Sustaining Workplace Mindfulness in the Hospitality Industry: The Roles of Job Crafting, Meaningful Work, and Growth Mindset

Abstract

Employee well-being in hospitality settings depends on how individuals shape their daily work experience under continuous service demands. This study examines whether job crafting is associated with workplace mindfulness, whether this association is statistically linked with meaningful work, and whether the strength of these relationships varies across levels of growth mindset. Data were collected from 553 frontline employees in five-star hotels in Antalya, Turkey, and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling with bootstrapped conditional effects. The results indicate that job crafting was positively associated with workplace mindfulness, and that meaningful work accounted for part of this association. The findings also indicate that growth mindset strengthened the association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness and the indirect association through meaningful work. Rather than positioning the model as a radical theoretical departure, this study offers a contextual and mechanism-based refinement by showing how meaningful work and growth mindset jointly qualify the association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness in a highly standardized service setting. In this study, workplace mindfulness is treated as a distinct work state reflecting present-moment attentional focus, awareness, and emotional regulation during service delivery, which makes it especially relevant in frontline hospitality roles where service consistency depends on employees’ psychological presence during each guest encounter. The findings provide practical insight into how bounded work adjustments and development-oriented support may be linked with employee psychological functioning in luxury hospitality contexts.

1. Introduction

Service-based economies rely heavily on frontline employees, especially in hospitality settings where customer experience is shaped through repeated interpersonal interactions [1]. In destinations such as Turkey, where tourism remains a major contributor to economic activity, employees’ day-to-day responses to service demands are closely linked with service consistency and organizational competitiveness [2]. In these environments, employees operate under continuous guest contact, emotional demands, and time pressure, meaning that sustaining employee psychological functioning depends not only on formal job design but also on how employees proactively manage and interpret their work within daily service encounters [3].

Within this study, job crafting is examined as a form of bounded adaptation rather than unrestricted role redesign, a distinction that carries particular weight in five-star hotel environments [4,5,6]. In such settings, service work is governed by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), brand expectations, and scripted service encounters designed to ensure consistency [7,8]. Job crafting in this context does not mean rewriting one’s role; it means making limited but meaningful adjustments within existing service standards [9,10]. These adjustments may include varying the sequence or style of service delivery, adopting more constructive approaches to interacting with guests and colleagues (relational crafting), or cognitively reframing repetitive service tasks as meaningful contributions to the guest experience rather than as routine obligations (cognitive crafting) [4,9,11]. Prior research has linked such proactive adjustments with favorable employee outcomes in hospitality contexts [12,13,14]. However, existing studies have concentrated primarily on engagement, satisfaction, or performance, leaving less understood the specific psychological mechanism through which frontline employees remain attentive, emotionally regulated, and fully present during repeated service interactions [6,9,15].

This gap makes workplace mindfulness a particularly relevant and theoretically distinct focal outcome for the present study. Unlike work engagement, which reflects a broad motivational state of vigor, dedication, and absorption toward one’s job [12,16,17,18], or job satisfaction, which reflects a cumulative evaluative attitude toward one’s work overall [19,20,21,22], workplace mindfulness refers specifically to present-moment attentional focus, non-judgmental awareness, and psychological presence during ongoing work activity [23,24,25,26,27]. In frontline hospitality roles characterized by repetitive interactions, emotional labor demands, and attentional pressure, these qualities are not adequately captured by satisfaction or engagement measures [28,29]. A service employee may report high overall job satisfaction while still becoming distracted, emotionally overwhelmed, or mentally disengaged during individual guest encounters [30,31]. Workplace mindfulness, by contrast, directly reflects the quality of attentional and emotional presence that determines service consistency at the moment of delivery [23,32,33]. Meaningful work may help explain this process, as employees who perceive their tasks as aligned with personal values and connected to a broader service purpose are likely to maintain the attentional and emotional resources necessary to sustain mindful engagement during demanding service encounters [34,35,36,37]. Accordingly, the model’s value lies not in substituting one outcome for another, but in clarifying a specific mechanism of meaningful work through which job crafting is associated with workplace mindfulness that is particularly relevant in the standardized, high-contact environment of five-star hospitality.

This study is grounded in the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) framework as its primary theoretical lens, rather than treating multiple theories as parallel and additive contributors [38,39]. Within the JD-R perspective, job crafting represents employees’ active efforts to reshape their resource and demand profiles [12,40]. The present model extends this logic by proposing that these proactive adjustments operate through meaningful work a resource-generating cognitive reappraisal to produce workplace mindfulness as a work state reflecting the quality of psychological engagement in the moment [41,42]. Growth mindset is incorporated not as a separate theoretical layer, but as a boundary condition that explains when this process is more likely to occur [43,44]. Drawing on Dweck et al.’s [45] implicit theories of ability and Lazarus and Folkman’s [46] cognitive appraisal framework, employees with a stronger growth mindset tend to interpret service constraints, effort demands, and role limitations as developmentally meaningful rather than as fixed barriers [47,48]. This appraisal orientation enables them to extract greater meaning from proactive work adjustments and to direct attentional resources toward present-moment service engagement rather than toward self-protective rumination [43,44,49]. In highly standardized five-star service roles, where discretion is structurally limited, this cognitive reappraisal capacity is especially consequential. Growth mindset therefore shapes the effectiveness of job crafting not simply as a stable positive trait, but as a moderating condition that amplifies the pathway from proactive work adjustments to meaningful and mindful work experiences.

The cross-sectional design of the study means that directional claims cannot be established empirically; the relationships reported throughout reflect associations rather than causal sequences. Accordingly, this study examines three related questions: whether job crafting is associated with meaningful work and workplace mindfulness, whether meaningful work helps account for this association, and whether growth mindset strengthens these relationships.

