In the present times, organizations are grappling with intensified competition, which has resulted in the shift in the organizations’ emphasis on individual intellectual abilities as a foundation for sustaining a strategic advantage (Andrews & Criscuolo, 2013). And, for intellectual capabilities, organizations are relying on knowledge workers, as this workforce is composed of well-qualified individuals having analytical strengths (Alvesson, 2000). Notably, knowledge workers concentrate on completing the tasks assigned to them within a stipulated time frame, which is advantageous for organizations (Teoh & Keikhosrokiani, 2021). Supporting this notion, even recent research has revealed that organizations comprising of knowledge workers are efficacious as they get the benefit of the learning and skills possessed by them (Davenport, 2005; Figurska, 2015). According to Davenport et al. (2002), this workforce comprises employees who are adept and create knowledge, and they have been classified into three categories as ‘creator of knowledge’ means the one who creates erudition like research scientists; ‘sharer of knowledge’ means the one who shares the learnings with others like teachers; and ‘utilizer of knowledge’ which refers to those who use the skills like technicians (Sibal, 2004).

As the world transitions to the knowledge economy, the notion of knowledge workers has become increasingly prominent in the management research domain (Issahaka & Lines, 2020). Consequently, organizational researchers and practitioners are paying more attention to the idea that knowledge workers are resources that should be appreciated, encouraged, nurtured, and engaged in organizations (Issahaka & Lines, 2020; Toth et al., 2020). However, despite the organization’s best attempts, they are unable to successfully engage these individuals in their work (Toth et al., 2020) as these employee groups undergo strain and anxiety because of having the obligations requiring completing the task assigned to them on time (Teoh & Keikhosrokiani, 2021). Unfortunately, this tensity and worry inhibit them from being engaged in their jobs, especially in today’s post-pandemic era (Bansal, 2022; Toth et al., 2020). In such circumstances, the relevant solution lies in looking for the means through which their emotional state can be taken care of. One such strategy is to concentrate on cultivating their mindfulness, as mindful people are thoughtful and tend to pay attention to the current moment actively and with awareness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). These qualities of a mindful person assist in sharpening their attention and increasing their productivity, and have generally been thought to improve their well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Dube, 2020). Additionally, it helps in augmenting an employee’s work engagement (Zivnuska et al., 2016), which is essential for fostering employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Saks, 2006; Saks, 2019). Employees’ engagement, being a crucial factor from the personnel’ and the organizations’ viewpoint, here denotes “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).

Notably, focusing on the contribution of mindfulness in achieving better employee well-being and engagement (Matsuo, 2020; Zivnuska et al., 2016), this study seeks to determine whether or not mindfulness can also prove crucial for boosting knowledge workers’ well-being and engagement. It is worth noting that even though several studies had empirically investigated the association between mindfulness and employees’ well-being and between mindfulness and work engagement (Gunasekara & Zheng, 2018; Matsuo, 2020; Zivnuska et al., 2016), however, the review of prevailing literature indicated that the direct relationship between these variables has not yet been empirically tested on knowledge workers working in Indian proficiency-based organizations, which is a hub for the knowledge-intensive workforce (Hariharan & Biswas, 2021). In addition to examining the direct relationship between the aforementioned factors (i.e., between mindfulness and knowledge workers’ well-being, and between mindfulness and knowledge workers’ engagement), this research seeks to investigate the mediating role of well-being between mindfulness and engagement relationship. Through this, the study aims to determine the underlying mechanism connecting the aforementioned variables and seeks to find the answer to the following questions (Qs):

  • Q1: Are mindful knowledge workers engaged in their work?

  • Q2: Do knowledge workers’ well-being mediate in mindfulness and work engagement relationship?

Particularly, the results of this simplistic but effective study will prove vital for organizations employing knowledge-intensive individuals in keeping them engaged, during this post-pandemic time in which individuals are trying to recover from the anxiety created by the prolonged COVID-19 (Bansal, 2022).

