Mindfulness is defined differently by various practitioners, researchers and clinicians, as well as according to the various schools of thought, which place more emphasis on particular aspects of the concept compared to others (Brown et al., 2007). Dane (2011) provides a synopsis of various academic and philosophical conceptualisations of mindfulness showing that scholars display noticeably high consensus on the nature of mindfulness. One of the features common across multiple conceptualisations is that mindfulness is a state of consciousness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). It refers to ‘… a heightened state of involvement and wakefulness or being in the present’ (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000, p. 2). Brown, Kasser, Ryan, Linley and Orzech (2009) explain that mindfulness is not deliberative in nature. Inputs are allowed to enter one’s awareness by simply noticing what is taking place. Mindfulness refers to the simple act of observing without scrutiny, making comparisons or evaluating events and experience and is thus dissimilar to ‘self-awareness’ or reflexive consciousness in other forms. Instead, mindfulness concerns a non-interference with experience. Walach et al. (2006, p. 1544) explain that it is ‘a warm and friendly, accepting and non-judgemental attitude towards those elements of our mind. Suspending categorical judgements, which normally follow every perception rather quickly, is an integral part of mindfulness’. Therefore, mindfulness is not a cold, cognitive process.

Langer and Moldoveanu (2000, p. 4) state that a central aspect of mindfulness is ‘sensitivity to the novel and, therefore, the unexpected’, which keeps individuals ‘situated in the present’ (p. 7). Mindfulness permits greater awareness of the context and perceptions of actions than a reliance upon past notions. The process of extracting unique distinctions can have unexpected and novel results including ‘greater sensitivity to one’s environment’, ‘more openness to new information’, ‘the creation of new categories for structuring perception’ and ‘enhanced awareness of multiple perspectives in problem solving’ (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000, p. 2).

A second commonality found in these different definitions of mindfulness relates to the notion that attention is focused on the present-moment phenomena. In other words, ‘mindfulness helps people be in the present moment and accept it for what it is’ (Leroy et al., 2013, p. 239). To be mindful, individuals must be attentive to the ‘here and now’, as ‘opposed to being preoccupied with thoughts about the past or the future’ (Dane, 2011, p. 3). As they are focusing on what is happening in the present moment, neither the past nor the future is of immediate concern to them. Mindfulness can be seen as pre-conceptual; allowing mindful individuals to be ‘simply aware of and attend to what is happening in the present moment’ (Depenbrock, n.d., p. 6). Therefore, mindful individuals stay in direct contact with reality.

Thirdly, mindfulness involves attending to external (environmental) and internal (intrapsychic) phenomena. Because the present moment includes both external and internal phenomena, a mere focus on external events to the exclusion of internal processes, or vice versa, would be indicative of a lack of mindfulness (Dane, 2011). Subsequently, Dane (2011, p. 4) defines mindfulness as ‘a state of consciousness in which attention is focused on present-moment phenomena occurring both externally and internally’. Shapiro et al. (2006) propose that Intention, Attention and Attitude (IAA) are the three axioms of mindfulness. The role of attention in mindfulness practice relates to the ability to observe the operations of one’s moment-to-moment, internal and external experience. Attitude relates to how we attend and the qualities one brings to attention. According to Shapiro et al. (2006), the state of mindfulness arises when IAA are simultaneously cultivated. The latter authors’ opine that ‘when Western psychology attempted to extract the essence of mindfulness practice from its original religious/cultural roots’ the aspect of intention was lost to a certain extent, which ‘for Buddhism was enlightenment and compassion for all beings’ (Shapiro et al., 2006, p. 375).

Furthermore, mindfulness is sometimes described as a type of mental process, a trait, a state of mind, or a learnable skill (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Grossman, 2008). Dane (2011, p. 3) opines that, as a state, ‘mindfulness is not a quality that some individuals possess and others lack’. The author further states that attaining a mindful state of consciousness ‘is an inherent human capacity – a claim implying that most people have been or at least can be mindful at one point or another’. According to Brown et al. (2007, p. 218), there is evidence that dispositional mindfulness ‘reflects a greater tendency to abide in mindful states over time’. Several studies have revealed disposition-based differences in mindfulness across individuals (Baer et al., 2006; Dane & Brummel, 2013; Lau et al., 2006). A study by Modinos, Ormel and Aleman (2010, p. 369) showed that individual differences in dispositional mindfulness, ‘may modulate activity in neural systems involved in the effective cognitive control of negative emotion’. Therefore, some people may be in a mindful state of consciousness more often than others. This suggests that, mindfulness is fundamentally a state-level construct that can also be assessed at the trait level (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Dane, 2011).

