Mindfulness and personality: A study into the drivers of success

(1)

Mindfulness and personality: A study into the

drivers of success

Submitted to the faculty of Economics and Business

For the degree of Bachelor of Business Administration

Specialisation: Management in the Digital Age

Presented by Michael R. O’Donovan

11578971

Supervised by Olga Kowalska

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Michael R. O’Donovan who declares to take full responsibility

for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no

sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating

it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

Abstract

Although the benefits of mindfulness have been discovered in numerous fields of human function from cognitive enhancement, concentration, stress and depression reduction, and improved work performance, it has not been confirmed whether these benefits translate to greater success. To answer this question, it was assessed how trait mindfulness affects the relationship between personality and subjective success. We hypothesize that higher trait mindfulness relates positively to higher subjective success. Secondly, the already established relationships that the three personality traits, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness have to success is attributed to their respective relationship to trait mindfulness. Thus, trait mindfulness acts as a mediator in the personality and success relationship. The study tested 10 hypotheses for all the personality, mindfulness, success, and mediation relationships. The study was conducted through a cross-sectional self-report survey amongst 147 working adults. 9 of 10 hypotheses were supported and all relationships found significance. Suggesting that conscientiousness and agreeableness both relate to greater subjective success and neuroticism relates to a greater chance of lower success, and all three relations had a full mediation of trait mindfulness.

(5)

1. Introduction

The modern world presents a plethora of obstacles and challenges to one’s life, from the intensity of your job, driving you to stress, or the lure of mobiles, entertainment and social media distracting us in every waking minute. It can come in the form of competition, the need for us to be the best, the fastest and the most efficient at what we do. These challenges and expectations lead us to sometimes forget to pay attention to one’s self and instead focus on comparison to others and become negatively oriented. Several of these factors are cited as the reasons behind the growing levels of stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression globally (Melchior, Caspi, Milne, Danese, Poulton & Moffitt, 2007; Woods & Scott, 2016). This pandemic of affliction on the human psyche requires attention now more than ever.

One tool used by people all over the world to enhance themselves and become more equipped to handle the challenges of the everyday, is mindfulness. Mindfulness, originating in eastern Buddhist traditions, directly translates from “sati” meaning “wakefulness of mind” (David & Stede, 1959 as cited in Glomb, 2011). It is a psychological state in which one is deliberately focussed and aware of the present moment. This involves being aware of the emotional and physical stimuli subjected to oneself and processing that information without judgment or reaction (Giluk, 2009). Although originating in eastern culture based in religion, the practice of mindfulness has grown popular in the west disconnected from its religious routes. Mindfulness can be learnt and practiced to gain state mindfulness, however, it is also a personality trait that people are naturally more or less inclined to be, we call this trait mindfulness or dispositional mindfulness (Sala, Rochefort, Lui & Baldwin, 2019). Since its transition to the west, the community of people practicing mindfulness techniques has grown with the introduction of courses and apps such as headspace (Plaza, Demarzo, Herrera-Mercadal & García-Campayo, 2013). Mindfulness retreats also provide an opportunity for people to learn and practice techniques. It has gained much attention over recent years for its varied benefits, to health, happiness, performance and even memory (O'Leary, & Dockray, 2015). Workplaces and upper management have also caught onto the advantages and began to employ these techniques in employee training in hopes to get a more efficient, mindful, and motivated task force (Allen, Eby, Conley, Williamson, Mancini, & Mitchell, 2015). Increasing research has been conducted into its benefits although the literature is still relatively limited. The published literature supports the claims of a multitude of life improvements. The benefits under analysis in this paper will be mostly of work performance and cognitive ability increase. Mindfulness leads to greater concentration, work performance, improved working memory and cognitive improvements in both flexibility and capacity (Good, Lyddy, Glomb, Bono, Brown, Duffy, et al., & Lazar, 2016). Work performance improvements come from several factors including increased response flexibility, determination, enhanced working memory and forecasting accuracy (Glomb, Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011). This performance improvement could be indicators of greater career success, in terms of goal attainment, workplace

(6)

success and life satisfaction, however, this is where the research is lacking. If one is more productive, persistent and has higher cognitive ability, could this indicate that they would be better adept at achieving their personal goals, increasing their subjective success? There is currently little research that investigates whether the benefits of mindfulness translate into greater success. Further findings that given reason to research this relationship is that of mindfulness’s connection to personality types. When assessing personality using the five-factor model (The Big five) and mapping against mindfulness the findings show that mindfulness correlates strongly with conscientiousness. High conscientiousness connects strongly to life success when measured either subjectively or objectively. In the same way, mindfulness and neuroticism correlate strongly negative. Similarly, neuroticism has a strong negative relationship to success. These relationships and benefits of mindfulness may indicate a connection between mindfulness and success, possibly personality could then have an indirect link to success this mediates through trait mindfulness. This paper will contribute to filling this gap in the literature and will be aimed at answering the following research question:

To what extent does trait mindfulness mediate the relationship between conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, and subjective career success?

By determining this relationship, it will illustrate the culmination of the diverse benefits mindfulness can offer someone. It will be applicable not only to the individual trying to better understand themselves and how to attain their goals, but to organisations. Organisations and management can utilise personality assessments in the recruitment process to select applicants that illustrate mindful traits as they know they will be more disposed to reach greater success within the company. Further on from the recruitment phase, mindful practices can be used in workplace training and management training. Following this introduction the paper will be structured as follows; Theoretical framework diving deeper into the research already established, the introduction of the conceptional framework, the method section detailing how the research will be conducted and followed by the results, discussion and conclusion.

2. Theoretical framework

This section will discuss what is currently known about personality, success and mindfulness by analysing the literature on each topic, then describe how these phenomena relate to one another. This discussion should give a clear illustration into the literature gap and lead onto the hypotheses to be tested.