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development

Knowledge Workers’ Mindfulness and Well-being

The recent pandemic witnessed by the world has hampered the overall well-being of employees, which has made human resource management a challenge for organizations (De-la-Calle-Durán & Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2021). It mandates paying attention to improving their well-being by searching for the appropriate and most influential ways to get immediate and long-lasting solutions to this problem. As suggested by Dube (2020), nothing can be as crucial as mindfulness to tackle this stressful situation, which denotes “an awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145). Several researchers have supported this notion by investigating a significant link between employees’ mindfulness and their well-being (Malinowski & Lim, 2015; Zivnuska et al., 2016). Not only this, but previous researchers also revealed that mindful individuals experience less stress and anxiety in their work (Zivnuska et al., 2016), which also proves beneficial in improving their overall well-being. It implies that as mindful individuals are attentive and have the propensity to feel and react to emotionally trying circumstances in a more adaptable and non-impulsive style, so, they are likely to possess better levels of well-being. Particularly, their capacity for awareness of upsetting or challenging situations without instantly reacting to them is probably related to a stronger level of well-being (Malinowski & Lim, 2015). Therefore, based on the positive relationship between mindfulness and well-being, it can be expected that the aforesaid relationship can prove significant for knowledge workers too in reducing their psychological pressure and improving their well-being. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

  • Hypothesis (H1): Knowledge workers’ mindfulness significantly influences their well-being.

Knowledge Workers’ Well-being and Work Engagement

The increasing psychological pressure and anxiety among knowledge workers (Teoh & Keikhosrokiani, 2021) has induced a great threat to their work engagement level, thus necessitating the organizations to detect the ways through which it can be improved. One such way is to focus on their well-being, which can improve their work engagement (Wang et al., 2017). Here, the term ‘work engagement’ refers to “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694).

Indeed, augmenting employees’ work engagement is crucial for every organization as it is linked with numerous positive outcomes like enhanced employees’ job satisfaction, commitment (Saks, 2006), and improved performance (Jha et al., 2019). Based on this notion, several authors have empirically searched the positive relationship between employee well-being indicators, such as positive affect (Wang et al., 2017) and happiness (Singh et al., 2018), with employees’ work engagement. This implies that happier employees use to accomplish their tasks by being dedicated and absorbed in their work (Singh et al., 2018). Similarly, positive emotions also influence employees’ engagement, as the employees experiencing positive emotions used to enjoy the work they do (Wang et al., 2017). Concerning the vital role played by well-being in augmenting work engagement, Sivapragasam and Raya (2018) asserted that well-being is a crucial workplace factor that influences employees’ engrossment to their work in a special way as organizations use to experience better efficiency when both these aspects are prominent. It indicates that well-being and work engagement are vital for organizational success; thus, organizations should devote attention on the well-being of the employees so that it can augment their work engagement. Thus, concerning the well-being and engagement relationship being empirically investigated by the previous researchers, it can be expected that well-being can prove to be vital for strengthening knowledge workers’ engagement too. Based on this, it can be hypothesized that:

  • Hypothesis (H2): Knowledge workers’ well-being significantly influences their work engagement

Knowledge Workers’ Mindfulness and Work Engagement

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected human lives to a great extent and has resulted in making employees anxious (Bansal, 2022). It has affected their performance severely, making it essential for the organizations to work on making them engaged (Chanana, 2021). In such difficult times, the effectiveness of mindfulness cannot be ignored (Dube, 2020), as mindful people used to focus on the current moment in their mind and acknowledge this moment the way it is (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Notably, it is one of the crucial indicators of employee engagement (Gunasekara & Zheng, 2018). Supporting this notion, several authors had empirically tested the relationship between mindfulness and work engagement (Gunasekara & Zheng, 2018; Malinowski & Lim, 2015; Zivnuska et al., 2016). Matsuo (2020), in their work, emphasized the fact that individual’s ability to handle suffering and their capacity to focus intensively on one activity for a prolonged period is crucial for cultivating a feeling of pride in the tasks they perform. Even Zivnuska et al. (2016) observed that to make an individual feel enthusiastic about their work (i.e., to enhance their work engagement), their awareness and attentiveness toward the present moment are vital (Zivnuska et al., 2016). This denotes that mindfulness is prominent for providing employees with the opportunity to invest in work connected to their careers in a committed and active manner which is essential to make them feel inspired by the work they do.