The contribution of the present study is contextual and mechanism-based rather than a radical theoretical departure from the existing literature. First, it establishes why workplace mindfulness as a construct capturing present-moment attentional focus and emotional regulation is conceptually and empirically distinct from work engagement and job satisfaction, and why it constitutes a more appropriate outcome variable for examining employee psychological functioning in frontline hospitality research. Second, it clarifies how meaningful work helps explain the association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness within the bounded service conditions of five-star hotels. Third, it identifies growth mindset as a boundary condition that helps explain when proactive work adjustments are more strongly linked with meaningful and mindful work experiences, grounded in cognitive appraisal mechanisms rather than treated as a static personal attribute. Together, these contributions offer a more focused explanation of how frontline employees sustain psychological functioning in demanding, standardized hospitality environments.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Theory

This study adopts the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) framework as its primary theoretical lens for understanding how frontline hospitality employees manage demanding service conditions and sustain psychological functioning at work. In five-star hotel environments specifically, employees operate under continuous guest contact, emotional labor requirements, strict service consistency standards, and time pressure conditions that collectively constitute significant and sustained job demands [50,51]. At the same time, employees differ in how effectively they mobilize available resources and regulate their responses to these pressures [52,53]. From a JD-R perspective, psychological functioning at work depends not only on formal job structures but also on whether employees can generate or preserve the resources necessary to remain effective under sustained demand [54,55,56].

Within this framework, job crafting is treated as a resource-shaping behavior a process through which employees make bounded adjustments to how work is enacted, interpreted, or relationally managed in order to improve the alignment between job demands and personal resources [5]. In highly standardized hospitality settings, such adjustments do not constitute unrestricted role redesign; rather, they involve limited but meaningful modifications that remain consistent with service standards while improving the fit between task demands, personal values, and available resources [12]. This JD-R-grounded conceptualization connects job crafting with two psychologically distinct outcomes that are both examined in the present study: meaningful work, understood as a value-based interpretive resource generated when employees perceive their role as personally significant, and workplace mindfulness, understood as a present-moment work state reflecting attentional focus and emotional regulation during ongoing service performance [57,58,59]. By treating both outcomes within the same resource-based logic, the model avoids positioning them as interchangeable and instead clarifies the distinct psychological function each serves in sustaining employee well-being in demanding hospitality contexts.

2.2. Growth Mindset Theory

Growth mindset theory is incorporated into this study not as a parallel explanatory framework alongside JD-R, but as a boundary condition that helps explain when job crafting is more likely to be associated with meaningful work and workplace mindfulness [44,60,61]. Employees differ in whether they view their abilities as fixed or developable, and this belief shapes how they interpret effort, constraints, and opportunities for improvement within their work roles [62,63]. Drawing on Dweck et al.’s [45] implicit theories of ability, individuals who hold a growth mindset are more likely to interpret demanding work situations including structural constraints and service pressure as opportunities for learning and development rather than as fixed barriers to performance [43].

The theoretical mechanism through which growth mindset operates in work contexts is cognitive appraisal. Drawing on Lazarus and Folkman’s [46] cognitive appraisal framework, employees with a stronger growth mindset are more likely to appraise role pressure, service repetition, and limited autonomy as challenges worth engaging with rather than as threats requiring self-protection [64]. This challenge-oriented appraisal supports persistence, deeper task engagement, and a greater willingness to invest effort in proactive work adjustments [47,48]. In frontline hospitality roles, where discretion is structurally constrained by SOPs and brand expectations, this appraisal orientation is especially consequential because employees must adapt within service boundaries rather than by redesigning their roles [7,8]. Employees with a stronger growth mindset are therefore more capable of converting bounded job crafting adjustments into stronger work significance and more stable attentional engagement, because they interpret the same constrained service environment in more developmentally constructive ways [58,65,66,67].

2.3. Job Crafting and Workplace Mindfulness

Employees in frontline hospitality roles do not only execute assigned tasks; they actively adjust how work is carried out to better match personal capabilities and situational demands. Within this study, job crafting refers to these self-initiated adjustments that reshape how tasks are performed and interpreted [25]. In five-star hotel settings governed by SOPs and scripted service standards, job crafting is understood as bounded adaptation rather than unrestricted role redesign [5]. Such adjustments may include altering the sequence or interpersonal style of service delivery without violating brand standards (task crafting), choosing more constructive and personalized ways of engaging with guests and colleagues within approved interaction frameworks (relational crafting), or cognitively reframing repetitive service tasks as meaningful contributions to guest experience rather than as routine compliance obligations (cognitive crafting) [9,11]. These forms of bounded adaptation can reduce unnecessary strain, improve role fit, and help employees remain mentally present under demanding service conditions.

The present study focuses on workplace mindfulness as the outcome of this process rather than on broader constructs such as work engagement or job satisfaction. This choice reflects a specific theoretical rationale: workplace mindfulness captures present-moment attentional focus, non-judgmental awareness, and psychological presence during ongoing work activity [6,23,24,68], which are qualities that engagement and satisfaction measures do not directly assess. In frontline hospitality roles characterized by continuous guest contact, emotional labor, and attentional pressure, service quality depends not only on how motivated or satisfied employees feel in general, but on the quality of their psychological presence during each individual service encounter [13,69]. A receptionist or concierge may report high job satisfaction while still becoming mentally disengaged or emotionally overwhelmed during a specific guest interaction [20,21,22]. Workplace mindfulness directly reflects this moment-to-moment attentional and emotional quality, making it the more appropriate focal outcome for examining how job crafting supports psychological functioning in this context [26,27,32,70].

From a resource-based perspective within the JD-R framework, bounded work adjustments increase access to supportive conditions such as improved role fit, relational clarity, and cognitive reappraisal of task purpose while reducing avoidable strain [5,40,71]. These conditions enable employees to direct attention more effectively and sustain emotional regulation during service delivery. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. 

Job crafting is positively associated with workplace mindfulness.

2.4. Job Crafting and Meaningful Work

Job crafting is also expected to be positively associated with meaningful work because bounded changes in task enactment, relational approach, and cognitive interpretation can strengthen the alignment between what employees do and what they perceive their work to mean [36,61]. In standardized five-star hospitality roles, employees may have limited discretion over core service procedures, yet they retain the capacity to modify how they carry out approved tasks, how they engage with guests and colleagues, and how they interpret the purpose of their role [72,73]. When such adjustments help employees connect routine service activities with personal values, professional identity, or guest-related purpose, the work is more likely to be experienced as personally significant and worthwhile [62].