A variety of measures of mindfulness have been constructed such as the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003), the FMI (Buchheld et al., 2001), the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS) (Lau et al., 2006), the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness (KIMS) (Baer, Smith & Allen, 2004), the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale (Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson & Laurenceau, 2007) and the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (Chadwick, Hember, Symes, Peters, Kuipers, & Dagnan, 2008). These scales differ because some measure mindfulness as a unidimensional construct versus a multi-faceted construct (Baer et al., 2006), while others measure mindfulness as a trait-like or state-like construct (Dane, 2011). Some consider only the mental state, whereas others include bodily sensations and experience (Grossman, 2008). Furthermore, some measures (e.g. KIMS) include the reported ability to verbally describe experience (e.g. ‘I am good at finding the words to describe my feelings’), while others emphasise a particular orientation of curiosity, openness and acceptance (e.g. TMS) (Grossman, 2008). According to Grossman (2008, p. 406), many developers of mindfulness inventories have a ‘relatively modest level of personal experience with mindfulness meditation practices or Buddhist psychological theory’, with little ‘contributions from traditional mindfulness meditation experts’. Furthermore, the extent of meditation and mindfulness experience is likely to influence how items in mindfulness scales are understood and interpreted and may alter the meaning of words or items (Grossman, 2008).

As mentioned before, the FMI and the MAAS are the two most often used measures of mindfulness in survey and experimental research (Hyland et al., 2015). The FMI (Buchheld et al., 2001; Walach et al., 2006) arose from the Buddhist roots of mindfulness (Bergomi, Tschacher & Kupper, 2012) and has a long (30-item) and a short form (14-item). The 30-item scale showed internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α = 0.93 (Walach et al., 2006) and can demonstrate an increase in mindfulness after a retreat and discriminate between experienced and novice meditators. The validation study resulted in a four-factor structure (mindful presence, non-judgemental acceptance, openness to experiences and insight) (Walach et al., 2006). The developers of the FMI (Buchheld et al., 2001) suggested that although the FMI (full and short versions) consists of distinct components, it should be treated as a general (i.e. unidimensional) construct. Although both the full and the short versions of the FMI have consistently been found to be psychometrically sound (Hyland et al., 2015), some studies have questioned the factor structures of the two versions (Bergomi et al., 2012; Leigh, Bowen & Marlatt, 2005).

The MAAS was developed by Brown and Ryan (2003), who define mindfulness as an open or receptive attention to and awareness of present events and experience. Therefore, the development of MAAS items centred on present-focused awareness as the foundation of mindfulness (Christopher et al., 2009). Brown and Ryan (2003) established the internal consistency of the measure (α = 0.82), test–retest reliability (α = 0.82) and convergent validity with related measures (e.g. positive correlations with well-being). Originally, the MAAS consisted of a presence and acceptance factor. ‘The acceptance factor was excluded in the final version’ because the developers of the MAAS found it not to provide an explanatory advantage over that shown by the presence factor alone (Bergomi et al., 2012, p. 9). The one-dimensional structure of the MAAS has been replicated in several studies (Carlson & Brown, 2005; MacKillop & Anderson, 2007). Critics of the MAAS argue that the scale places too much focus on the attention and awareness aspects of mindfulness, while it excludes components such as acceptance, present focus and a non-judgemental state (Hyland et al., 2015; Walach et al., 2006). Also, some of the items of the MAAS ‘may not be relevant to certain respondents or settings (e.g. “I drive places on ‘automatic pilot’ and then wonder why I went there”)’ (Dane & Brummel, 2013, p. 10), while some permit a lack of differentiation across respondents (Van Dam, Earleywine & Borders, 2010).

Because of practicalities and time constraints associated with conducting research in workplace settings, the usefulness of the short versions of the FMI and MAAS need to be determined.

Burnout is mostly described as having three separate but interrelated constructs: emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1986; Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). In the work environment, it manifests as exhaustion, cynical attitudes towards work and feelings of incompetence that occur because of chronic stress (Salanova, Schaufeli, Martinez & Breso, 2009). Hülsheger et al. (2013) and others (Krasner et al., 2009; Oman, Richards, Hedberg & Thoresen, 2008; Roeser et al., 2013) found that individuals who practice mindfulness are less inclined to experience emotional exhaustion.

