0. Results reveal that the path coefficients between leader mindfulness and employee voice behavior, .22, SE = .06, p < .01, between LMX and employee voice behavior, .36, SE = .05, p < .01, and between leader mindfulness and LMX, .33, SE = .05, p < .01, were positive and significant, supporting Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. To examine the mediating effect of LMX in the association between leader mindfulness and employee voice behavior, we used bias-corrected bootstrapping for significance testing, generating 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results reveal there was a significant indirect effect of leader mindfulness on employee voice behavior through LMX, .12, SE = .04, 95% CI [0.04, 0.19]. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was also supported.

Discussion

The primary purpose of our study was to explore the mediational mechanism involved in the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee voice behavior. We found that leader mindfulness was positively associated with employee voice behavior, and that LMX partially mediated this relationship. These findings offer some important theoretical and managerial implications.

Theoretical Implications

First, important progress has been made in the current study in understanding the outcomes of leader mindfulness. One finding that was interesting to us is that a high level of leader mindfulness was of great importance for the enhancement of employee voice behavior. The potential influence of leader mindfulness on employees’ extrarole behavior, such as voice, has been largely ignored in previous research. Given that leaders play a critical role in encouraging employee voice (Farh & Chen, 2018), our study further highlights the significance of mindfulness as a leader’s characteristic or trait in facilitating employee voice. Our findings show that employees are more inclined to speak up and express their thoughts when leaders show higher levels of mindfulness.

Second, our study improves understanding of LMX as a mediator in the connection between leader mindfulness and employee voice behavior. We also found that leader mindfulness was indirectly related to employee voice behavior through LMX, at least in a Chinese context. Relationships (sometimes known as guanxi) are a critical characteristic of Chinese cultural values (Sun et al., 2014). In such a cultural context, employee attitudes and behavior depend on supervisor–subordinate guanxi (Cheung et al., 2009). A high-quality relationship is conducive to employee extrarole behavior (Trybou et al. 2014). Our results not only support previous research in which it has been suggested that leader mindfulness improves LMX (Reb et al., 2019) and that voice behavior is an important outcome of LMX (Hu et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020), but also support the idea that leader mindfulness can ignite employee voice behavior because the leader who is mindful develops and maintains a high-quality LMX relationship with subordinates and, in consequence, fosters employee voice.

Managerial Implications

This research has some implications for managerial practices. First, to encourage employees’ use of voice, more attention should be paid in organizations to leader mindfulness. Therefore, leader training programs, such as mindfulness mediation, should be provided to enhance the level of leaders’ mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Second, in addition to leader mindfulness, developing high-quality LMX relationships is important. A positive workplace climate should be created in organizations so that employees perceive high-quality relationships with their leaders.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The current study has several limitations that can be viewed as directions for future research. First, we used a cross-sectional research design, which limits possible interpretations of the causal relationships. A longitudinal or experimental design could be adopted to replicate our study in future. Second, we collected data for this study from just one retailing company in China. Generalization of our findings may be hindered by the sample composition. In future research this study could be replicated across different industries and cultures. Third, we investigated only one mediator underlying the leader mindfulness–employee voice behavior link. Other mediators, such as face and harmony, could be explored in future research. These investigations would be conducive to better understanding the influence of leader mindfulness on employee voice behavior as, in addition to guanxi, face and harmony are critical characteristics of Chinese cultural values (Sun et al., 2014).

Conclusion

We examined the association between leader mindfulness and employee voice behavior, and the mediating effect of LMX. The results suggest that leader mindfulness is both directly and indirectly positively related to employee voice behavior through the mediation of LMX. We hope to encourage more research in which other researchers explore possible mechanisms underlying this association in the Chinese cultural context.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Cheung, M. F. Y., Wu, W.-P., Chan, A. K. K., & Wong, M. M. L. (2009). Supervisor–subordinate guanxi and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 77–89.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9830-0

Chughtai, A. A. (2016). Servant leadership and follower outcomes: Mediating effects of organizational identification and psychological safety. The Journal of Psychology, 150(7), 866–880.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1170657

Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4), 997–1018.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310367948

Day, D. V., & Gregory, J. L. (2017). Mindfulness as a prerequisite to effective leadership; Exploring the constructs that foster productive use of feedback for professional learning. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 48(4), 363–375.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-017-9307-0

Decuypere, A., Audenaert, M., & Decramer, A. (2020). Leader mindfulness: Well-being throughout the organization. In S. Dhiman (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of workplace well-being (pp. 1–28). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02470-3_73-1

Farh, C. I. C., & Chen, G. (2018). Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000256

Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787–798.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.015

Goldman Schuyler, K. (2010). Increasing leadership integrity through mind training and embodied learning. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(1), 21–38.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018081

Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., … Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 42(1), 114–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Hu, Y., Zhu, L., Zhou, M., Li, J., Maguire, P., Sun, H., & Wang, D. (2018). Exploring the influence of ethical leadership on voice behavior: How leader-member exchange, psychological safety and psychological empowerment influence employees’ willingness to speak out. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1718.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01718

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.
https://doi.org/10.5465/20159587

Jiang, J., Ding, W., Wang, R., & Li, S. (2020). Inclusive leadership and employees’ voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Current Psychology. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01139-8

Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P. J., & Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the sciences of mindfulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical model and research agenda. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(1), 29–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315615450

Kearney, W. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington. D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effective schools: A mixed-method application of Hoy’s M-scale. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(3), 316–335.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212474802

Kim, J., MacDuffie, J. P., & Pil, F. K. (2010). Employee voice and organizational performance: Team versus representative influence. Human Relations, 63(3), 371–394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709348936

Li, J., Liang, Q., Zhang, Z., & Wang, X. (2018). Leader humility and constructive voice behavior in China: A dual process model. International Journal of Manpower, 39(6), 840–854.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-06-2017-0137

Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87–112.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034284

McGill, J., Adler-Baeder, F., & Rodriguez, P. (2016). Mindfully in love: A meta-analysis of the association between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 4(1), Article 623. https://bit.ly/3oYN0vE

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506

Peng, H., & Wei, F. (2020). How and when does leader behavioral integrity influence employee voice? The roles of team independence climate and corporate ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 505–521.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04114-x

Quaglia, J. T., Goodman, R. J., & Brown, K. W. (2015). From mindful attention to social connection: The key role of emotion regulation. Cognition & Emotion, 29(8), 1466–1474.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.988124

Reb, J., Chaturvedi, S., Narayanan, J., & Kudesia, R. S. (2019). Leader mindfulness and employee performance: A sequential mediation model of LMX quality, interpersonal justice, and employee stress. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 745–763.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3927-x

Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5(1), 36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z

Schuh, S. C., Zheng, M. X., Xin, K. R., & Fernandez, J. A. (2019). The interpersonal benefits of leader mindfulness: A serial mediation model linking leader mindfulness, leader procedural justice enactment, and employee exhaustion and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 1007–1025.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3610-7

Sun, G., D’Alessandro, S., & Johnson, L. (2014). Traditional culture, political ideologies, materialism and luxury consumption in China. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 578–585.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12117

Tierney, P., & Bauer, T. N. (1996). A longitudinal assessment of LMX on extra-role behavior. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1996(1), 298–302.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1996.4980746

Trybou, J., Gemmel, P., Pauwels, Y., Henninck, C., & Clays, E. (2014). The impact of organizational support and leader–member exchange on the work-related behaviour of nursing professionals: The moderating effect of professional and organizational identification. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(2), 373–382.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12201

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256902

Verdorfer, A. P. (2016). Examining mindfulness and its relations to humility, motivation to lead, and actual servant leadership behaviors. Mindfulness, 7(4), 950–961.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0534-8

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness–The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1543–1555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025

Yan, P. (2018). Supervisor–subordinate guanxi and employee voice behavior: Trust in supervisor as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 46(7), 1169–1178.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7098

This research was supported by Scientific Research Program of Shaanxi Provincial Department of Education (19JK0734).

Lei Shi, School of Marxism, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, No. 58, Yantazhong Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710054, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]