This process is particularly relevant in five-star hotel settings, where repetitive and scripted service tasks may otherwise feel detached from personal meaning. A front desk employee who cognitively reframes check-in procedures as part of creating a guest’s first impression, or a food and beverage attendant who approaches each service interaction as an opportunity to contribute to a guest’s overall experience, is engaging in the kind of value-based role reinterpretation that strengthens meaningful work without violating service standards [13,57,58]. Such reinterpretation is likely to strengthen work significance and intrinsic involvement. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2. 

Job crafting is positively associated with meaningful work.

2.5. Meaningful Work and Workplace Mindfulness

Before explaining how meaningful work relates to workplace mindfulness, it is important to clarify how these two constructs differ conceptually. Meaningful work refers to a value-based cognitive interpretation of one’s role the degree to which employees perceive their daily activities as significant, personally relevant, and connected to a broader purpose [34,74]. It is an evaluative perception of the role itself. Workplace mindfulness, by contrast, is not an evaluative attitude toward work but a present-moment work state—specifically, the quality of attentional focus, non-judgmental awareness, and psychological presence an employee maintains during ongoing task execution [23,24]. An employee may perceive their work as highly meaningful, in general, while still losing attentional focus during a specific demanding service encounter; conversely, present-moment awareness during task performance does not necessarily require a broader sense of work significance [75]. These constructs are therefore conceptually distinct: meaningful work operates at the level of role interpretation, while workplace mindfulness operates at the level of moment-to-moment task engagement [76,77,78].

Meaningful work is nonetheless expected to be positively associated with workplace mindfulness because a sense of work purpose can function as an attentional anchor during demanding service interactions [79,80,81]. When employees perceive their work as worthwhile, they are less likely to experience service tasks as empty repetition and more likely to maintain stable psychological presence in the moment [82]. In high-contact hospitality roles, employees must repeatedly manage guest demands, emotional labor, and situational variability. Meaningful work can support this process by providing a purpose-based motivational resource that helps employees regulate emotional reactions and redirect attentional focus toward the immediate service encounter rather than toward work-related rumination or fatigue [34,83,84]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3. 

Meaningful work is positively associated with workplace mindfulness.

2.6. The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work

The preceding arguments suggest that meaningful work may help explain why job crafting is associated with workplace mindfulness. Job crafting allows employees to reshape aspects of how work is enacted and interpreted within service boundaries, while meaningful work reflects whether these adjustments strengthen the perception that daily service activities are personally and professionally worthwhile [36,58,59,85]. When employees develop that stronger sense of work significance through bounded role adjustments, they are more likely to sustain attentional focus and emotional regulation during task execution the qualities that define workplace mindfulness [26,79,86].

In this sense, meaningful work serves as the interpretive pathway through which bounded job crafting is linked with workplace mindfulness. Employees are unlikely to become more mindful simply because they adjust their work practices; rather, workplace mindfulness is more likely when those adjustments help employees experience the role as aligned with valued service outcomes and personal meaning, thereby generating the motivational and attentional resources that sustain present-moment engagement [82,85,87]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4. 

Meaningful work mediates the relationship between job crafting and workplace mindfulness.

2.7. The Moderating Role of Growth Mindset

Although job crafting may be associated with meaningful work and workplace mindfulness, these relationships are unlikely to be equally strong for all employees. The present study proposes that growth mindset strengthens these associations through its effect on cognitive appraisal of work constraints and effort demands [46,63]. In five-star hospitality work, where service routines are highly standardized, employees with a stronger growth mindset are more likely to interpret limited discretion as a context for learning, refinement, and better service enactment rather than as a fixed restriction [13,88]. This challenge-oriented appraisal means that the same bounded job crafting behaviors that might feel constraining or purposeless to an employee with a fixed mindset are more likely to be experienced as developmentally meaningful and personally significant by an employee with a growth orientation [47]. Consequently, growth mindset is expected to strengthen the association between job crafting and meaningful work, because employees high in growth mindset are better able to connect proactive work adjustments with personal development and valued service outcomes [58,65].

A similar logic applies to workplace mindfulness. Because growth mindset shapes how employees cognitively appraise service pressure, role repetition, and structural constraints, it also influences whether bounded job crafting translates into more stable attentional focus and emotional regulation during work [61,66]. Employees with stronger growth mindset are more likely to remain reflective, adaptive, and psychologically present when responding to demanding service situations, making them better able to convert proactive work adjustments into present-moment attentional engagement [44,48]. This moderating influence also extends to the indirect pathway: because growth mindset strengthens both the job crafting and meaningful work association and the capacity for present-moment engagement, the indirect relationship between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work is expected to be stronger when growth mindset is higher [58,60,61,65]. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H5. 

Growth mindset positively moderates the relationship between job crafting and meaningful work, such that the relationship is stronger when growth mindset is higher rather than lower.

H6. 

Growth mindset positively moderates the relationship between job crafting and workplace mindfulness, such that the relationship is stronger when growth mindset is higher rather than lower.

H7. 

The indirect relationship between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work is stronger when growth mindset is higher rather than lower.

2.8. Conceptual Model

The conceptual model presented in Figure 1 illustrates a conditional process in which job crafting is directly and indirectly associated with workplace mindfulness through the mediating role of meaningful work, with growth mindset functioning as a boundary condition that moderates the strength of these associations. Specifically, job crafting is proposed to be positively associated with both meaningful work (H2) and workplace mindfulness (H1), while meaningful work is expected to mediate the relationship between job crafting and workplace mindfulness (H4) and to be independently associated with workplace mindfulness (H3). Growth mindset is positioned as a moderator of the association between job crafting and meaningful work path (H5) and the job crafting and workplace mindfulness path (H6), such that both associations are expected to be stronger among employees with higher growth mindset. The model further proposes that the indirect association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work is itself contingent on growth mindset (H7), reflecting a moderated mediation structure in which the full pathway from proactive work adjustment to present-moment attentional engagement is amplified when employees hold stronger beliefs in the developability of their abilities.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Data Collection Procedure

Data were collected from frontline employees working in five-star hotels in Antalya, Turkey, a major tourism destination characterized by intensive service operations and highly standardized service delivery practices [69,89,90,91]. Frontline employees were selected because their roles involve direct guest interaction and continuous service execution, making them especially relevant for examining job crafting, meaningful work, growth mindset, and workplace mindfulness in luxury hospitality settings [92,93]. The contextual focus on five-star hotels is important because the findings should be interpreted within an environment shaped by strong procedural norms, brand expectations, and service consistency requirements; accordingly, the results should not be assumed to generalize automatically to lower-category hotels, other service industries, or non-Turkish contexts.