Notably, this relation can also be supported via the Conservation of Resources Theory, which perceives that individual tries to conserve their interests and put efforts to accomplish their goals (Hobfoll, 2001), which helps in keeping them engaged. Based on it, researchers observed that an individual’s mindful nature can prove beneficial in attaining and conserving resources, which assist them in being engaged in the work (Zivnuska et al., 2016). Based on the evidence, it can be expected that mindfulness can prove to be advantageous for enhancing the knowledge workers’ engagement too, which is a key priority for organizations and its success (Figurska, 2015). Thus, it can be expected that knowledge workers who are mindful and focused, are engaged in their work. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

  • Hypothesis (H3): Knowledge workers’ mindfulness significantly influences their work engagement

Knowledge Workers’ Well-being as a Mediator

Well-being, being a key area of focus for the today’s skill-based organizations, is composed of many indicators, with subjective well-being, which commonly indicates having a high degree of positive affect, a small amount of negative affect, and a high level of happiness in one’s life (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Admittedly, focusing on the knowledge-oriented workforce’s well-being, engagement is imperative for organizations, especially today where the tensity among them is rising to a great extent (Teoh & Keikhosrokiani, 2021). And, as discussed earlier, mindfulness can prove beneficial in influencing their well-being (Zivnuska et al., 2016) and work engagement (Gunasekara & Zheng, 2018). Along with it, well-being can also prove to be propitious for enhancing their engagement level (Wang et al., 2017).

Based on it, and relying on the direct relationship between mindfulness and well-being, well-being and work engagement, and mindfulness and work engagement, being empirically investigated by the researchers, we hypothesize that well-being (measured using positive experiences in this study) can mediate in the mindfulness and knowledge workers’ work engagement relationship. Indeed, this relationship can be supported via the Broaden-and-build Theory (Fredrickson, 2001) of positive emotions, which denotes that positive feelings help in broadening thought-action among individuals and help in enhancing psychological resources, thus promoting creative ideas within an individual (Fredrickson, 2001). As a result, those with elevated levels of positive feelings are more likely to be involved in their work. Furthermore, highly mindful individuals keep a track of their emotions and sensations and observe their feeling without casting judgments; therefore, they have improved well-being (Zivnuska et al., 2016). And, improved and better well-being can prove crucial for strengthening an employee’s work engagement (Wang et al., 2017). Based on it, it can be expected that an individual’s mindful nature can induce positive emotions within him by influencing his well-being (Puolakanaho et al., 2018), which will, in turn, stimulate his engagement with the work he does (Wang et al., 2017). Based on this theory, it can be hypothesized (See Fig. 1) that:

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hypothesized model. Source. Literature review

Full size image

  • Hypothesis (H4): Knowledge workers’ well-being mediates between their mindfulness and work engagement relationship

Method

Data Collection and Sampling Technique

With an underlying aim to ensure whether mindfulness influences employees’ work engagement level or not and whether well-being mediates in the aforesaid relationship, the knowledge workers working in numerous Indian service organizations were chosen as key participants. Indeed, the new economy is characterized as a learning-based economy (Bhattacharya, 2011), playing a key role in attracting and retaining knowledge workers. These individuals are identified based on their jobs, as ‘knowledge workers’ are those who are involved in knowledge-based jobs (Wilson, 2017). Based on it, the individuals who were employed in proficiency-based jobs like engineers, financial analysts, researchers, and other skill-based work were chosen from Indian knowledge-based organizations like Banking and Insurance, IT & ITES, Finance/Accounting/Auditing, Telecommunication, and other related organizations.

The cross-sectional study was conducted to gather the data from the participants by incorporating the snowball method of convenience sampling. Notably, the cross-sectional research design opted over the longitudinal research design as it is the most common design used in management studies and other disciplines (Spector & Pindek, 2016). Also, recent research suggested using a cross-sectional study design by highlighting that the longitudinal design is not always better in terms of giving evidence for causality, and the cross-sectional design can convey many things that are valuable (Spector, 2019). Even in situations where causal implications (cause and effect relationships) cannot be drawn, it is alluring to think that longitudinal designs produce superior estimates of associations. However, this is not always the case. Unfortunately, because when the timescale considered does not coincide with the timeframe of the occurrence in question, longitudinal designs might result in incorrect conclusions (Spector, 2019).

Further, the snowball method of convenience sampling was preferred over the probability sampling techniques, as this method of data collection was most effective and feasible as it ensured the safety of both the responders and the researchers especially in COVID times when leaving one’s house was discouraged (Mehta, 2021). Also, this method was practical, and time-saving, in addition to being safe (Mehta, 2021). Additionally, it aids in overcoming the drawbacks of random sampling procedures, which include being more costly and difficult to handle (Emerson, 2015), and it is one of the most effective techniques for gathering information rapidly and efficiently (Sekaran & Bougie, 2011).