Within a work setting, engagement is defined as a fulfilling, positive, affective-motivational state of well-being, leading to increased energy, higher levels of enthusiasm and a more task-focused approach (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Work engagement includes three aspects namely, vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002). Vigour is characterised by high levels of energy and a willingness to invest effort in one’s work as well as persistence. Dedication is characterised by a feeling of enthusiasm and pride in one’s work. Individuals who are dedicated to their jobs usually are inspired and challenged by it and derive a sense of significance from their work. Absorption is characterised by being immersed in one’s work, enjoying it to such an extent that it is difficult to detach oneself from it (Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova & Bakker, 2002). Workplace mindfulness differs from work engagement and its dimensions in the sense that mindfulness ‘is a cognitive construct concerned with the degree to which one’s attention tends to be focused on a wide breadth of events unfolding in one’s work context’ (Dane & Brummel, 2013, pp. 7–8). Vigour, dedication and absorption, on the other hand, implicate ‘affective qualities that lack parallels with workplace mindfulness’ (Dane & Brummel, 2013, p. 8). Mindfulness can foster engagement by promoting heightened states of involvement and wakefulness in work activities (Leroy et al., 2013) and by assisting individuals to view existing activities in different, innovative and more interesting ways (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). Leroy et al. (2013) conclude that mindfulness is important for strengthening the personal resources of work engagement.

A convenience sample of 497 participants applying for admission to a management and leadership degree at a South African Business School participated in the study. All participants of the sample were employed at either private or public institutions. Work experience and employment were essential criteria for admission to the business school. There was an almost equal split between the genders (females = 51.1%). The majority (45%) of the sample was aged between 21 and 30 years, while 28% were aged between 31 and 40 years. Furthermore, 19% were aged between 41 and 50 years. Only 8% were older than 50 years. Most of the participants (53.5%) were employed in the private sector while 39.2% worked in the public sector. The remainder of the sample (7.3%) were employed by NGOs.

In addition to the biographical assessment (as reported in the previous section), the current study distributed both the 15-item MAAS and 14-item FMI to the participants.

MAAS: For the purposes of this study, the 15-item trait version of the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003) was used. The items reflect an ‘absence of mindfulness’ (Brown et al., 2009, p. 728). Therefore, higher scores on the 6-point Likert scale (1 = almost always to 6 = almost never) indicated greater mindfulness (Brown et al., 2009). Participants were asked to indicate how frequently or infrequently they have each experience. The total score was calculated by adding all the scores on the 15 items of the MAAS. The items included ‘I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present’ and ‘I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing’ (Christopher et al., 2009, p. 2).

FMI: The short version of the FMI (FMI-14) was used. This scale was sensitive to change and was more appropriate for use in the general population and participants without meditation experience (Bergomi et al., 2012; Walach et al., 2006). Items included ‘I am open to the experience of the present moment’ and ‘I am impatient with myself and with others’ (Walach et al., 2006). Respondents indicate their experiences relating to the items on a 4-point Likert scale (rarely, occasionally, fairly often and almost always). The total score was calculated by adding all the scores on the 14 items of the FMI. Item 13 was reversed scored, as it was worded negatively in the FMI-14. Higher scores indicate higher levels of mindfulness.

Well-being: Well-being was measured using relevant items from the Maslach’s Burnout Inventory (MBI-GS) (Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova & Bakker, 2002) as well as relevant items from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES short version) to measure work engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002). On a 7-point Likert scale, respondents indicated how often they experience the feeling described by each statement with options ranging from ‘never true of me’ to ‘almost always true of me’.

Burnout was measured by the two burnout scales: Exhaustion (Ex) (i.e. ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’) and Cynicism (Cy) (i.e. ‘I have become more cynical about whether my work contributes anything’). Because accumulating evidence suggests that exhaustion and cynicism constitute the core of burnout (Rothmann, 2008), the third dimension, lack of efficacy, was excluded here. Cronbach’s α coefficients ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 have been reported for the subscales of the MBI (Maslach & Jackson, 1986), while the reliability and validity have proven acceptable in South African and international studies (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996; Rothmann & Joubert, 2007; Storm & Rothman, 2003). In South African studies, the Cronbach’s α coefficients varied from 0.86 to 0.88 for Exhaustion and from 0.74 to 0.80 for Cynicism (Rothmann, 2008; Rothmann & Joubert, 2007). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted by Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002) confirmed the factor structure of the MBI.