Access to participants was secured through hotel management. Managers from 100 five-star hotels were contacted, and 56 hotels agreed to participate. Approximately 20 questionnaires were distributed in each participating hotel to employees in customer-facing positions, including front office, reception, and reservation-related roles. Data collection took place between August and November 2025 using both on-site distribution and online formats in order to facilitate participation. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed that their answers would remain confidential, which helped reduce response bias [94]. A convenience sampling approach was employed because access to frontline employees was constrained by hotel operations and managerial permission [95]. In total, 1120 questionnaires were distributed and 572 were returned. After removing incomplete responses [96], 553 usable questionnaires remained, yielding an effective response rate of 49.4%, which was adequate for the planned analysis.

To assess whether the mode of data collection introduced systematic differences, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare respondents who completed the survey through on-site distribution and those who responded through the online format across the main study variables [97]. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for job crafting, meaningful work, growth mindset, or workplace mindfulness (all p > 0.05), supporting the decision to pool the two response groups for the subsequent analysis.

Regarding the demographic profile of the 553 usable respondents, 335 (60.5%) were male and 218 (39.5%) were female. In terms of age, 27 respondents (4.9%) were under 25 years old, 283 (51.2%) were between 25 and 34, 186 (33.6%) were between 35 and 44, and 57 (10.3%) were aged 45 and above. With respect to organizational tenure, 90 respondents (16.3%) had worked in their hotels for less than one year, 110 (19.9%) for one to three years, 287 (51.9%) for four to six years, and 66 (11.9%) for more than six years. In terms of department or role distribution, 255 respondents (46.2%) worked in front office positions, 129 (23.3%) in reception, 110 (19.9%) in reservations, and 59 (10.7%) in other customer-facing roles. These characteristics provide additional context for interpreting the findings within the frontline luxury hospitality environment examined in this study.

The analysis was conducted at the individual level, and responses from the 56 participating hotels were pooled for estimation of the structural paths. Because the study did not model hotel-level effects directly, potential clustering influences such as differences in management style, organizational climate, or property-specific service standards across the 56 properties were not incorporated into the analysis. Accordingly, the reported relationships should be interpreted with caution, as unobserved hotel-level heterogeneity may have influenced the structural path estimates.

3.2. Measurement Approach and Instruments

All constructs were measured using established instruments adapted to the study context. To ensure linguistic consistency, the questionnaire was translated into Turkish and independently back-translated, and discrepancies were resolved through expert review [98,99]. The final Turkish version was checked by bilingual academics to confirm clarity and contextual suitability [100]. All responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Across all measures, internal consistency values were above the recommended 0.70 threshold, indicating satisfactory reliability [101]. In the interest of methodological transparency, the number of items, scale sources, dimensions, and example indicators are reported for each construct below. Full item wording is provided in Appendix A,

Table A1. Measurement Items.

Construct	Item No.	Item Wording	Source
Job Crafting			Slemp and Vella-Brodick [102]
Task Crafting	JCTC1	Introduce new approaches to improve your work
	JCTC2	Change the scope or types of tasks that you complete at work
	JCTC3	Introduce new work tasks that you think better suit your skills or interests
	JCTC4	Choose to take on additional tasks at work
	JCTC5	Give preference to work tasks that suit your skills or interests
Cognitive Crafting	JCCC1	Think about how your job gives your life purpose
	JCCC2	Remind yourself about the significance your work has for the success of the organization
	JCCC3	Remind yourself of the importance of your work for the broader community
	JCCC4	Think about the ways in which your work positively impacts your life
	JCCC5	Reflect on the role your job has for your overall well-being
Relational Crafting	JCRC1	Make an effort to get to know people well at work
	JCRC2	Organize or attend work related social functions
	JCRC3	Organize special events in the workplace (e.g., celebrating a co-worker’s birthday)
	JCRC4	14 Choose to mentor new employees (officially or unofficially)
	JCRC5	15 Make friends with people at work who have similar skills or interests
Meaningful Work			Steger et al. [103]
Positive Meaning	MWPM1	I have found a meaningful career
	MWPM2	I understand how my work contributes to my life’s meaning
	MWPM3	I have a good sense of what makes my job meaningful
	MWPM4	I have discovered work that has a satisfying purpose
Greater-Good Motivation	MWGM1	I know my work makes a positive difference in the world
	MWGM2	My work helps me make sense of the world around me
	MWGM3	I understand how my work makes the world a better place
Contribution to Meaning-Making	MWCM1	I view my work as contributing to my personal growth
	MWCM2	My work helps me better understand myself
	MWCM3	My work allows me to understand more about who I am as a person
Growth Mindset	GM1	I believe I can improve the way I do my work by seeking better ideas.	Kim et al. [104] and Oh et al. [61]
	GM2	I am willing to try new approaches in order to improve my work.
	GM3	I learn from different opinions to improve my abilities at work.
	GM4	I believe I can develop further by learning and working with others.
Workplace Mindfulness			Zheng et al. [70]
Awareness	WMAW1	I can clearly stay aware of my feelings when performing work tasks.
	WMAW2	If there is a problem in my work, I can quickly be aware of it.
	WMAW3	At work, I am aware of what thoughts are passing through my mind.
	WMAW4	In the event of a work-related emergency, I can sense my emotional changes. (developed by students)
	WMAW5	When an unexpected event happens at work, I am immediately aware of it.
	WMAW6	If there are problems while doing my work, I will be acutely aware of where the problem is in time.
Attention	WMAT1	I pay attention to my current work.
	WMAT2	When I am working, my attention is completely focused on my work.
	WMAT3	When I talk to others at work, I stay focused on the conversation.
	WMAT4	At work, I can easily concentrate on what I am doing.
	WMAT5	When I notice an absence of mind at work, I return to the task of the here and now.
	WMAT6	When I am communicating with others, I can concentrate, even in an environment with many distractions.
Acceptance	WMAC1	I can accept my emotions regardless of whether they are good or bad at work.
	WMAC2	If I make a mistake at work, I don’t take it too hard.
	WMAC3	At work, I can calmly accept criticism or complaints from others.
	WMAC4	I go easy on myself when things go wrong at work.
	WMAC5	At work, I don’t make judgments about whether my thoughts are good or bad.
	WMAC6	I accept unpleasant experiences at work.

