In their article, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) argued that a dominant general factor (DGF) is present in most, if not all, psychological measures (e.g., personality, leadership, attitudes, skills). A DGF, according to Ree et al., is identified by two characteristics. First, the DGF accounts for the largest amount of a measure's systematic variance, and second, it influences every subdimension within the construct domain. They indicate that researchers ignore DGFs and pay inappropriate amounts of attention to the specific dimensions (DSs) even though the DGF provides most of the predictive power and the DS adds little predictive power.

I am happy to see the topic of mindfulness at work find its way into this journal as a focal article (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015), and I read it with great interest. Although I agree with most of the points made, I want to elaborate on some critical issues that were not or were only briefly touched on and that I deem worthy of further exploration and discussion.

Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) outlined a compelling argument for the pervasiveness of dominant general factors (DGFs) in psychological measurement. We agree that DGFs are important and that they are found for various constructs (e.g., cognitive abilities, work withdrawal), especially when an “unrotated principal components” analysis is conducted (Ree et al., p. 8). When studying hierarchical constructs, however, a narrow emphasis on uncovering DGFs would be incomplete at best and detrimental at worst. This commentary largely echoes the arguments made by Wee, Newman, and Joseph (2014), and Schneider and Newman (2015), who provided reasons for considering second-stratum cognitive abilities. We believe these same arguments in favor of second-stratum factors in the ability domain can be applied to hierarchical constructs more generally.

The focal article (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015) has reviewed the literature and has generally concluded that research on mindfulness training has been supportive and suggestive of the potential of these interventions to benefit organizations and people in the workplace. We generally agree with this conclusion but have some suggestions regarding future research and the implementation of mindfulness interventions. Our first suggestion is that organizations exercise caution about simply jumping on the mindfulness bandwagon without thinking through the decision to implement mindfulness interventions. The wide variety of mindfulness techniques can be very different in terms of the techniques used, the potential to be perceived as intrusive, and the outcomes associated with the different mindfulness interventions. We suggest that, when mindfulness interventions are implemented in organizations, the fit of the intervention with the specific goals of the organization be considered as well as alternative interventions. In addition, we suggest that the benefits to employees and employers be clearly articulated, as there may be possible conflicts between these constituencies.

Recently, mindfulness research has grown quickly, particularly as an avenue to increase productivity and alleviate modern workers' growing stress levels (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015). In a parallel but largely separate literature, work–family1 conflict has received expansive research attention in the last several decades as an important modern stressor. Work–family researchers have repeatedly called for practical interventions and individual strategies such as coping (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011). As a potential remedy for modern stress with demonstrated utility in the workplace, mindfulness is ideally suited to facilitate workers' efforts to balance their work and personal life domains. The purpose of this commentary is to explore numerous ways through which bridging mindfulness and work–family literatures will advance organizational science and practice.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) make a strong case for research and practice on mindfulness within the industrial–organizational community. Their main argument is that mindfulness has the potential to provide physical, psychological, and performance benefits to employees and organizations. However, to realize these benefits, organizations must first provide mindfulness training programs to their employees. Along these lines they note that some organizations have established mindfulness training programs to enhance employee well-being, and some firms specialize in providing workplace mindfulness training.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) have provided a thorough and much needed overview of the construct of mindfulness within the context of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and have offered several reasons why mindfulness programs should be considered in the workplace. In this commentary, we focus on their suggestion that mindfulness may improve the development of high potentials through enhanced self-awareness. We agree that mindfulness is likely an effective tool to help high potentials succeed in an increasingly complex world. We come to this conclusion after conducting a rigorous review of the literature and talking to experts (Ruderman, Clerkin, & Connolly, 2014), learning various forms of mindfulness including completing the mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, and our experiences conducting applied leadership research at the Center for Creative Leadership—a 45-year-old organization devoted exclusively to leadership development.

In their focal article, Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) discuss several potential areas in which mindfulness interventions may improve work performance. Some of these include creativity and sales performance (Chaskalson, 2011; Seligman, 2006). We agree that future research should continue to examine the potential benefits of mindfulness and propose an additional domain in which mindfulness interventions may be particularly beneficial: safety performance.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) open a door for discussing the benefits, utility, and challenges of mindfulness at work. Although it is evident from Hyland and colleagues that mindfulness can minimize negative employee outcomes (such as the experience of stress, strain, and burnout) and promote cognitive functioning, there seems to be limited consideration of how mindfulness actively promotes employee growth, development, high performance, and engagement. In this commentary, we speak to how mindfulness can encourage positive well-being at work in a hospital context. Specifically, we consider how mindfulness programs are currently being used in the ongoing training and development of nurses to cultivate patient-centered compassionate care. We propose that mindfulness can encourage positive well-being and compassionate care via the cultivation of resources and the creation of resource gain spirals, and we provide preliminary evidence for the utility of mindfulness training in hospital care settings.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) specified the two most popular scales for mindfulness: the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; 30 items, Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001; 14 items, Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006) and the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003). However, the popularity of these measures does not necessarily mean that they are of high quality. Especially considering the complex epistemology and ontology of the mindfulness construct, we should apply mindfulness assessments with caution. More specially, according to item development theorists in the industrial and organizational (I-O) area (see Hinkin, 1998; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993), scholars must select measures that have (a) a clear operational definition; (b) alignment between definition and measure (content validity); (c) high reliability and (d) high construct validity; and (e) high criterion-related validity. However, it is not clear which of the available mindfulness assessments satisfies these criteria and to what extent. In this commentary, we assess currently used measures based on these criteria and provide directions for future research.