For the data collection, a survey questionnaire comprising two key sections was prepared in the English language using the scales drawn from the previous studies. The very first section is composed of questions regarding the demographic profile of the participants, and the second section comprises the survey questions regarding the variables chosen for this study (mindfulness, well-being, and work engagement). Both of these sections were clearly labeled in the questionnaire, followed by providing a suitable title for the constructs.

Before data collection, the adequate sample size was determined using the G* power software (version 3.1.9.4) (Faul et al., 2009), and as specified in Fig. 2, the minimum sample size for this study was 88. Based on it, the data collection procedure began by communicating with the knowledge-intensive organizations via mail, and by sending them detailed information regarding the purpose of the survey, to gather their permission to get the questionnaire filled. Based on their views, the knowledge workers of numerous proficiency-based organizations were approached via online and offline platforms like LinkedIn, E-Mail, and personal contacts, who were then informed about the purpose of the survey.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sample size determination using G*Power software

Full size image

However, before the final administration, and to certify the legibility of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted on a sample of 25 employees by assuring them about the anonymity of the responses. Completion of the survey took around 10 min. Based on the respondents’ suggestions, certain corrections were done in the questionnaire, including the sequence of the questions and making the language more comprehensible from the respondent’s perspective.

After the pilot study, the final data collection was carried out. For it, the questionnaire was distributed to 600 knowledge workers, to get the maximum responses along with fulfilling the minimum sample size requirement criteria. Of the overall questionnaire distributed, 320 responses were received. Out of these, some responses were found unusable, while some had missing values. The responses having the missing data were handled by contacting the approachable respondents again with a request to provide the requisite information. Following this approach, some of the missing data were completed, while the remaining unusable responses were dropped from further analysis. Following this approach, 36 responses were discarded. Thus, the final responses used for analysis were 284, denoting an overall response rate of 53.3%.

The result of the data analysis revealed that among the total respondents, 76.8% were men and 23.2% were women. Further, 36.6% of the respondents were under 25 years old, and 41.2% of the sample were 26–30 years old. The rest were 31 years or above. Based on the qualification, data revealed that out of the 284 participants, most of them had graduation degrees (45.1%), 37.3% had post-graduation, and the rest were having a professional degree. Among these, 78.9% had work experience of 0–5 years in the current organization, 18.3% had work experience between 5 and 10 years, and 2.1% had 10–20 years of work experience. However, the rest have more than 20 years of experience (0.7%).

Measurement Instruments

Mindfulness

Mindfulness was computed using the ‘Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised’ developed by Feldman et al. (2007) comprising 10 items. Data regarding the same was collected using a five-point Likert scale with one denoted ‘strongly disagree’ and five denoted ‘strongly agree’. Here, the sample statements used in the scale were ‘It is easy for me to concentrate on what I am doing’, and ‘I am able to pay close attention to one thing for a long period of time’.

The five-point Likert scale was used in this study, as Babakus and Mangold (1992) and Sachdev and Verma (2004) suggested that the five-point Likert scale is more appropriate than the seven-point scale as it helps lower respondents’ frustration level and therefore helps to enhance the quality of the responses. Additionally, earlier studies have demonstrated that respondents can express their opinions on this scale in a better manner as it is simple to understand (Marton-Williams, 1986). Also, for a questionnaire comprising many items (>10), a five-point scale is preferred over a seven-point scale as the latter one can be advantageous only in case of limited response statements (Newson, 2021; Sauro, 2010).

Well-being

Knowledge workers’ well-being was computed using the six items scale measuring the positive emotions/experiences from the ‘Scale of Positive and Negative Experience’ (Diener et al., 2009). For collecting information, a five-point Likert scale with one denoting ‘never’ and five denoting ‘always’ was used. Employees chose between one and five based on the emotions they experienced during the last few weeks. The sample statements of the well-being scale were ‘How often have you felt pleasant?’, and ‘How often have you felt good?

Knowledge Workers’ Work Engagement

To compute the knowledge workers’ work engagement, ‘Utrecht Work Engagement Scale’ invented by Schaufeli et al. (2006) was used comprising nine statements. Responses were collected on a five-point Likert scale with one representing ‘strongly disagree’ and five representing ‘strongly agree’. Respondents responded to the questions based on their engagement level and their enthusiasm for the work they perform. Here, the sample statements used in the scale were ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’, and ‘I am immersed in my work’.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Jamovi software (version 1.8.4.0) as it is suitable for different data sets and can be used to conduct various single and multiple-variable analyses. Moreover, being free software, it is useful for social science researchers to conduct analysis using this software (Şahin & Aybek, 2019).