.

3.2.1. Job Crafting

Job crafting was assessed using the 15-item Job Crafting Questionnaire derived from Wrzesniewski and Dutton [11] and operationalized by Slemp and Vella-Brodick [102]. The scale includes three dimensions: task crafting (five items; example item: “Choose to take on additional tasks at work”; α = 0.847), cognitive crafting (five items; example item: “Think about how your job gives your life purpose”; α = 0.767), and relational crafting (five items; example item: “Make an effort to get to know people well at work”; α = 0.877). The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.921.

3.2.2. Meaningful Work

Meaningful work was assessed using the 10-item Work and Meaning Inventory developed by Steger et al. [103]. The instrument covers three dimensions: greater-good motivation (three items; example item: “I know my work makes a positive difference in the world”; α = 0.828), positive meaning (four items; example item: “I have found a meaningful career”; α = 0.783), and contribution to meaning-making (three items; example item: “I view my work as contributing to my personal growth”; α = 0.756). The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the construct was 0.817.

3.2.3. Growth Mindset

Growth mindset was measured using a four-item scale adapted from Kim et al. [104] and Oh et al. [61]. A sample item is “I learn from different opinions to improve my abilities at work.” The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.872.

3.2.4. Workplace Mindfulness

Workplace mindfulness was measured using the 18-item scale developed by Zheng et al. [70]. The construct was operationalized through three dimensions reflecting the quality of psychological engagement during ongoing task performance: awareness (six items; example item: “I can clearly stay aware of my feelings when performing work tasks”; α = 0.882), attention (six items; example item: “When I am working, my attention is completely focused on my work”; α = 0.738), and acceptance (six items; example item: “I can accept my emotions regardless of whether they are good or bad at work”; α = 0.720). The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.886. This operationalization reflects workplace mindfulness as a work state involving awareness, attention, and acceptance during ongoing task performance rather than as a broad general attitude toward work.

3.3. Assessment of Method-Related Bias

Because the study relied on self-reported responses collected from a single source, several procedural and statistical steps were taken to reduce method-related bias [94]. Procedurally, responses were collected under conditions of anonymity and voluntary participation, which lowers evaluation apprehension and socially desirable responding [105,106]. The questionnaire was also designed to promote clarity and reduce ambiguity in item interpretation.

Statistically, Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the first factor accounted for 30.9% of the total variance, which is below the commonly referenced 50% threshold and suggests that the data were not dominated by a single latent source [94,107]. In addition, a marker-variable approach was applied to assess shared variance, and variance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged from 1.091 to 2.710, remaining below the critical threshold of 3.3 [108,109,110]. These results suggest that common method bias is unlikely to threaten the validity of the findings, although the use of single-source self-report data remains a design limitation.

3.4. Analytical Strategy

The proposed relationships were examined using SmartPLS 4 [111], which allows for simultaneous estimation of direct, indirect, and interaction relationships within a single framework [112]. The analysis proceeded in two stages. First, the measurement model was assessed through indicator loadings, internal consistency, and construct distinctiveness to confirm that the observed items adequately represented their respective constructs [108]. Second, the structural model was evaluated by estimating path coefficients, their significance levels, and the model’s explanatory capacity [113,114]. This analytical approach is commonly used in hospitality research when the framework includes mediation and moderation relationships [115].

At the same time, the statistical model should not be interpreted as confirming temporal or causal ordering. Although the framework is examined as a moderated mediation structure, the empirical evidence is based on cross-sectional, single-source, self-reported data [94,116]. Therefore, the reported paths represent associations among constructs rather than verified directional effects [117]. Reverse or reciprocal relationships cannot be ruled out—for example, workplace mindfulness may also be associated with greater job crafting, and meaningful work may both shape and be shaped by job crafting. Accordingly, the analytical strategy is intended to evaluate the consistency of the hypothesized association pattern rather than to establish causal sequence.

4. Results

4.1. Test of Measurement Model

The measurement properties were evaluated using SmartPLS to verify the adequacy of the constructs [113]. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho (ρA), with all values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70, indicating satisfactory reliability across constructs [108], as shown in

Table 1. Validity and reliability of measurement model.