(7)

2.1 The Big Five

The big five personality model is a well-established and validated scale developed by Robert McCrae, otherwise known as the Five-Factor model (McCrae & Costa 1987). After its validation, the big five model has been used in countless studies of psychology and sociology. It has become an extremely popular taxonomy of personality. Through its critical testing it has stood up to high consistency throughout one’s life and reliability in various testing scenarios (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001)

The five dimensions of the model are as follows; Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience and Agreeableness. This paper will examine only three traits: conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness. Conscientiousness is described as high dependability, high responsibility, achievement oriented, self-disciplined and the tendency to behave in a consistent manor through time and varying situations (Giluk, 2009; Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds & Meints, 2009). Neuroticism is characterised by high stress susceptibility, anxiety, self-insecurity, and tendency towards negative affect (Costa & McCrae 1992; Barrick, et al., 2001). Agreeableness is a trait associated with being likable, considerate, and kind, wanting to maintain positive relationship and avoid conflict (Graziano & Tobin 2009).

In the interest of succinctness only three of these factors will be investigated. Due to its low predictive strength openness to experience has been excluded. Extraversion is also not to be focussed on as it is likely that extraversion itself does not lead to more mindfulness, success, or enhanced job performance but instead it is the social connections they make which enhances their development. Neuroticism and conscientiousness are of interest due to their strong but opposing connections to job performance and previous measures of success and their strong ties to mindfulness. Agreeableness is investigated due to not only its negative connection to and objective success factors but because this literature is relatively lacking. Also, it is included to add some nuance to the research owing to its interesting connection to mindfulness which will be later discussed.

2.2 Career success

As this research investigates how personality and mindfulness translates into success, the differing interpretations of success have been defined. Career success is defined as “accomplishment of desirable work‐related outcomes at any point in a person's work experiences over time” (Arthur, Khapova & Wilderom, 2005). Success can be measured objectively and subjectively. Objective success comprises of landmarks such as salary, wealth, frequency of promotions and position (Shockley, Ureksoy, Rodopman, et al. 2016). However, there are many external factors that can limit or promote one’s ability to attain these landmarks. Objective success is also harder to translate across different career paths, industries, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Due to the differing pay grades, access of opportunity due to social class, promotion potential and differing hierarchal structures of each industry they cannot be compared directly. However, success can be interpreted in multitude of differing perspectives far beyond the usual objective markers. Success can be assessed by personal

(8)

goal attainment, freedom, respect, work-quality, growth, and life satisfaction (Hall, 1976; Shockley, et al. 2016). These measures are defined as subjective success measures. The link discovered between mindfulness and life satisfaction (Kong, Wang & Zhao, 2014) may be an indicator of a changing perception from objective markers to more personal life successes. The Subjective Career Success Inventory (SCSI) is a 24-item scale that is divided into eight dimensions; recognition, quality work, meaningful work, influence, authenticity, personal life, growth and development and satisfaction. These eight dimensions and twenty-four sub questions were validated by Shockley et, al. (2016) to be an optimum scale at measuring one’s subjective success so will be used in this study (Shockley, Ureksoy, Rodopman, Poteat, & Dullaghan, 2016).

2.3 Big Five and career success

The five factors in the big five model have been studied extensively in their connection to life outcomes such as career success. The research finds that there are consistent and strong patterns connecting certain traits to one’s job performance and success. Conscientiousness has been repeatedly connected positively to career success both objectively and subjectively, as well as increased life satisfaction (O'Reilly III & Chatman, 1994; Duckworth, Weir, Tsukayama, & Kwok, 2012; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Duckworth states that conscientious individuals earn and save more money over their lifetime, which is a good objective marker, additionally they were more satisfied with their lives and showed more positive emotions (Duckworth, et al., 2012). This could possibly be that, due to their long-term goal determination and consistency in behaviour, conscientious people will sacrifice in the present to reach long term goals. In this sense they can be considered harder working, more organised and focused. As written by O’Reilly & Chatman (1994) “People who are highly conscientious are hardworking, persevering, organized, and achievement oriented”.

This leads to our first hypothesis, although already studied, this relationship will be reinvestigated specifically using the SCSI as a measure of subjective career success to re-confirm the relationship and in the interest of this study.

H1: Conscientiousness is positively related to subjective career success

Neuroticism has been shown to have a strong negative impact on career success both objectively and subjectively (Smithikrai, 2007; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). This may be due to the erratic nature of neurotic individuals, leading to a lower control of one’s environment. As neuroticism can lead to a negative impact on one’s self-perception and mental health this could reasonably influence their engagement with life and work and lower their confidence, thus decreasing life satisfaction. High anxiety, seen in neurotic individuals, leads to impaired work performance (Haslam, Atkinson, Brown, & Haslam 2005). Negative affect is generally high in neurotic individuals which may lead them to perceive themselves as less successful (Judge, et al., 1999). Judge highlights that individuals that exhibit high neuroticism are significantly more prone to experience problems,

(9)

specifically problems around negative mood such as anxiety, irritability, and depression which can lead to dysfunctional job-related outcomes and thus lowers job satisfaction. One example is the propensity to hold on to previous failures for too long (Watson & slack, 1993). Meaning even with a high objective success they would have lower life and work satisfaction. This would give reason to believe that when success is measured using the SCSI subjective scale it would produce the same negative correlation. This will be investigated in this study.

H2: Neuroticism is negatively related to subjective career success

The literature around agreeableness’s effect on career success has a much weaker consensus. It has been stated that agreeableness relates negatively to objective career success (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Duckworth, et al. 2012). Another study found in both European and U.S. samples that it had an adverse effect on extrinsic (objective) factors such as employability, ability to climb dominance hierarchy and salary (Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001). Additionally, Seibert and Kraimer in an earlier paper discussed that agreeableness related to lower career satisfaction, which is a key subjective success indicator, but they stated that this area would need further research (Seibert & Kraimer 1999).

However, Judge, et al., (2007) highlighted differing findings, comparing papers from Boudreau et al. (2001) who stated that agreeableness had no relation to intrinsic (subjective) success, to findings by Seibert and Kraimer (2001) that stated its negative influence on subjective success. Further contradiction is found were Bozionelos (2004) declared a positive correlation between agreeableness and subjective career success. These researchers do commonly find agreeableness relates negatively to objective success, although its relation to subjective career success is still unclear (Judge, Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007). Hence, although research has shown that agreeableness does more consistently relate negatively to objective success, it requires further investigation to see if this pattern applies as strongly to subjective success. Therefor this connection will also be investigated using the SCSI scale to confirm these results and see if the same negative relationship applies to subjective success measures.