The Cronbach’s α value was calculated to check the reliability, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine the model fit. Further, common method bias was checked using the SPSS software (version 20), by conducting Harman’s single-factor test. Along with it, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was also computed, to check the multicollinearity issues. Moreover, multiple regression and mediation analysis was conducted (using PROCESS macro) to check the hypothesis set up in the study.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

The mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and correlation metrics (r) of the demographics and variables under study were examined (Table 1). As shown in the results, demographic variables either had a weak or no significant relationship with the dependent variable and thus did not require further treatment in the model. The results of the correlation analysis revealed that mindfulness significantly influences well-being (r=0.542, p<.01). Moreover, a significant positive correlation was observed between well-being and work engagement (r=0.671, p<.01), and mindfulness and work engagement of knowledge workers (r=0.614, p<.01).

Table 1 Mean, standard deviation, and correlation metrics
Full size table

Following this, Cronbach’s alpha value was computed. Notably, Hulin et al. (2001)’s criteria for evaluating Cronbach’s alpha value was taken into consideration, which denotes that the value of α ranges between 0.6 and 0.7 is acceptable as it shows an acceptable level of reliability. However, Cronbach’s α value of 0.8 or more is considered a good level for measuring the reliability of the scales (Hulin et al., 2001). As specified by the values in the diagonal (see Table 1), Cronbach’s alpha of the scales used in the current study was accepted, as the value of the scales used was greater than 0.6 (Mindfulness= 0.663, Well-being= 0.683, and Work Engagement= 0.733) (Hulin et al., 2001). A negative statement was deleted from the mindfulness scale, which improved the overall reliability from 0.663 to 0.704.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Multicollinearity, and Bias Check

CFA is a kind of factor analysis that is applied to examine whether construct measures are congruent with an investigator’s understanding of the construct’s nature. As a result, the objective of CFA is to determine whether the data fit a measurement model proposed or not (Kline, 2010).

Before the model fitness assessment, the item parceling technique was used keeping in view its overall efficiency and reliability (Little et al., 2002). For mindfulness and work engagement, three parcels were created for each construct, and for the well-being construct, two parcels were created with each parcel comprising three items. Following this, for examining the model fit, model fitness criteria were checked using the model fitness indicators, the results of which revealed that the model fits the data well (χ2 /df =42.2/17= 2.48, p< 0.001; CFI= 0.970; TLI=.951; RMSEA=0.07; SRMR= 0.03) (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015; MacCallum et al., 1996).

Next, the model-fit indicators of the hypothesized three-factor model were compared with the model-fit indicators of two alternative models (see Table 2). Here, the fit of the alternative models was compared with the hypothesized model using the ‘chi-square difference test’ (Kline, 2005). The results of the model’s comparison revealed that the hypothesized three-factor model exhibits a better fit than the one (Δx2= 38.2, Δdf= 3, p<.001) and two-factor models (Δx2= 33.9, Δdf= 2, p<.001) with the value of model-fit indicators in the three-factor model being in the threshold limits. These results support the distinctiveness of the three measures

Table 2 Factor structure comparison
Full size table

As the data for all the constructs under examination were collected from a single source, so it might be exposed to common method bias (CMB) issues (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, to lessen the impact of method bias, certain procedural remedies suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2012) were implemented. As a result, during data collection, predictor and criterion variables were separated, and verified scales were adopted. Additionally, participants were guaranteed the secrecy and confidentiality of their responses. Also, they were assured that there were no correct or incorrect responses while answering, so they should be as feasible as possible (Chang et al., 2010).

Moreover, Harman’s single factor test (SFT) and common latent factors (CLF) were used to check the presence of method bias. Harman’s SFT was conducted by loading all the factors into a single factor (Hair et al., 2006), the results of which revealed that the single factor explained 21.86% of the variance, which was far less than 50%. So, it did not possess the threat of common method bias. Furthermore, we tested for CLF and compared the standardized regression weights of all items for models including CLF and without CLF. Because of the relatively modest variations in these regression weights (< 0.200), it was determined that CMV was not a significant problem in our data (Archimi et al., 2018). In addition to this, the square of the CLF value was 0.16, which was less than the 30% threshold value (Eichhorn, 2014). Hence, both tests confirm that CMB was not the issue in the data.