Construct	Indicators	Outer Loadings	VIF	CA	ρA	CR	AVE
Growth Mindset (GM)				0.872	0.873	0.912	0.722
	GM1	0.862	2.359
	GM2	0.855	2.341
	GM3	0.841	2.072
	GM4	0.840	1.963
Job Crafting (JC)				0.921	0.930	0.934	0.528
Task crafting (JCTC)				0.847	0.857	0.893	0.627
	JCTC1	0.795	2.080
	JCTC2	0.841	2.287
	JCTC3	0.855	2.570
	JCTC4	0.820	2.141
	JCTC5	0.726	1.403
Cognitive crafting (JCCC)				0.767	0.802	0.817	0.616
	JCCC1	0.662	1.091
	JCCC2	Dropped	-
	JCCC3	Dropped	-
	JCCC4	0.901	1.968
	JCCC5	0.906	2.036
Relational crafting (JCRC)				0.877	0.880	0.911	0.671
	JCRC1	0.800	2.070
	JCRC2	0.869	2.644
	JCRC3	0.839	2.210
	JCRC4	0.779	1.896
	JCRC5	0.806	1.914
Meaningful Work (MW)				0.817	0.834	0.858	0.587
Greater-good motivation (MWGM)				0.828	0.830	0.898	0.745
	MWGM1	0.874	2.228
	MWGM2	0.904	2.553
	MWGM3	0.809	1.584
Positive meaning (MWPM)				0.783	0.784	0.860	0.606
	MWPM1	0.752	1.837
	MWPM2	0.843	2.273
	MWPM3	0.730	1.327
	MWPM4	0.784	1.596
Contribution to meaning-making (MWCM)				0.756	0.758	0.860	0.672
	MWCM1	0.821	1.482
	MWCM2	0.840	1.642
	MWCM3	0.799	1.489
Workplace Mindfulness (WM)				0.886	0.895	0.905	0.568
Awareness (WMAW)				0.882	0.884	0.911	0.630
	WMAW1	0.707	1.680
	WMAW2	0.830	2.433
	WMAW3	0.774	2.002
	WMAW4	0.800	2.129
	WMAW5	0.845	2.710
	WMAW6	0.799	2.091
Attention (WMAT)				0.738	0.743	0.819	0.533
	WMAT1	0.726	1.431
	WMAT2	0.625	1.347
	WMAT3	0.758	1.800
	WMAT4	0.780	2.116
	WMAT5	0.722	2.131
	WMAT6	0.711	1.137
Acceptance (WMAC)				0.720	0.743	0.818	0.581
	WMAC1	Dropped	-
	WMAC2	0.614	1.322
	WMAC3	0.670	1.378
	WMAC4	0.791	2.047
	WMAC5	0.810	2.142
	WMAC6	0.730	1.430

Note(s): Variance inflation factor (VIF), Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), composite reliability (CR), Dijkstra–Henseler’s statistic (ρA), and Average variance extracted (AVE).

. Indicator reliability was examined through outer loadings, where most items surpassed the 0.70 benchmark [118]. A small number of indicators with loadings between 0.60 and 0.70 were retained, as their inclusion did not adversely affect CR or AVE values and remained theoretically meaningful [41,112].

As reported in Table 1, convergent validity was established since all average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.50, indicating that each construct explains sufficient variance in its indicators [119].

Discriminant validity was evaluated using two complementary approaches [120]. First, the Fornell–Larcker criterion results presented in

Table 2. Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Task crafting	0.792
2. Cognitive crafting	0.748	0.785
3. Relational crafting	0.702	0.754	0.819
4. Awareness	0.381	0.416	0.412	0.794
5. Attention	0.642	0.627	0.640	0.614	0.658
6. Acceptance	0.405	0.470	0.429	0.581	0.479	0.693
7. Greater-good motivation	0.398	0.421	0.277	0.400	0.415	0.421	0.863
8. Positive meaning	0.351	0.381	0.485	0.401	0.432	0.578	0.183	0.779
9. Contribution to meaning-making	0.313	0.353	0.230	0.539	0.372	0.475	0.655	0.276	0.820
10. Growth Mindset	0.630	0.622	0.582	0.440	0.635	0.511	0.490	0.358	0.470	0.850

Note(s): the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal (in bold) of the matrix; inter-construct correlations are shown off the diagonal.

show that the square root of AVE for each construct is greater than its correlations with other constructs, supporting construct distinctiveness [119]. Second, the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios reported in

Table 3. Discriminant validity (HTMT ratio).

Factors	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Task crafting
2. Cognitive crafting	0.769
3. Relational crafting	0.815	0.792
4. Awareness	0.446	0.569	0.469
5. Attention	0.823	0.411	0.791	0.699
6. Acceptance	0.541	0.699	0.532	0.724	0.633
7. Greater-good motivation	0.477	0.669	0.324	0.465	0.525	0.577
8. Positive meaning	0.445	0.483	0.588	0.475	0.550	0.720	0.223
9. Contribution to meaning-making	0.394	0.572	0.279	0.657	0.465	0.662	0.828	0.347
10. Growth Mindset	0.732	0.556	0.661	0.498	0.775	0.657	0.578	0.429	0.579

are all below the conservative threshold of 0.85, indicating no critical overlap among constructs [108,121].

Overall, the results summarized across Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 confirm that the measurement model satisfies established reliability and validity criteria, supporting its suitability for subsequent structural analysis.

4.2. Test of the Structural Model

The hypothesized relationships were tested using bootstrapping with 5000 resamples in SmartPLS, allowing for robust estimation of path significance and confidence intervals [108]. As illustrated in Figure 2, the model accounts for a substantial portion of variance in workplace mindfulness (R² = 0.605), indicating strong explanatory capability.

The path estimates reported in

Table 4. Hypotheses testing results.

Relationship	Path Coefficient (p-Values)	Standard Error	T-Statistics	CIs	Result
Direct effects
JC → WM	0.311 (0.000)	0.059	5.259	0.197; 0.426	Yes
JC → MW	0.211 (0.000)	0.058	3.666	0.108; 0.334	Yes
MW → WM	0.397 (0.000)	0.042	9.516	0.313; 0.477	Yes
Indirect effects
JC → MW → WM	0.084 (0.000)	0.023	3.682	0.043; 0.132	Yes
Interaction effects
GM × JC → MW	0.163 (0.000)	0.036	4.540	0.092; 0.232	Yes
GM × JC → WM	0.125 (0.000)	0.030	4.196	0.072; 0.189	Yes

indicate that job crafting is positively associated with workplace mindfulness (β = 0.311, p < 0.001), supporting H1. Job crafting is also positively associated with meaningful work (β = 0.211, p < 0.001), consistent with H2. In addition, meaningful work is positively associated with workplace mindfulness (β = 0.397, p < 0.001), supporting H3. These relationships are visually presented in Figure 2 and numerically summarized in Table 4.

The indirect association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work was examined using bias-corrected confidence intervals [122,123]. As shown in Table 4, the indirect effect is statistically significant (β = 0.084, p < 0.001), with the confidence interval [0.043, 0.132] excluding zero, consistent with H4. This result indicates that part of the statistical association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness corresponds with employees’ perception of meaningful work, though the cross-sectional design does not allow for confirmation of the temporal ordering of this pathway.