H3: Agreeableness is negatively related to subjective career success 2.4 Mindfulness

Mindfulness is a psychological state of mind in which one is deliberately aware and observant of the present moment without response. Meaning to be conscious of emotional and physical stimuli subjected to oneself and processing that information but without judgment or reaction (Giluk, 2009). Mindfulness can be dispositional or used as a practice. As mindfulness came from eastern religious origin it was taught and practiced as a way of life. However, mindfulness is also a trait meaning people are disposed to be naturally higher or lower in mindfulness (Sala, et al., 2019). It is trait mindfulness

(10)

that we will be assessing in this study. In previous studies there are several measures that have been used to conceptualize mindfulness, which include; The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003), The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001), The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS; Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004), The Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale (CAMS; Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, & Greeson, 2004; S. C. Hayes & Feldman, 2004) and The Mindfulness Questionnaire (MQ; Chadwick, Hember, Mead, Lilley, & Dagnan, 2005). These were constructed of self-report questionnaires and each conceptualized mindfulness in differing ways, and on a differing number of facets (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer & Toney, 2006). Baer, et al. (2006) combined all questionnaires and using an exploratory factor analysis found five key facets emerged, these were then validated and produced the finalised Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). The five facets; observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreactivity (Baer, et al., 2006). It is this construct that will be used for assessment in this study.

As mindfulness has been investigated further, research has discovered the almost endless benefits it brings to differing factors of life. Good, et al.’s (2016) investigation into mindfulness in the workplace, used a literature review combined with research into managerial experience and organizational leader insights. Good, et al. (2016) used two approaches to measure mindfulness, assessing both trait mindfulness through a questionnaire and those that participate in mindful practices. The research began by assessing the impact on the five major domains of human functions then moves on to how these effects translate into three major workplace outcomes (Good, et al., 2016). Five domains of human function; Attention: mindfulness both in trait and when learnt improves attention stability (less mind wondering), control of attention (selective attention) and efficiency of attention. Cognition: increases cognitive capacity and flexibility. Emotion: By reducing reactivity one gains greater control over their emotions so irrational reactions are less common. Additionally, emotional tone was improved to be less negatively oriented. Behaviour: Increased behavioural regulation was seen with an ability to resist autonomous behaviour, known as reduced automaticity. Physiology: stress regulation, lowered cortisol levels, enhanced sleep quality, slowed aged degradation of the brain and resistance to disease (Good, et al., 2016).

These outstanding benefits linked to three major work-related outcomes. Performance: In differing work environments those who engaged in mindful practices saw improvements in job performance rating, customer satisfaction, communication quality and safety performance. It is also suggested that it can enhance goal pursuit and motivation. Relationships: The study suggests that mindful leaders have a better relationship with their subordinates, employees have better work-life balance, job satisfaction, better performance, and reduced burnout. Well-being: A link was found to several factors of well-being such as sleep quality improvement, work-family conflict reduction, less burnout, lower stress levels and negative moods. These apply to the workplace through better resilience and faster negative experience recovery (Good, et al., 2016).

(11)

Glomb, et al.’s (2011) earlier research is further supportive of Goods’ (2016) findings. In Glomb, et al.’s (2011) study work performance benefits were distinguished in three core areas: decoupling of self from experiences & emotions, decreased automaticity of mental processes and enhanced physiological system awareness. These three core elements led to seven secondary effects, some of which have previously been mentioned: decreased rumination, greater empathy, increased response flexibility, increased self-determination, greater persistence, enhanced working memory and greater forecasting accuracy. These traits were seen to increase overall workplace performance. Further research would agree with Glomb, et al. (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015).

2.5 The Big-Five and Mindfulness

Interestingly, in a study conducted by Giluk (2009) measuring the relation between trait mindfulness and the big five personality factors, trait mindfulness correlated strongly to several of these traits. Conscientiousness was found to have a strong positive connection to mindfulness (ρ = .44). As explained by Giluk (2009) although this is a previously an under researched connection this correlation makes sense. Many traits of conscientiousness align with mindfulness such as the enhanced job performance, concentration, attention, self-discipline, and deliberation in response (lowered automaticity of response) (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Bishop, et al., 2004; Giluk, 2009). Also, similar to mindfulness, conscientious people tend to have a greater recovery from negative emotion (Javaras, et al., 2012). This positive relationship between conscientiousness and mindfulness acts as the a-path in our mediation model, which will be discussed later, so this will be tested and reconfirmed. Leading to the fourth hypothesis:

H4: Conscientiousness is positively related to trait mindfulness

In the same paper trait mindfulness linked strongly negative to neuroticism (ρ = -.58). This is the strongest correlation with mindfulness and is quite unsurprising. As laid out by Giluk (2009), this may be due to the negative affect of neurotic individuals which leads them to be more susceptible to psychological distress and difficulty with mental health such as problems with anxiety, depression and stress (Giluk, 2009; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Barrick, et al., 2001). As described by Brown, et al., (2007) mindful individuals are more well-adjusted to deal with psychological distress and maintain better mental health (Brown et al., 2007). Once again, this negative relationship between neuroticism and mindfulness will be investigated to reconfirm its existence and to serve as the a-path in the mediation model.

H5: Neuroticism is negatively related to trait mindfulness

Agreeableness also had a moderate positive correlation with mindfulness (ρ = .30) (Giluk, 2009). This also seems expected as traits such as empathy and maintaining strong relations with others are traits

(12)

also held by mindful individuals (Thompson & Waltz, 2007; Giluk, 2009). Thirdly this positive relationship between agreeableness and trait mindfulness will be tested and reconfirmed acting as a-path in the mediation model.