Along with the bias check, multicollinearity was also checked using the VIF (variance inflation factor), to ensure that multicollinearity was not an issue. The result of VIF revealed that the value of mindfulness and well-being was less than 2.6 (1.41 and 1.41 respectively). Thus, multicollinearity did not exist in the study (Hair et al., 2017).

Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypothesis setup in the current empirical study, multiple regression analysis was conducted using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) (see Table 3). The analysis’s findings showed that mindfulness significantly affects well-being (β=0.375, p<0.001) thus supporting the H1. Similarly, H2 and H3 were supported denoting the significant effect of well-being on work engagement (β=0.714, p<0.001), and mindfulness on work engagement (β=0.365, p<0.001).

Table 3 Hypothesis testing
Full size table

Following the direct relationship among the variables, the mediation analysis was performed at 95% confidence intervals with 5000 bootstraps. The result of the analysis revealed that well-being acts as a mediator between mindfulness and work engagement, as the lower and upper confidence intervals (ULCI and LLCI) did not include zero (see Table 4). Moreover, the direct relation between mindfulness and work engagement shrank after incorporating the mediator between the two (β=.268, p<0.001), which revealed that well-being mediates in the relationship partially only. Thus, the H4 was supported partially.

Table 4 Mediation analysis
Full size table

Discussion

Upon investigating the direct relationship between mindfulness and knowledge workers’ engagement, this study also investigated the mediating effect of well-being between them. As predicted, mindfulness had a direct significant relationship with well-being. These results confirmed the H1 framed and supported the findings of Zivnuska et al. (2016) regarding mindfulness being a prominent influencer of well-being. Along with the H1, the study’s results also supported the H2, revealing the positive significant relationship between well-being and work engagement, thus supporting the findings of Wang et al. (2017). This implies that the employees experience high well-being and positivity and are engrossed in the work they do. So, if organizations want their workforce to be engaged in their work, they should emphasize on the ways via which their well-being can be taken care of.

Further, the H3 was supported too, implying a significant relationship between mindfulness and work engagement. These results support the findings of Gunasekara and Zheng (2018), who, even though concentrated on mindfulness and work engagement relationships, had not given special reference to the knowledge workers. Thus, this study’s results extended the work of Gunasekara and Zheng (2018), by particularly focusing on Indian knowledge workers. This implies that mindful individuals used to work purposefully and feel proud of their work. Moreover, they used to involve themselves in organizational work.

Following this, the mediating role of well-being in the mindfulness and work engagement relationship supported the H4 framed, but partially only. These findings reveal that mindful individuals have better well-being, and these individuals are keen to work by absorbing themselves completely in their organizational tasks. It implies that the knowledge workers who do not get distracted easily and for whom tolerating emotional pain is not a difficult task, such individuals experience greater and improved well-being, and their job works as an inspiration for them. Such positivity on their part, in turn, influences their engagement toward their work. Particularly, these results signify that the positive impact of mindfulness on work engagement can be achieved by taking care of their well-being. These findings denote that as mindful individuals perceive and react to emotionally trying circumstances with a more adaptable and non-impulsive attitude, they are likely to experience ameliorated well-being, resulting in improved engagement. Thus, to make an individual engrossed in their work, and to make them feel dedicated and absorbed in their organizational work, organizations should rely on individual’s capacity to be conscious of tough or frightening circumstances without reacting to them straightaway, as these individuals’ potentials tend to improve their well-being favorably, which will ultimately augment their work engagement.

Theoretical Implications

The underlying purpose of this study was to fulfill the two key gaps in the prevailing literature; firstly, regarding the scarce research on the relationship between mindfulness and work engagement (Gunasekara & Zheng, 2018), and secondly, concerning the inadequate research on the role of individual factors in enhancing knowledge workers’ engagement (Toth et al., 2020). Thus, focusing on these gaps, this study aimed at researching the impact of mindfulness in augmenting employees’ work engagement, which according to our awareness, had not been empirically checked before, concerning knowledge workers.

The current study brought together the Conservation of Resources and broaden-and-build theory in a single model by empirically checking how mindfulness helps in influencing work engagement, both directly and indirectly via well-being. Here, based on mindfulness’ relationship with work engagement being supported via the Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001), it can be said that mindful knowledge workers are self-motivated which encourages them to conserve their resources and focus on attaining new resources. Such mindful nature motivates them to be engaged in the work they do.