To test moderation (H5 and H6), an interaction term (job crafting × growth mindset) was included in the model [124,125]. The interaction term on meaningful work is positive and significant (β = 0.163, p < 0.001), as reported in Table 4, consistent with H5. The interaction term on workplace mindfulness is also significant (β = 0.125, p < 0.001), consistent with H6. These patterns are illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4, where the slopes indicate stronger associations at higher levels of growth mindset.

Overall, the findings presented in Table 4 and Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 are consistent with all direct, indirect, and moderating hypotheses, supporting the proposed conditional process model as a pattern of associations rather than a confirmed causal sequence.

4.3. Test of Moderated Mediation Model

The conditional indirect association was examined using a bootstrapping approach with 5000 resamples, allowing for estimation of the indirect effect across different levels of growth mindset [126,127]. The results indicate that the index of moderated mediation is statistically significant, as its confidence interval does not include zero [128], indicating that the indirect association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work differs in magnitude across levels of growth mindset.

As reported in

Table 5. Conditional indirect effects at the different levels of the moderator.

Conditional Indirect Effects of Meaningful Work at Level of Growth Mindset			95% BOOT CI
	BOOT Effect	BOOT SE	Lower	Upper
Low-growth mindset	0.09	0.03	−0.03	0.13
Medium-growth mindset	0.13	0.02	0.18	0.28
High-growth mindset	0.27	0.04	0.21	0.34

, the indirect association of job crafting with workplace mindfulness through meaningful work varies across levels of the moderator. At lower levels of growth mindset, the indirect association is weak and not statistically significant (β = 0.09, CI [−0.03, 0.13]). At moderate levels, the association becomes stronger, while at higher levels of growth mindset, the indirect association is substantially larger (β = 0.27, CI [0.21, 0.34]). These results indicate that the indirect association pattern is more pronounced among employees with higher growth mindset, though the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal conclusions about whether growth mindset produces these differences or whether other unmeasured factors contribute to this pattern.

This pattern is visually illustrated in Figure 5, where the slope corresponding to higher growth mindset shows a more pronounced association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work compared to lower levels. The divergence between the lines highlights the amplifying role that growth-oriented beliefs appear to play in strengthening this indirect association pattern.

Overall, the findings presented in Table 5 and Figure 5 are consistent with H7, supporting the proposition that the association between meaningful work and the job crafting–workplace mindfulness relationship is more pronounced when growth mindset is higher.

5. Discussion

The findings show that job crafting is positively associated with workplace mindfulness in the sampled hospitality context. Frontline employees who reported greater adjustment of their tasks, interactions, and role interpretation also reported stronger present-moment attention and emotional regulation during service delivery. In five-star hotel settings, this pattern may be especially relevant because employees operate under repeated guest contact, service pressure, and strong procedural expectations [129]. Under such conditions, bounded forms of job crafting such as varying the interpersonal style of guest interactions within approved service scripts, reframing repetitive tasks as contributions to guest experience, or choosing more constructive ways of engaging with colleagues may help employees maintain attentional focus and psychological presence while still working within service standards [9,11,130]. At the same time, this association should be interpreted cautiously, as the cross-sectional design does not allow for directional conclusions and reciprocal relationships remain possible.

At the same time, the idea of bounded adaptation is not friction-free. In highly standardized five-star hotel environments, employees may at times wish to adjust their tasks, relationships, or service style more extensively than SOPs, brand scripts, or managerial discretion allow. When the desire to craft the job exceeds those boundaries, employees may experience frustration, constrained agency, or a sense that meaningful forms of adjustment are blocked rather than supported a pattern consistent with research showing that thwarted proactive intentions can generate psychological strain and reduce work engagement when organizational constraints are perceived as excessive [131,132,133]. Under such conditions, job crafting may no longer function only as a resource-shaping behavior, but may also reveal a tension between employee initiative and service standardization that is particularly acute in luxury hospitality contexts where role discretion is structurally limited [4,9]. This implies that bounded adaptation is itself a theoretically important boundary condition: proactive adjustment may be psychologically beneficial when employees perceive some room for authorized discretion, but its benefits may weaken or reverse when service rules are experienced as overly restrictive or misaligned with employees’ preferred ways of working suggesting that future research should examine how perceived crafting latitude moderates the association between job crafting intentions and psychological outcomes in standardized service environments.

The results further indicate that job crafting was positively associated with meaningful work, and that meaningful work was positively associated with workplace mindfulness. This pattern is consistent with the argument that employees who are able to adjust how they perform and interpret their work may be more likely to see that work as purposeful, and that this perceived significance corresponds with stronger attentional engagement during service execution [34,74,134]. Meaningful work did not function as a parallel outcome, but as an intervening mechanism statistically linking job crafting and workplace mindfulness [85,86,135]. Rather than suggesting a definitive causal sequence, the findings indicate that these constructs are closely connected in ways that are theoretically consistent with the proposed framework. It is important to note, however, that alternative interpretations remain plausible. For instance, employees who already experience stronger workplace mindfulness may be more receptive to perceiving their work as meaningful [32], and meaningful work perceptions may both shape and be shaped by proactive work adjustments over time [136].

The moderation findings also add nuance to this pattern. Employees reporting stronger growth mindset showed stronger positive associations between job crafting and both meaningful work and workplace mindfulness. Drawing on Dweck et al.’s [45] implicit theories of ability and Lazarus and Folkman’s [46] cognitive appraisal framework, this pattern suggests that employees who interpret service constraints, effort demands, and role limitations as developmentally meaningful rather than as fixed barriers may be better positioned to convert bounded job crafting into stronger work significance and more stable attentional engagement [47,48]. In highly standardized hospitality environments, employees who view abilities as developable may be better positioned to interpret bounded job crafting as constructive and worthwhile rather than as limited or ineffective [44]. Even so, alternative interpretations should not be dismissed. For example, employees who are already more mindful or who already experience stronger work meaning may also be more inclined to report job crafting and growth-oriented beliefs [23].