H6: Agreeableness is positively related to trait mindfulness

2.6 Mindfulness and success

As discussed previously, Good (2016) and Glomb (2011) have discovered many career related benefits that mindfulness possesses. These benefits reach across broad dimensions, from work productivity, memory, determination, relationships, and physiologically better mental and physical health. In addition to those papers already discussed, other research has found increased general wellbeing (Santorelli, 1992; Falkenstro, 2010; Howell, Digdon & Buro, 2010), stress reduction, effective anxiety disorders treatment (Miller, Fletcher, & Kabat-Zinn, 1995), physical health improvements, life satisfaction (Glomb, et al., 2011), increased concentration and attention (Bishop, et al. 2004) and enhancements to working memory (Good, et al 2016). Improvements were also found with insight problem solving and communication quality (Ostafin, 2012; Good, et al. 2016). Those who employ mindfulness see overall work performance improvement (Shonin, Van Gordon, Dunn, Singh & Griffiths, 2014).

This burgeoning pile of benefits to job performance may be a strong indicator of one’s ability to attain success in their career. In addition to the work benefits, the mental and emotional benefits may be likely to positively link to subjective elements of success such as life satisfaction. It would be reasonable to suppose due to cognitive enhancements, the greater job performance and improved mental state that mindfulness brings it would lead to a greater chance of subjective success. Meaning that if an individual is higher in trait mindfulness, they would be more adept at achieving career success in objective and subjective terms, thus increasing their subjective career success. Furthermore, due to lower negative emotion and reduced anxiety it may even increase their perception of an objectively ‘lower’ level of success to be higher, because they are personally happier. This relationship between trait mindfulness and subjective career success will be investigated, this relationship will describe the b-path in the mediation model.

H7: Trait mindfulness relates positively to subjective career success

2.7 Mediation

The relationships described up to this point supported by the literature are as follows: Personality relates to mindfulness, mindfulness relates to subjective success and personality also relates to subjective success. These relationships can be described as ‘a-path’, ‘b-path’ and ‘c-path’ respectively.

(13)

Now due to the existence and strength of paths ‘a’ and ‘b’ proposed by the literature, this may give reason to believe that mindfulness acts a mediator between the three traits of personality and subjective career success. This mediation relationship is supported by the relationship found between personality and success (c-path). Meaning that there could be an indirect relationship between these personality traits and subjective success that goes through trait mindfulness (c’-path). Thus, in the simplest form of explanation, a direct relationship does not exist between the independent variables of personality and dependent variable of success, without the mediator of trait mindfulness. Personality relates to mindfulness and secondly mindfulness relates to success, meaning personality only indirectly relates to success. The mediations under investigation will now be explained independently.

Individuals who exhibit high conscientiousness also then exhibit high mindfulness (Giluk, 2009). The two variables hold similar traits such as patience, focus, hard work and reduced negative effect, amongst many more which support the relation between the two. Higher mindfulness has then been shown to improve many success related domains, such as enhanced cognitive ability, improved job performance and life satisfaction (Good, et al., 2016; Glomb, et al., 2011), which may enhance their relative ability to attain their goals and increase subjective career success. This could indicate that the relationship between conscientiousness and subjective success could be mediated by trait mindfulness. Simply put conscientiousness does not causally relate to success but instead conscientiousness can lead to mindfulness and this mindfulness trait makes people feel more subjectively successful as well as increase performance. Meaning trait mindfulness is the missing puzzle piece in the conscientious – success relationship. This study will control for the effect of mindfulness in the conscientious success relationship to assess to what extent this mediation takes effect takes place. Mediation is represented by the c’-path in the model. This leads to our eighth hypothesis. The relationships discussed are illustrated in figure 1.

H8: The relationship between conscientiousness and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness

a b

c’

The inverse relationship applies to neuroticism. High neuroticism leads to lower performance and success, additionally, high trait neuroticism relates negatively to trait mindfulness. The positive

Conscientiousness

Trait mindfulness

Subjective career success

(14)

traits associated with mindfulness are thus reduced if one is more neurotic, this reduction of the benefits that mindfulness brings could indirectly reduce neurotic individuals’ chance of success. Additional to the enhanced job performance that comes with mindfulness it also increases one’s life satisfaction, a trait that is low in neuroticism (Schimmack, Oishi, Furr & Funder, 2004). If an individual is higher in neuroticism, they will be lower in trait mindfulness and thus lower in subjective success. Meaning that neuroticism does not causally link to subjective success but instead it is neuroticism’s negative influence on mindfulness which then leads to less subjective success. Thus, trait mindfulness will mediate the negative neuroticism success relationship. This introduces our ninth hypothesis, mediation illustrated in figure 2.

H9: The relationship between neuroticism and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness

a b

c’

Another trait that may give a contradictory position on this relationship, is agreeableness. Although agreeableness has a strong correlation with mindfulness meaning if one is more mindful they will measure highly on agreeableness (Giluk, 2009), unlike the other traits discussed, it relates in an opposite fashion to career success (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Boudreau, et al,. 2001). Meaning agreeableness has a negative relationship to career success, especially when measured objectively. It seems logical to expect that agreeableness relates to mindfulness as when one is more mindful, they are more rational and calmer in interaction which may results in less conflict, such as also seen in agreeableness. So, it seems reasonable that these traits would correlate. However, it is previously discussed that agreeableness relates negatively to objective success, so this offers some contradiction. This may explain the lack of consensus when relating agreeableness to subjective success. As all other factors would indicate that there will be a positive link between mindfulness and subjective success, it would be interesting to see how agreeableness relates to subjective measures of success and whether mindfulness mediates this relationship in the same fashion. Considering this, the remaining hypothesis is as follows, illustrated by figure 3.

Neuroticism

Trait mindfulness

(15)

H10: The relationship between agreeableness and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness

a b

c’

A further point of interest is the connection between positive affect on career and life success. Positive affect is connected strongly with career and life success (Lyubomirsky & Diener, 2005). Mindfulness once again produces a strong relation to positive effect (.34) (Giluk, 2009). Positive effect will not be included in the research model of this paper however this connection could support an interesting and useful link between mindfulness and success. Positive effect characterizes more optimistic and happier attitude and less negative emotion, this may contribute to mindfulness’s link to the subjective elements of success. In Figure 1,2 and 3 the conceptual models illustrate the relationships under investigation in this study. The direct link between personality traits and subjective success represents H1,2 and 3. Path ‘a’ illustrates the link between the independent and the mediator, path b represents the link between the mediators and the dependent variable, c’-path shows the indirect link of this mediation.