Because evidence suggests that Vigour (i.e. ‘When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work’) and Dedication (i.e. ‘I am proud of the work that I do’) are core dimensions of engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2001), this study measured work engagement using these two dimensions. Various international and South African studies confirm the reliability and validity of the UWES (Coetzer & Rothman, 2007; Naude & Rothmann, 2004; Pienaar & Sieberhagen, 2005; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002). Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002) report an internal reliability coefficient for the three subscales ranging between 0.68 and 0.91, while Coetzer and Rothmann (2007) reported Cronbach’s α of 0.80 (vigour), 0.87 (dedication) and 0.69 (absorption). The CFA conducted by Schaufeli and Bakker (2001) and Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002) upon two samples confirmed the factor structure of the UWES, indicating a well-defined construct. For this questionnaire, relative fit indices (values greater than 0.90) were indicative of a good fit.

Permission for the study was granted by the Director of the Business School and the Vice-Rector (Research). The researchers presented the research project to prospective candidates for management and leadership development programmes. After completing assessments for selection purposes, they were asked if they would participate in the study voluntarily. The aim of the research as well as the data-gathering instrument that participants would need to complete if they decided to participate in the project were discussed with them. Research participants were asked to sign a consent form relating to their participation in the research. The form included written assurance that their anonymity would be ensured and that no individual results would be reported in any publications. Only aggregated data relating to the total group would be reported and discussed. The questionnaires were collected immediately after the applicants completed them.

In order to determine the appropriateness of the unidimensional factor structure of the two instruments, CFA was conducted. All analyses related to the CFA were conducted using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Several fit indices were used including the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Values close to 0.95 for CFI were considered indicative of a good fit. It is suggested that values close to 0.06 are indicative of an acceptable fit for RMSEA, while values below 0.08 were acceptable for Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used to estimate the reliability of the measuring instruments. Reliability estimates of 0.70 and higher were indicative of good reliability. However, estimates as low as 0.60 may be acceptable when conducting exploratory research (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006). Pearson product–moment correlation was used to investigate the degree to which the constructs measured by the FMI and MAAS were significantly correlated with burnout and work engagement. More specifically, stepwise multiple regression was used to determine whether the FMI and MAAS were significant predictors of burnout and engagement. CFA was used to investigate the degree to which the constructs measured by the FMI and MAAS were significantly correlated – providing evidence of convergent validity. Moderate correlations between 0.30 and 0.70 were deemed indicative of adequate convergent validity (Jackson, 2009).

Table 6 shows the correlations between the mindfulness measures and burnout and work engagement.

It is evident from Table 6 that there are statistically significant negative correlations between the FMI and both dimensions of burnout (Emotional Exhaustion: r = -0.19, p ≤ 0.000; Cynicism: r = -0.23, p ≤ 0.000). Also, there are statistically significant positive correlations between the FMI and both dimensions of work engagement (Vigour: r = 0.35, p ≤ 0.000; Dedication: r = 0.31, p ≤ 0.000). (It should be noted that the removal of item 13 did not result in a substantial decline in the correlations between the FMI_REVISED and the various dimensions of work engagement and burnout.)

Furthermore, there are statistically significant negative relationships between the MAAS and both dimensions of burnout (Emotional Exhaustion: r = -0.29, p ≤ 0.000; Cynicism: r = -0.35, p ≤ 0.000) and statistically significant positive relations between the MAAS and the two dimensions of work engagement (Vigour: r = 0.35, p ≤ 0.000; Dedication: r = 0.33, p ≤ 0.000).

In addition to the correlations, the stepwise multiple regression results (Tables 7 and 8) provide more appropriate evidence of the predictive validity of the FMI and MAAS being predictors of engagement and burnout.

From Table 7, it is clear that both the MAAS and the FMI are significant predictors of engagement. However, the MAAS explains 13% of the variance in engagement while the FMI explains 3% of the variance in engagement. The regression model is statistically significant (F = 48.043, p = 0.000).

It is evident from Table 8 that the MAAS is the only significant predictor of burnout, explaining 12% of the variance. The regression model is statistically significant (F = 68.766, p = 0.000).

From the above results (correlations and stepwise multiple regression), it is clear that the MAAS has higher correlations with, as well as better predictive validity of, burnout and work engagement.