The conditional indirect results were also consistent with the view that the association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness through meaningful work was stronger at higher levels of growth mindset. This finding supports the relevance of considering behavioral adjustment, value-based work interpretation, and cognitive appraisal together rather than separately [38]. However, because all hypotheses were supported, the results should not be presented as conclusive proof of a fully established process. It is equally plausible that supportive hotel environments, unobserved management practices, or other omitted individual factors strengthened these relationships in the present sample [94,137]. For this reason, the findings are best interpreted as a coherent association pattern that is especially plausible in frontline five-star hospitality work, rather than as definitive evidence of causal ordering.

6. Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the literature in a contextual and mechanism-based way rather than by claiming a radical theoretical departure. First, the findings extend JD-R reasoning [38,138] by showing that job crafting in highly standardized hospitality settings can still function as a resource-shaping behavior when it is understood as bounded adaptation rather than unrestricted redesign [6,130,139]. In this respect, the study clarifies that even under strong SOPs, employees may still make limited adjustments that correspond with stronger meaningful work and workplace mindfulness [7,9].

Second, the study adds theoretical value by treating workplace mindfulness as a distinct work state outcome rather than as a substitute label for satisfaction or engagement. The findings suggest that present-moment attention and emotional regulation deserve separate consideration in frontline hospitality roles, where service consistency depends heavily on employees’ immediate psychological presence during repeated guest encounters. Unlike work engagement, which reflects a broad motivational orientation [17], or job satisfaction, which reflects a cumulative evaluative attitude [19], workplace mindfulness captures the quality of moment-to-moment attentional focus during service delivery a distinction that is theoretically meaningful and cannot be substituted by broader well-being measures [32,140,141].

Third, the results refine the role of growth mindset by positioning it as a boundary condition that qualifies the statistical association between job crafting, meaningful work, and workplace mindfulness. Rather than treating growth mindset as a broad positive characteristic, the findings are more consistent with the view that it shapes cognitive appraisal of service constraints, effort demands, and developmental possibilities [45,46,47,48]. Taken together, these contributions suggest that job crafting, meaningful work, workplace mindfulness, and growth mindset are better understood as an integrated pattern of behavioral adjustment, interpretive meaning, and cognitive appraisal within demanding hospitality contexts [34,44].

6.2. Practical Implications

The findings carry practical relevance for hotel managers, training designers, and human resource practitioners working in five-star hospitality environments, though all recommendations should be understood as informed by associational rather than causal evidence.

The results suggest that supporting bounded forms of job crafting adjustments that remain consistent with service standards rather than violating them may be associated with stronger employee psychological functioning [9]. In practice, this does not mean encouraging employees to redesign their roles freely. Rather, managers in five-star hotels can create structured opportunities for bounded adaptation within SOP frameworks. For example, front office employees might be encouraged to personalize the tone and style of welcome interactions within approved service scripts; food and beverage staff might be supported in choosing the sequence or pacing of service delivery based on guest cues; and housekeeping employees might be invited to reframe their routines as contributions to guest comfort rather than as standardized task completion. These forms of bounded task and cognitive crafting do not require changes to brand standards and can be supported through brief team briefings or service reflection conversations [102].

The mediation finding suggests that the association between job crafting and workplace mindfulness is more pronounced when employees also experience their work as meaningful [34,74]. This has a specific practical implication: supporting job crafting in isolation may be less effective than pairing it with practices that help employees connect their bounded work adjustments to a broader sense of service purpose. Managers can facilitate this connection by explicitly framing job crafting opportunities as contributions to guest experience and service quality rather than as personal preferences. Short reflective practices such as end-of-shift conversations about guest impact, peer recognition moments, or role-specific onboarding narratives that emphasize the contribution of frontline work to the overall guest experience may help sustain this sense of work significance over time [103].

The moderating role of growth mindset in the observed associations suggests that cultivating a growth-oriented psychological climate may amplify the benefits employees derive from job crafting [61,63]. Frontline employees with stronger growth mindset appear better able to convert bounded work adjustments into stronger meaningful work perceptions and more stable workplace mindfulness. Critically, the moderated mediation finding indicates that the full pathway from job crafting through meaningful work to workplace mindfulness is substantially stronger among employees with higher growth mindset, suggesting that growth mindset development and job crafting support should be implemented together rather than as separate initiatives [47]. Hotel managers and training practitioners can support growth mindset development by providing feedback that frames service challenges and guest complaints as learning opportunities rather than performance failures, by acknowledging effort and incremental improvement alongside service outcomes, and by normalizing within-boundary experimentation during team debriefs [44]. Structured growth mindset interventions such as brief reflective exercises during onboarding or periodic coaching conversations focused on personal development within role constraints may strengthen employees’ capacity to derive meaning and attentional engagement from the proactive adjustments they make within SOP-governed service environments [48]. These recommendations are grounded in the observed association patterns and should be evaluated through controlled implementation studies before being adopted as established interventions.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the study was conducted with frontline employees in five-star hotels in Antalya, Turkey. Because luxury hospitality settings are shaped by strong procedural norms, guest expectations, and brand consistency requirements, the findings may not generalize directly to lower-category hotels, other service industries, or non-Turkish contexts. Second, the cross-sectional and self-reported nature of the data limits directional interpretation. Although the statistical pattern was consistent with the proposed framework, reverse or reciprocal relationships cannot be ruled out; workplace mindfulness may also correspond with greater job crafting, and meaningful work may both shape and be shaped by job crafting. Third, responses from 56 hotels were pooled at the individual level without modeling hotel-level clustering directly, meaning that unobserved differences in management style, service climate, or property standards may have influenced the reported associations. Fourth, this study did not incorporate control variables such as tenure, hotel size, or specific job role into the reported structural estimates, and omitted demographic or contextual factors may therefore have contributed to the observed relationships. Future research should address these limitations through longitudinal, diary-based, multi-source, or multilevel designs and should examine whether the same association pattern holds across different hospitality segments and cultural settings. Additional studies may also test whether factors such as leadership style, emotional exhaustion, organizational climate, or service-related autonomy help explain when job crafting is more strongly associated with meaningful work and workplace mindfulness.