3. Method

3.1 Research design

This study tested the hypotheses using a cross-sectional survey design. Quantitative data was collected using self-report Likert scale questionnaires amongst a sample of 188 full time working adults in divergent industries. Convenience sampling was used to find participants, meaning personal networks of the students conducting the study were used to contact participants. The surveys were collected over a 2-week period and the collection was conducted by three bachelor students. The survey also included questionnaires that were part of a separate study so only a relevant portion of the survey data was analysed.

3.2 Sample and procedures

32 data sets were discounted and removed due to incompletion of the survey or were excluded if they were not a full-time worker or that work was not their main activity, they were also removed if they were not an adult over 18 years of age. A further 9 were later removed as they were identified as

Agreeableness

Trait mindfulness

(16)

statistical outliers, this resulted in a final sample of 147 data. A total of 17 industries were included. The demographics of the data sample were as follows; 38.09% of the respondents were male, the age of respondents ranged from 21 to 67 (M = 41.6, SD = 13.1), years in work ranged from 0 to 45 (M = 17.3, SD = 13.1), tenure ranged from 0 to 40 (M = 9.8 SD = 9.6).

3.3 Measurements

The survey measured the 5 factors of interest: trait mindfulness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness, and subjective career success.

Conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness will be measured using the well-established Big Five personality model or the ‘Five Factor model’ developed by Robert McCrae (McCrae & Costa 1987). Each trait contains certain a certain number of items from the scale, conscientiousness has 9, neuroticism has 8 and agreeableness has 9. The Big Five survey also uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Examples of items such as “I see myself as someone who perseveres until the task is finished” or “I see myself as someone who can be moody” (see appendix). The scale showed a sufficient reliability for each trait with Cronbach’s alpha of .728 for conscientiousness, .838 for neuroticism and .679 for agreeableness.

Subjective Career Success Inventory (SCSI) will be used to measure success. The SCSI is a 24-item scale which measures success on eight dimensions, developed and validated by Shockley, et al. (2016). The eight dimensions included recognition, quality work, meaningful work, influence, authenticity, personal life, growth and development, and satisfaction. SCSI uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Examples of items include “ when considering my career as a whole I have been known for the high quality of my work” and “when considering my career as a whole I have been able to have a satisfying life outside of work” (see appendix). The scale showed a sufficient reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .925.

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) developed by Baer (2008) will be used to measure trait mindfulness, the mediator. It is a 39-item scale which can be characterized into 5 dimensions: Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness, Non-Judging and Non-reactivity. Also using a 5-Likert scale but ranging from “never or very rarely true” to “very often or always true”. Example of item; “When I have distressing thoughts or images, I “step back” and am aware of the thought or image without getting taken over by it” (see appendix). The scale showed a sufficient reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .897.

To rule out alternative effects control variables were added to the survey these include demographic data such as age, gender, years in work, tenure, education level, whether the participant meditates, how regular the meditation is.

3.4 Analyses

To test hypotheses 1 to 7 SPSS was used to conduct a linear regression between the independent and dependent variables with control variables in place. The effect was then assessed for significance to

(17)

either reject or confirm the hypothesis. For hypotheses 8, 9 and 10 the mediating effect of trait mindfulness on the relationship between personality and subjective success was assessed using The PROCESS macro v3.2 model 4 by Hayes (2018) using the same controls. The indirect effect size was then assessed for significance to either reject or confirm the hypothesis. Non-parametric bootstrapping is used in testing the indirect effect. If value 0 falls between the upper and lower bound of the confidence interval the inference is that the indirect effect can be rejected.

4. Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 1. contains the means, standard deviations and correlations of all relevant variables in the data set. This table displays correlations and not causations so does not confirm or deny any hypotheses. This preliminary step is used to get an initial understanding of the relationships amongst the variables in the data set and thus advise which control variables are of importance to include in the regressions tests and to give a good idea of the relationships of interest. Many correlations were found at high significance (p < 0.01). First, we can see that as expected there is indeed a significant positive medium correlation between conscientiousness and total subjective career success at a moderate strength (.423**). A significant but slightly weaker correlation is seen between neuroticism and subjective career success in the negative direction that is expected (-.244**). Agreeableness showed a positive but weak connection to subjective career success (.253**), which was interestingly unexpected as a negative relationship was hypothesized. Mindfulness displays several correlations of interest. Firstly, conscientiousness (.369**), neuroticism (-.555**), and agreeableness (.395**) all correlate with high significance and moderate strength to trait mindfulness. Similarly, trait mindfulness has significant correlations with both salary level (.208*) and subjective career success (.403*), this is a remarkably interesting yet expected result. Additional significant correlations that effect subjective career success that are of interest in terms of possible control variables include age, education level and career length. Meditate, mediate regularly , salary and career length effect mindfulness. These factors do have significant effects although their strength is very weak, albeit they will still be considered in the regressions as controls factors.

4.2 Testing assumptions

To test Hypotheses 1 to 7 linear regression will be used. As such, I first checked whether my data meets the assumptions of linear regression (see appendix). Firstly, I checked for linearity of the IV’s and DV’s and the results showed sufficient linearity. I checked for normality by examining the residuals of my main variables via a P-P plot, the residuals were approximately normally distributed thus sufficient normality was observed. Next homoscedasticity of residuals was tested, the results showed that residuals were equally variable (constant). The data was then examined for outliers so that no influential data points skew the results of the regression. Standardized residuals were created for all the IV’s and

(18)

DV linear regression then any absolute values of the standardized residuals that exceeded 2 (+/-) were deleted. This process resulted in 9 deleted outliers leaving 147 data points remaining. Lastly, multicollinearity of the predictors was assessed using the collinearity diagnostics inflation variance factor. All predictors displayed no collinearity.

