“This chapter presents the background, problem statement, research purpose, research questions, significance of the study and definition of terms. The background concentrates on introducing current researches on leader mindfulness and employee engagement. The problem statement will point out the gap among previous studies and the reason why this problem which is worth researching. In addition, the research purpose, research questions and the significance of the study address the accomplishment of conducting this study. Finally, key terms of this study will be defined.”
Background of the Study
Recently, Food and Beverage industry in Vietnam has enjoyed a dramatic growth compared with other industries experiences. In Vietnam, this sector has been rocketed in the last decade, contributed by both foreign and local brands. It is forecast as one of the robustest sector in Asia and will increase by 16.1% during 2016-2020 period as a result of rising income and a tendency of utilizing products with great value. So far, “Vietnam’s Food and Beverage sector consists of over 540,000 outlets including over 430,000 street kiosks; 7,000 fast-food restaurants; 80,000 full-service restaurants; 22,000 cafeterias” (“Vietnam sees flourishing,” 2018). It means that lots of career opportunities for Vietnamese are created in this potential industry. Employees in this industry are regularly encountered emotional labor and it is critical for them to manage their emotions during their job. Emotional labor forces employees particularly susceptible to emotional exhaustion, which may decrease their work engagement (Côté & Morgan, 2002; Hülsheger &
Schewe, 2011).
As an essential basis of organizational sustainable development, work engagement creates many concerns for lots of researchers (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). Engaged employees are avidly passionate about their tasks (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004) and play a significant role in encouraging others (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009). Some researches verify the valuable benefits of employee engagement for not only individuals and also organizations (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012; Shuck, Reio Jr, & Rocco, 2011; Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, &
Nimon, 2013). Inspecting what promotes employees to be eager to show stronger work engagement is subsequently an interesting topic, in particular, for human resource development (HRD) specialists (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013) and, in general, to organizational management board (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009).
2
Companies are facing more and more pressure in this competitive market. In the meantime, the working atmosphere is also continuously shifting: we are advancing faster, cooperating more, and applying technology more comprehensively in almost every area. Based on a study performed by Ehrlich (2017) on concentrating leaders, in this background, with the convenience of technology, leaders and professionals are constantly working harder but paying less attention to their present duties at hand. Chief Executive Officers (CEO) confess that they feel compelled to lead and act in response to change as rapidly as possible and that they are having difficulties in selecting and focusing on their tasks. It is said that the United State has lost approximately six billion dollars annually in productivity because of job interruptions and employees seem to work with continuous partial attention (Spira & Feintuch, 2005). Other than financial influences, there exist some other serious costs for our capacity to take the lead and maintain meaningful lives.
A previous research about Microsoft directors showed that some of their products (such as instant messaging, email, etc) affect their ability to finish tasks (Iqbal & Horvitz, 2007). Microsoft directors, in that research, were disrupted 10-30 times on average per hour. They can only get back on duties 10-25 minutes after the interruption. And it sometimes even took them over 30 hours to get focused back. Counting all the time up indicates that the directors were practically never on duties. In other words, they were in fact twirling. The distraction not only comes from outside information, but also comes from ourselves as often as others. How many times we check e-mail can be stated as a good instance. Most people declare that they check frequently every day. One of the reasons might be the fact that checking e-mail accelerates the brain in the same way as addiction. Consequently, it is important for us to question ourselves whether we are obsessed to self-interruption. Regrettably, it may grow into a brutal negative sequence. The less attention we pay, the harder it turns out to pay attention.
We usually attempt to handle growing pressure by striving to execute various things at the same time (e.g., multi-tasking). We are inclined to over-estimate our capability to multi-task, but a part of our brain responsible for functioning (planning, prioritizing, and selecting) can only concentrate on one task at a certain time (Spira & Feintuch, 2005). Whenever we assume that we are performing multiple tasks, we are in fact shifting quickly hither and thither among them. Take the aforementioned Microsoft employees as an example, they are switching from task to task, which implies they are losing their current concentration every time they shift, and then need to get the way back. In the case that we do multiple tasks, we finally become 40% slower and it
3
probably causing twice as many errors (Spira & Feintuch, 2005). Organizational interest in mindfulness has been growing significantly during the recent years, according to which mindfulness could be depicted as a present-concentrated devotion and awareness (Bishop et al., 2006; Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007). This concern is supported by a substantial amount of research exhibiting variety of well-being associated advantages of mindfulness such as decreasing anxiety and higher cognitive performance (e.g., Baer, 2003; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009; Chiesa, Calati,
& Serretti, 2011; Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012). In consideration of well-being, organizational study has consequently discovered intrapersonal advantages of mindfulness in the working context (Good et al., 2016; Reb & Atkins, 2015). Moreover, research has linked mindfulness with lesser emotional exhaustion and higher level of job satisfaction (Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013), improved performance (Dane & Brummel, 2014), superior organizational citizenship behaviors and lesser deviance (Reb, Narayanan & Ho, 2015), as well as fewer turnover intentions (Reb, Narayanan, Chaturvedi, & Ekkirala, 2017). These effects of mindfulness are similarly crucial to organizations and employees themselves since they boost organizations’ achievement and support employees to sustain good health (Cascio, 2012).