Following this theory, the mediating role of well-being in the mindfulness and knowledge workers’ work engagement can be supported via the broaden-and-build Theory (Fredrickson, 2001). This theory elucidates that mindful employees experience positive emotions like joy, which in turn helps in increasing their work engagement. So, if knowledge-intensive organizations want their workforce to be engaged in their work, they can concentrate on ways to make them work mindfully.

Managerial Implications

The findings of this study can be used to derive certain practical conclusions. According to the study’s findings, knowledge workers’ attentional abilities and readiness (i.e., mindfulness) to accept the world as it is are connected with their well-being and work engagement. These findings demonstrate that certain individual and organizational level individual actions must be undertaken to increase knowledge workers’ engagement.

At the individual level, these individuals must cultivate a non-judgmental attitude toward their prevailing job experience via active learning. This will enable them to evaluate difficult work activities with perseverance which will help them in tackling complex work assignments, which are majorly executed in teams with peers who have distinct personalities and character traits. Also, knowledge workers must practice several things to improve their mindfulness. One of these could be to remind themselves to pay attention to their emotions, ideas, and physical sensations as well as to embrace everything around them without condemnation. Particularly, knowledge workers have to develop greater levels of acceptance and tolerance, as well as confidence in themselves, and other individuals. Moreover, they must also show appreciation.

And, at the organizational level, organizations have to concentrate on developing and promoting an attitude of embracing the current circumstances as they are, among knowledge workers. This strategy would help them adjust to dynamic work contexts more effectively and productively instead of suppressing and resisting the current reality. Also, to promote and foster these individuals’ awareness, organizations can implement a variety of initiatives and methods like the adoption of work-life balance initiatives and stress coping strategies. Indeed, it would be worthwhile to encourage these initiatives as it will help in improving the degree of mindfulness among knowledge workers as there is scientific evidence that mindfulness can be promoted via a variety of strategies (Smith et al., 2008). Additionally, organizations can also organize yoga/meditation sessions, to strengthen these employees’ group’s mindfulness as suggested by recent studies that a person’s mental capacity and awareness can be improved through spiritual practice and mediation-based classes (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Notably, all these initiatives will prove vital for increasing their well-being and engagement with their tasks.

Limitations and Scope for Future

Despite being a study preoccupied with a bunch of benefits like being the first study emphasizing on the impact of mindfulness in strengthening the knowledge workers’ engagement, the study has certain weak points too, which need to be focused on, in the future. To begin with, just like most studies, this one is cross-sectional, the results of which may vary if conducted using a longitudinal research design. Moreover, this study has been undertaken by incorporating convenience and snowball approaches to administer self-report surveys, which tend to introduce selection bias into the data collection process. Thus, future researchers can confirm these findings through intensive analysis by employing a probability sampling approach.

Further, as this study was conducted on knowledge workers working in India, the results might be slightly different if the same will be conducted on the knowledge workers of other countries. So, future researchers can pay attention to these shortcomings and can conduct studies accordingly. Moreover, a comparative study can be conducted among the knowledge workers of different countries, which helps to get an idea regarding their mindfulness level and its impact on their engagement. Indeed, it will help acquire insight regarding the efficiency of mindfulness in affecting the engagement of individuals from different countries.

Furthermore, as the study had focused on one independent variable only (mindfulness) for examining the knowledge workers’ well-being and their work engagement, a considerable amount of attention can be entitled to other key variables affecting their engagement also like individual and organizational level factors. It will be a great contribution to the area of research. Moreover, it will be beneficial to search for the key moderators to get an insight regarding anything moderating the relationship like age or gender. Thus, future researchers can choose from any area specified above and conduct research, which will be an appreciable contribution to this field.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the prevailing literature in three ways; Firstly, organizational managers can rely on enhancing knowledge workers’ mindfulness as a key source for making them engaged in their work; secondly, along with intensifying their work engagement, their experiences and well-being can be increased via mindfulness practices; and lastly, mindfulness and well-being together adds to their work engagement. Through this, the current study has contributed to Toth et al. (2020)’s suggestion for conducting a study on the factors responsible for influencing knowledge workers’ engagement. Thus, along with contributing to the knowledge workers’ engagement literature, the study provides suggestions for managers and HR professionals to rely on yoga sessions and face-to-face interaction programs with their workforce to improve their mindfulness level, which will, in turn, boost their engagement level.