4.3 Regressions

Hypothesis 1 states that conscientiousness is positively related to subjective career success. To test this linear regression is used, control variables age, education level, career length, tenure and gender were added to model 1 and conscientiousness in model 2. The regression results showed that the R-square of model two, with the conscientiousness included, is 25.4% (.254) which indicates the percentage change in subjective career success explained by the model. R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .128 (p<0.01), this indicates the variance in subjective career success explained only by conscientiousness (B = 1.013, se = .208, t = 4.876, and p < 0.001). Thus, the positive effect found means the hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Hypothesis 2 states that neuroticism is negatively related to subjective career success. The same process is used as previously. The results show R-square of model 2, with neuroticism included, is 16.2% (.162). R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .036 (p<0.05) The negative effect found means the hypothesis cannot be rejected. (B = -.436, se = .177, t = -2.458, and p < 0.05).

Hypothesis 3 states that agreeableness is negatively related to subjective career success. The same process is used as previously. The results show R-square of model 2, with agreeableness included, is 16.1% (.161). R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .035 (p<0.05) This is a positive relation thus the hypothesis can be rejected. (B = .592, se = .245, t = 2.413, and p < 0.05).

(19)

Hypothesis 4 states that conscientiousness is positively related to trait mindfulness. The same process is used but meditate and meditate regularly are added in addition to the previous controls . The results show R-square of model 2, with conscientiousness included, is 28.3% (.283). R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .103 (p<0.001) The positive effect found means the hypothesis cannot be rejected. (B = 1.237, se = .279, t = 4.440, and p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 5 states that neuroticism is negatively related to trait mindfulness. The same process is used as previously. The results show R-square of model 2, with neuroticism included, is 38.8% (.388). R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .208 (p<0.001) The negative effect found means the hypothesis cannot be rejected. (B = -1.455, se = .214, t = -6.816, and p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 6 states that agreeableness is negatively related to trait mindfulness. The same process is used as previously. The results show R-square of model 2, with agreeableness included, is 27.1% (.271). R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .091 (p<0.001) The positive effect found means the hypothesis can be rejected. (B = 1.317, se = .319, t = 4.130, and p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 7 states that trait mindfulness is positively related to subjective career success. The same process is used as previously. The results show R-square of model 2, with trait mindfulness included, is 24.1% (.241). R-square change from model 1 to model 2 is .107 (p<0.001) The positive effect found means the hypothesis cannot be rejected. (B = .267, se = .061, t = 4.399, and p < 0.001).

To test Hypothesis 8, that the relationship between conscientiousness and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness, I used the PROCESS macro (model 4) of Hayes (2018). Gender, Age, Education level, career length, tenure and whether the participant meditated were all included as control variables. The results showed a positive indirect effect of conscientiousness on subjective career success through trait mindfulness (B = .2323, SE =.1050) that is statistically significant at 95% CI (.0534, .4616). Indicating there is a full mediation effect. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

To test Hypothesis 9, the relationship between neuroticism and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness. The same process and control variables were used as previously. The results showed a negative indirect effect of neuroticism on subjective career success through trait mindfulness ( B = -.3797, SE =.1172) that is statistically significant at 95% CI (-.6240, -.1677). Indicating there is a full mediation effect. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

To test Hypothesis 10, the relationship between agreeableness and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness. The same process and control variables were used as previously. The results showed a positive indirect effect of agreeableness on subjective career success through trait mindfulness ( B = .3259, SE =.1293) that is statistically significant at 95% CI (.1051, .6116). Indicating there is a full mediation effect. The hypothesis cannot be rejected.

(20)

5. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate whether the relationship between three personality traits, conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, and subjective career success is mediated by trait mindfulness.

5.1 Summary

To summarise, every relationship tested found a significant effect, meaning the three personality traits had relationship to mindfulness and mindfulness had a positive relationship to subjective career success. Specifically, conscientiousness and agreeableness both related positively to mindfulness, meaning if one is higher in agreeableness or conscientiousness, they will also be higher in trait mindfulness. Similarly, if one is higher in neuroticism, they will be lower in trait mindfulness. The finding that agreeableness relates positively to success was unexpected and contrary to our hypothesis that it would relate negatively, this is extremely interesting and will be discussed further. The connection found between mindfulness and success was positive showing that if an individual displays higher trait mindfulness they are likely to have higher subjective career success. More interestingly a meditation effect was confirmed for all personality success relationships. Meaning that it is not directly personality that influences success, but that personality influences mindfulness and mindfulness then influences success. Thus, the relationship that was confirmed between the three traits (conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and success is in fact an indirect relationship that is mediated by trait mindfulness. In summary, an individual with higher conscientiousness has a higher likelihood of reaching high subjective career success than someone with low conscientiousness because they have higher trait mindfulness. Someone with high neuroticism is less likely to achieve high subjective career success than someone with low neuroticism because they have lower trait mindfulness. An individual with high agreeableness has a higher chance of increased subjective career success, than an individual with low agreeableness, due to higher trait mindfulness.

5.2 Interpretation

These are interesting results that point to important advances in research and practical applications. Previous research found a strong tie between conscientiousness and objective success such as frequency of promotions and salaries (Ng, & Feldman, 2010). However, we have now revealed that conscientiousness also connects strongly to subjective success determined by intangible factors such as life satisfaction, work life balance and recognition etc. This was a previously less researched area, so the finding adds a new perspective to the benefits of conscientiousness. I would suppose that this discovered link may be attributed to the higher attention to future goals alongside the higher dependability and work ethic often found in conscientious individuals (Giluk, 2009; Roberts, et al., 2009). This improved quality of work can thus result in higher recognition, a dimension of subjective success. Furthermore, and most importantly, it is found that this relationship is fully mediated through trait mindfulness. This explains more specifically how conscientiousness translate to success and shows

(21)

that mindfulness is instrumental in this process. This is a truly fascinating finding as it fills a gap previously unexplained; the reasoning why conscientious individuals have higher subjective success; is because they are more mindful. I would also interpret that due to the subject nature of our success measure, that mindfulness would connect even stronger to subjective success than it would to objective success. The physiological improvements to mental health could be a key player in this, because of stress reduction, increased life satisfaction and happiness, mindful individuals may be more positively oriented and thus consider themselves more successful than an objective measurer would.