“Leadership” is normally connected to the CEO level. Although they play the pioneering role and represent the company in every situation (Mintzberg, 1973), leadership in reality exist at numerous levels in companies. At lower ones, supervisors take charge of leadership by guaranteeing that companies convert plans to actions, accomplish shared objectives, and fulfill their responsibilities. To guarantee that, supervisors frequently offer guidance, inspiration, and feedback to their staffs (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). These leadership actions put a substantial impact on employees (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Thus, it is critical to identify factors associated with superior leaders’ efficiency on their employees and companies.
In spite of prospective expansion, the study of mindfulness at work is still in an early period, consequently certain major doubts are yet available for additional inspection (Good et al., 2016).
Predominantly, mindfulness research in companies has primarily centered the intrapersonal impacts of mindfulness in such a way that how mindfulness of an employee influences their well-being and performance. Nevertheless, not much experimental attention has been placed to the effect that mindfulness of an individual can bring to others in the same company. This is mainly valid for leaders who may have substantial influence on their own employees (Chemers, 2001).
4
Actually, although it is always argued that mindfulness might positively affect leaders’ manners and subsequently employee outcomes (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005; Carroll, 2008; Fry & Kriger, 2009; Verdorfer, 2016), not much empirical evidence is found for this view. Therefore, in accordance with Good et al. (2016), in the lately observed assessment of the mindfulness research, there is still a lack of a strong view of the possibility and the method that leader mindfulness can bring about particular leadership actions that, in sequence, generate essential employee outcomes.
Regarding to this point, it still remains vague about how the social capital is implanted in this relationship (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Payne, Moore, Griffis, & Autry, 2011). Social capital implies the total of the real and prospective resources implanted inside, accessible through, and originated from the relationships acquired by a social unit or an individual (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This research concentrates on two key characteristics of leader–follower social capital, specifically, goal congruence and social interaction (Lazarova & Taylor, 2009; Payne et al., 2011).
Regardless of the accepted advantages of leader mindfulness to improve employee well-being (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008), little academic study examines aspects which may encourage its effective application (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). In line with investigation into the contingent part of leadership (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012;
Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009), the author suggests that the social background of leader–follower exchanges may perform that well (Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011). This introduces appropriate signals or evidence followers could utilize to explain their leaders’ behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
Sequentially, the objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee engagement, as well as how this relationship might be moderated by leader–follower social capital.”
Problem Statement
Firstly, mindfulness is regularly associated with Eastern spiritual traditions, especially Buddhism. However, it has become the hot topic of a considerable amount of research conducted by various Western scholars. Many big organizations are beginning to teach employees mindfulness such as Aetna, Apple, Diageo, Deutsche Bank, BlackRock, GAP, Goldman Sachs, Google, General Mills, Green Mountain Coffee, Intel, Monsanto, Navigant, McKinsey, NY Life, Target, Procter & Gamble, The U.S. Marines, The European Central Bank, The U.S. Army, hospitals, police departments, public schools and MBA programs. Fortune 500 companies are
5
conducting research about mindfulness benefits including (1) learning, focus, memory, decision-making, and creativity; (2) communication, productivity and collaboration; (3) well-being, emotional intelligence, internal and external relationships; (4) engagement and job satisfaction;
and (5) lower level of stress, absenteeism, and turnover (Spira & Feintuch, 2005).
Secondly, it has been disputed that research on mindfulness at workplace still has certain limitation. Almost every study on workplace mindfulness has only concentrated on intrapersonal influences of how employee mindfulness benefits him or herself (Good et al., 2016; Sutcliffe, Vogus, & Dane, 2016). In condition that interpersonal interactions and relations are the center matters of organizational issues (Weick, 1979), it is really unfortunate. To the present time, the connection between leader mindfulness and positive employee outcomes have only been examined in three studies. Specifically, using a field study design, Reb, Narayanan and Chaturvedi (2014) found that leader mindfulness went along with higher employee in-role and extra-role performance, employee job satisfaction, and reduced employee stress (e.g., better work life balance and lower emotional exhaustion). Particularly, their research also revealed that higher leader mindfulness is a catalyst of better employee well-being (e.g., job satisfaction and need satisfaction) as well as higher employee performance (e.g., in-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors).
By testing the model in two field studies and one laboratory experiment, Schuh, Zheng, Xin, and Fernandez (2019) also concluded that leader mindfulness was indirectly related to employee performance via a serial mediation model - transmitted through leader procedural justice enactment and reduced employee emotional exhaustion. Finally, Reb, Chaturvedi, Narayanan, and Kudesia (2018) recently used two field studies of leader–employee dyads to show that the more mindful leaders were, the better their employees performed and this process was explained through sequential mediation model of leader–member exchange (LMX) quality, interpersonal justice, and employee stress.