The second and fifth hypothesis also support the same patterns, indeed we previously established that high neuroticism leads an individual to low success (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), this can now be confirmed to translate to subjective success in terms of the SCSI measure. This may be due to the sway towards high stress susceptibility, anxiety, self-insecurity, and tendency towards negative emotion (Costa & McCrae 1992; Barrick, et al., 2001) as well as greater task inefficiency (Haslam, et al., 2005). These are all traits that are opposite of someone with high trait mindfulness which explains the negative relation. Once again, the neuroticism to success relationship is fully mediated by mindfulness, highly neurotic individuals have demonstrated low mindfulness, which connects suitably with problems of high anxiety and low task performance. Which is turn leads to lower levels of success. This aligns with the literature laid out in the theoretical framework by Seibert & Kraimer, (2001), Schimmack, et al., (2004) and Giluk, (2009) by providing the missing link in these researches. These papers all showed that neurotic individuals had a strong negative relationship to success and mindfulness, now we can say why that is.

Lastly, one of the most interesting finding of this paper is agreeableness’ positive relationship to subjective career success and mindfulness’ mediation of this relationship. Contrary to previous research (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Duckworth, et al. 2012) which stated agreeableness has a repeated negative connection to success when measured objectively, the results in this paper show a strong positive connection to success when measured subjectively. This could indicate the fundamental differences between objective and subjective success. Due to the tangible and unemotionally driven criteria of objective success, agreeable individuals may struggle due to a lower ability to climb dominance hierarchies or engage in conflict to reach career goals, which may result in lower success (Graziano & Tobin 2009; Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001). However due to the increased mindfulness possessed by an agreeable individual they produce higher quality work, lower stress and higher all-round higher satisfaction with work and life. Although initially unexpected this is a fascinating discovery that can contribute to the surrounding literature on drivers to success and the advantages of mindfulness. This relationship also highlights the psychological benefits to mindfulness as it seems to enhance one’s perception of themselves, leading them to be happier with their life, work, and success.

An additional note of interpretation; regarding more holistic measures of success such as used in this study, individual’s mental health could be a key driver. Neuroticism is associated with insecure

(22)

mental health (Costa & McCrae 1992; Barrick, et al., 2001) and low trait mindfulness. However conscientious and agreeable individuals correlate with the low stress, low depression and ‘wakefulness of mind’ that mindfulness offers, and in turn they receive larger success. This may allude to mental health being a key component that drives the success.

5.3 Limitations

This study faced numerous limitations that may threaten the reliability of the results. The most apparent limitation is the sample size. Due to our limited social connections and time only 147 valid participants could be included. The method of collection was conducted through convenience sampling which may also present some bias and limited representation of a fair pool of random workers. Although thankfully a large number or nationalities, industries and ages were included. Secondly due to the self-reporting nature of the survey social desirability bias may be present, which is a phenomenon in which individuals may over rate themselves on certain aspects, than an objective measurer would, as they see those elements being socially desirable (Van de Mortel, 2008). Thirdly due to the large number of scales, demographics and controls that were included in the survey for all researchers, this resulted in exceptionally long survey, with many Likert type questions. This exceeding length could have produced respondent fatigue in which participants become tired or bored of the survey towards the later sections and their answer quality thus begins to deteriorate. They may begin to answer only straight down one column or answer neutrally (Lavrakas, 2008). Additionally, the wording of the questions may lead to confusion so interpretations could differ per participant. Due to the subjective nature of the success measure it is hard to know whether the score is driven by true success or just subjective opinion. This paper used trait mindfulness as its variable, however, perhaps mindfulness can be a learned state, possibly the levels of mindfulness can change over ones’ lifetime if they practice more or less. Also, one’s trait mindfulness may not stay constant. Despite these limitations it can still be said that this research is valid. Although self-report method presents problems it is also a great way to provide anonymity and reach a large sample. There are also currently few other effective ways at measuring mindfulness. The other scales used were also all tested for reliability and are well established scales, proven in the past at being effective measures.

5.4 Future research implications

Future research should expand on this study and investigate its validity by eradicating the unnecessary scales, thus making the survey shorter and collecting from a much larger 1000< sample size. Further research should also explore the disparity between subjective and objective success, as it was seen that agreeableness has a negative effect on objective success (Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001) but in this study a positive effect on subjective success. This may be due to the difference in personal and objective perception but should be investigated further. As mentioned above it can be hard to determine if the score is driven by true success or other drives so deeper insight which also includes objects factors would be needed. A deeper dive into the separate dimensions within mindfulness and subjective career

(23)

success would also give greater insight into how they relate to one another and what aspects are of greatest importance. Furthermore, as touched upon at the end of interpretation mental health should be investigated as driver of success. This may be a strong determining factor in one’s life success so it would be of large benefit to see how mental health such as anxiety and depression link to success, personality, and mindfulness. As this research accounted only for trait mindfulness, it would be beneficial to also include learned mindfulness in future studies to add more predictive power.

5.5 Practical implications

By understanding the strong mediating effect of mindfulness regarding one’s ability to obtain subjective success it can have significant practical applications. To the individual who is seeking to improve their life and reach a more holistic definition of success it is powerful for them to understand their personality and be aware of their mindfulness, by doing this they can work to improve themselves as they know that being more mindful can link to success increase. For example, a neurotic individual is likely to be less naturally mindful, so to combat this they can participate in regular mindfulness exercises. In terms of workplace implications these results can offer managers a great tool when building and motivating their task force. In the recruitment progress managers can survey candidates to measure their personality and mindfulness levels as well as how often they practice techniques. They should select employees who are high in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and mindfulness but low in neuroticism. As they know more mindful individuals will produce better work performance, be more concentrated and have enhanced cognitive ability. Due to the increased work-life balance and satisfaction, mindful employees will also be happier, and may they cause less problems, produce less conflict and overall hold better workplace relationships (Goods, et al., 2016). Manager should also offer regular mindfulness training to reduce stress and increase the other benefits of mindfulness. A deliberate focus should be applied to neurotic employees to help them become more mindful.