However, relating to this topic, it is unclear about how the social capital embedded in leader–
follower relationships (Adkere & Roberts, 2008; Payne et al., 2011) can enhance the process in which a leader’s awareness may induce its effect on employee engagement, especially in Food and Beverage industry in Vietnam. The Ministry of Industry and Trade estimated Vietnam’s annual consumption of food and drink products accounts for about 15 percent of Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and this rate will rise in the future. In addition, Vietnam is expected to enter the Top 3 Asian countries posting the highest growth rate of the F&B industry by 2020. Hence, this study
6
starts to address these gaps by empirically investigating the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee engagement with the moderating effect of leader-follower social capital among Food and Beverage industry employees in Vietnam.
Research Purposes
Based on the preceding discussion, this study has two major research purposes as follows:
1. To examine the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee engagement.
2. To examine the moderating effect of leader-follower social capital (including goal congruence and social interaction) on the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee engagement.
Research Questions
This study aims to answer the following questions:
1. Is leader mindfulness related to employee engagement?
2. Does leader–follower social capital (including goal congruence and social interaction) moderate the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee engagement?
Significance of the Study Contribute to Organizational Management
This study will help organizations identify the factor that affect the employees’ engagement in the workplace and try to find solutions to this issue. Enhancing the engagement of employees at work will promote employees’ well-being and productivity, which accordingly provides the organization useful suggestions to improve both individual and organizational performance. If we can create a higher level of mindfulness for leaders in particular and organizations in general, it will be beneficial to enhance job satisfaction and increase revenue at the same time.
Contribute to HRD Professionals
The result of this study may provide HRD professionals practical suggestions. It may be indicated that HRD professionals can invest more in practices which stimulate leader mindfulness through recruiting, training, performance assessment, and reward systems. In addition, this study is expected to find that leader-follower social capital including goal congruence and social interaction moderate the relationship between leader mindfulness and employee engagement. Thus, an important role for HRD professionals may be to develop socialization ideas promoting newcomers’ learning about mutual goals and encourage their informal exchanges with supervisors.
7
Contribute to Research
Even though previous studies in the literature have discussed each of the variables (leader mindfulness, employee engagement, leader-follower social capital) of this study, none of these emphasizes on the connection between leader mindfulness and employee engagement. Moreover, there has been until now no studies considering the moderating effect of leader-social capital in mindfulness research. For previous HRD scholarship, this study will help them uncover organizational factors that lead to employee engagement at work. This study can consequently contribute to the current literature by addressing these research gaps.
Definition of Terms
Mindfulness was defined as maintaining human’s consciousness aligned with the present moment. Moreover, Brown and Ryan (2003) stated that consciousness consist of both awareness and attention. Awareness implies the context of consciousness, continuously censoring the inside and outside context. “Attention is a process of concentrating conscious awareness which provide high level of sensitivity to a limited span of experience (Westen, 1999). Mindfulness can be considered as a superior attention and awareness of current moment or present experience (Brown
& Ryan, 2003). Besides, leader mindfulness is the leaders’ high quality of consciousness. Leaders with higher level of mindfulness may utilize their capacity to concentrate their attention on present moment in an active manner to extract better from their employees (Reb et al., 2018). Therefore, this study will adopt this definition.”
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is a positive and enjoyable mind state that differs from each person over a short time at work (Sonnentag, Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010), and is portrayed by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Hetland, 2012; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004b). Vigor involves lots of energy and mental resistance, dedication implies being passionate about duties and motivated by the task, and absorption suggests being completely concentrated on duties. “This dynamic approach helps researchers examine how leaders exert an effect on work engagement of followers in natural workplace. Therefore, this study will adopt the above definition of Schaufeli and Bakker (2004b).”
8
Leader-follower Social Capital
Social capital requires a broad definition (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Payne et al., 2011), including “structural aspects such as employees’ working in intra-firm networks (Zhang, Zheng, &
Wei, 2009), content-related aspects such as the existence of a shared vision between organizational employees (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), and relationship dynamic aspects, such as the familiarity and trustworthiness of intra-firm exchanges (Bouckenooghe, De Clercq, &
Deprez, 2013; Gubbins & MacCurtain, 2008).” Since this research focuses primarily on the leader–
follower relationship, two specific factors of leader–follower social capital: goal congruence and social interaction would be studied. These two factors demonstrate superior content-related and process-related features of intra-firm relationships, respectively (Payne et al., 2011), and consequently present a thorough explanation for the interactive resources implanted in leader–
follower relationship. “Goal congruence is associated to content, in terms of the extent to which the leader and follower have the same goals for the organization (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998;
Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991). Social interaction instead links to the process and demonstrates the extent to which both parties identify each other on a personal level, through informal interactions going beyond established formal ways (Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman, & Rupp, 2009; Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998). Thus, this study will adopt the definition derived from the article of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998).”
9