Conclusion

To conclude, previous research on mindfulness focussed on the enhancements to work performance, mental health and cognitive ability but left uncertain whether this translates into success. Although the connection mindfulness had to certain personality traits was known and those personality connections to success was known, the link had yet to be made. In this paper the personality - success link was re-established with a more up to date subjective measure to account for differences in opportunity and to include intangible measures such as satisfaction and recognition. Mindfulness was assessed for its mediating effect on this personality – success relationship. The results showed that mindfulness had a full mediation effect, meaning personality has an indirect effect on success through mindfulness. Conscientiousness and agreeableness both had a positive effect, whereas neuroticism has a negative effect. The positive relationship held by agreeableness highlights the contrast between objective and subjective measures. In short mindfulness does lead to subjective career success and to answer the

(24)

research question; To what extent does trait mindfulness mediate the relationship between conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness, and subjective career success? It can be stated that mindfulness mediates this relationship to a large extent.

(25)

References

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Conley, K. M., Williamson, R. L., Mancini, V. S., & Mitchell, M. E. (2015). What do we really know about the effects of mindfulness-based training in the workplace?. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 652.

Arthur, M, Khapova, S., & Wilderom, C. (2005). Career success in a boundary less career world. Journal of organizational behavior, 26, 177-202

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., ... & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329-342.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 11(3), 230-241.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of vocational behavior, 58(1), 53-81.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Development, 44(1), 20-33.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 417-440.

Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D. R., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. (2012). Who does well in life? Conscientious adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 356. facet-level analysis. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 30(8), 1062-1075.

Falkenstro¨ m, F. (2010). Studying mindfulness in experienced meditators: A quasi- experimental approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 305–310

Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta- analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 805-811.

Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Research in personnel and human resources management, 30(1), 115-157

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.

(26)

Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness.

Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of job performance. International Journal of selection and assessment, 12(3), 243-251.

Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Goodyear Pub. Co.

Haslam, C., Atkinson, S., Brown, S. S., & Haslam, R. A. (2005). Anxiety and depression in the workplace: effects on the individual and organisation (a focus group investigation). Journal of affective disorders, 88(2), 209-215.

Howell, A. J., Digdon, N. L., & Buro, K. (2010). Mindfulness predicts sleep-related self-regulation and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 419–424.

Hyland, P. K., Lee, R. A., & Mills, M. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: A new approach to improving individual and organizational performance. Industrial and Organizational

Javaras, K. N., Schaefer, S. M., Van Reekum, C. M., Lapate, R. C., Greischar, L. L., Bachhuber, D. R., ... & Davidson, R. J. (2012). Conscientiousness predicts greater recovery from negative emotion. Emotion, 12(5), 875.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2007). Personality and career success. Handbook

of career studies, (9), 59.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel psychology, 52(3), 621-652.

Kong, F., Wang, X., & Zhao, J. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Personality and individual differences, 56, 165-169.

Lavrakas, P. (2008). Respondent fatigue. Encyclopedia of survey research methods, 2455.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?. Psychological bulletin, 131(6), 803.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81.

medicine, 37(8), 1119-1129.

Melchior, M., Caspi, A., Milne, B. J., Danese, A., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2007). Work stress precipitates depression and anxiety in young, working women and men. Psychological

Miller, J. J., Fletcher, K., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (1995). Three-year follow-up and clinical implications of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction intervention in the treatment of anxiety disorders. General hospital psychiatry, 17(3), 192-200.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Human capital and objective indicators of career success: The mediating effects of cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational and

(27)

Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 367-408.

O'Leary, K., & Dockray, S. (2015). The effects of two novel gratitude and mindfulness interventions on well-being. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 21(4), 243-245.

O'Reilly III, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal study of managerial success. Administrative science quarterly, 603-627.

Ostafin, B. D., & Kassman, K. T. (2012). Stepping out of history: Mindfulness improves insight problem solving. Consciousness and cognition, 21(2), 1031-1036. personality to career success: The role of mentoring received and knowledge. Journal of Career Psychology, 8(4), 576-60

Plaza, I., Demarzo, M. M. P., Herrera-Mercadal, P., & García-Campayo, J. (2013). Mindfulness-based mobile applications: literature review and analysis of current features. JMIR

mHealth and uHealth, 1(2), e24.

Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness.

Sala, M., Rochefort, C., Lui, P. P., & Baldwin, A. S. (2019). Trait mindfulness and health behaviours: a meta-analysis. Health psychology review, 1-49.

Santorelli, S. F. (1992). A qualitative case analysis of mindfulness meditation training in an outpatient stress reduction clinic and its implications for the development of self-knowledge.

Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality and life satisfaction: A facet-level analysis. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 30(8), 1062-1075.

Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999, August). THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CAREER SUCCESS. In Academy of

Management Proceedings (Vol. 1999, No. 1, pp. A1-A6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of

Management.

Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of vocational behavior, 58(1), 1-21.

Shockley, K. M., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman, O. B., Poteat, L. F., & Dullaghan, T. R. (2016). Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed‐methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128-153.

Shonin, E., Van Gordon, W., Dunn, T. J., Singh, N. N., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Meditation awareness training (MAT) for work-related wellbeing and job performance: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12(6), 806-823.

Smithikrai, C. (2007). Personality Traits and Job Success: An investigation in a Thai sample 1. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 134-138.

(28)

Thompson, B. L., & Waltz, J. (2007). Everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation: Overlapping constructs or not?. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1875-1885.

Turban, D. B., Moake, T. R., Wu, S. Y. H., & Cheung, Y. H. (2017). Linking extroversion and proactive personality to career success: The role of mentoring received and knowledge. Journal of

Career Development, 44(1), 20-33.

Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The, 25(4), 40.

Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2017). Extraversion.

Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). # Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. Journal of adolescence, 51, 41-49.

Mindfulness and personality: A study into the drivers of success