Mindfulness and Creativity in Workplace Contexts: A Critical Narrative Review of an Emerging Field

Abstract

The relationship between mindfulness and creativity in workplace settings has attracted growing interest, yet empirical research in this area remains fragmented and at an early stage of development. Given this emerging status, the present article offers a critical narrative review aimed at mapping the current evidence and identifying conceptual and methodological gaps to guide future research. A structured literature search, preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42024627551), was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to February 2025, following PRISMA guidelines, and was updated in September 2026 using the same search strategy and eligibility criteria. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, intervention characteristics, and outcome assessment, supporting a narrative rather than quantitative synthesis. The findings suggested possible relationships between mindfulness-based interventions and creativity-related outcomes, including creativity and problem solving, as well as related processes such as emotion regulation, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and coping. Building on these findings, the review integrates the available evidence with the broader theoretical literature to outline a preliminary integrative conceptual framework linking cognitive, affective, and motivational processes that may explain how mindfulness relates to creativity at work, while identifying key conceptual and methodological gaps to guide future research.

1. Introduction

Over the past four decades, scientific interest in mindfulness has grown considerably, extending beyond its original clinical applications to areas such as education and organizational psychology (Baminiwatta & Solangaarachchi, 2021; Stuart-Edwards et al., 2023). A substantial body of research has consistently shown reductions in stress, anxiety, and depression (Haller et al., 2021; Segal et al., 2002), as well as potential improvements in cognitive functions such as working memory and attention (Moradi et al., 2025; Whitfield et al., 2022), which are both relevant cognitive processes for creative thinking (Beaty et al., 2015; De Dreu et al., 2012). As evidence supporting the benefits of mindfulness has accumulated, an increasing number of organizations have implemented mindfulness-based training programs (Hülsheger et al., 2013; Vonderlin et al., 2020), reflecting greater attention to employee well-being and to psychological capacities that may support effective and productive functioning at work (Brouwer et al., 2023).

In parallel, creativity has been recognized as a key competence in organizational contexts, as it supports innovation and adaptive capacity in dynamic environments and under conditions of stress (Anderson et al., 2014; Ding & Hong, 2025; Orkibi, 2021). From a psychological perspective, creativity relies on multiple cognitive and affective processes, including attentional control, emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, and metacognitive awareness (Beaty et al., 2015; De Dreu et al., 2012; Raugh et al., 2025). In this context, an open and nonjudgmental attentional state, characteristic of mindfulness, may promote more flexible and exploratory thinking, suggesting a potential link between attentional processes and creativity (Lippelt et al., 2014; Moore & Malinowski, 2009).

Although both mindfulness and creativity have been extensively studied, and meta-analytic evidence suggests a positive association between them (Hughes et al., 2023; Lebuda et al., 2016), this evidence derives mainly from non-occupational samples, such as students and experienced meditators, assessed with standardized laboratory tasks. Research directly examining this relationship in workplace contexts remains limited, and the few available studies vary considerably in how both constructs are conceptualized, as well as in intervention formats, outcome measures, and methodological designs, hindering comparability and limiting the possibility of drawing robust conclusions.

Several important gaps therefore remain in the current literature. First, the empirical evidence specific to occupational settings has not yet been comprehensively synthesized. Second, the mechanisms underlying the relationship between mindfulness and creativity remain only partially understood (Henriksen et al., 2020; Kudesia, 2015), especially regarding the affective and motivational processes that may operate in work settings. Third, the methodological characteristics of existing workplace studies have received limited critical examination, notably with regard to the characteristics of mindfulness interventions, the measurement of creativity, the use of appropriate control conditions, and the inclusion of follow-up assessments.

To address these gaps, the present review aims to critically examine the available empirical evidence on the relationship between mindfulness-based interventions and creativity in workplace contexts and, on this basis, to develop a preliminary integrative conceptual framework to guide future research. Specifically, it addresses three research questions: (1) What does the available evidence indicate about the relationship between mindfulness-based interventions and creativity at work? (2) Which psychological processes may underlie this relationship? (3) How robust is this evidence, and how could future research strengthen it?

Given the early stage of development of this field, the review does not seek to estimate overall intervention effects or draw broadly generalizable conclusions about effectiveness. Rather, the limited and heterogeneous nature of the available evidence, including differences in interventions, populations, outcomes, and measurement approaches, supports the use of a critical narrative synthesis instead of quantitative pooling. This approach allows findings from diverse outcome domains to be integrated and interpreted in relation to the broader theoretical literature, while a structured, preregistered search ensures a transparent and reproducible identification of relevant studies (see Section 5.6).

2. Mindfulness in Organizational Contexts: Foundations and Applications

Mindfulness can be defined as the ability to intentionally direct attention to present-moment experiences with openness and nonjudgmental acceptance (Baer et al., 2006; Bishop et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 1990). This attitude may support attentional regulation and cognitive functioning (Jha et al., 2010; Whitfield et al., 2022). An increasing body of research suggests that mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in the workplace are associated with reductions in perceived stress, anxiety, and psychological distress (Bartlett et al., 2021; Mohamed et al., 2022). MBIs have also been linked to improvements in well-being, job satisfaction, and resilience (Michaelsen et al., 2023; Vonderlin et al., 2020).

In workplace settings, mindfulness has been associated with positive effects at both the organizational and individual levels. At the individual level, several studies report improvements in cognitive and emotional functioning (Hülsheger et al., 2013), including enhanced emotion regulation, greater empathy (Reb et al., 2020), and improved decision-making processes (Liu et al., 2018). At the organizational level, evidence suggests that mindfulness-based approaches can contribute to fostering psychological safety, empathetic communication, and collaborative team environments, which in turn may strengthen relationships among colleagues and between leaders and their teams (Doornich & Lynch, 2024; Michaelsen et al., 2023; Vonderlin et al., 2020). Despite these promising findings, the extent to which such effects translate into consistent and measurable organizational outcomes remains only partially understood. Although there is growing theoretical interest in the potential effects of mindfulness on creativity in work contexts (Kudesia, 2015; Ngo et al., 2020), and a small number of empirical studies have been conducted (Mohamed et al., 2022; Mortlock et al., 2022; Nadler et al., 2020), the literature remains fragmented and lacks systematic integration.

Preliminary evidence suggests that mindfulness may be associated with improvements in cognitive and affective processes implicated in creative thinking (Hughes et al., 2023; Lebuda et al., 2016), including attentional and emotion regulation (Chiesa et al., 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2013), psychological well-being (Haller et al., 2021), openness to experience (Giancola et al., 2024), and executive functions (Zainal & Newman, 2024). Specifically, improvements have been reported in attentional regulation and cognitive flexibility (Chiesa et al., 2011; Lippelt et al., 2014), which may enable individuals to maintain attentional focus while remaining open and non-reactive to emerging stimuli. From this perspective, mindfulness has been conceptualized as a state characterized by focused yet flexible attention, potentially supporting cognitive functions relevant to creativity by fostering flexible thinking and the integration of diverse information useful for idea generation (Moore & Malinowski, 2009). Nevertheless, these mechanisms remain only partially supported by empirical evidence.

3. Creativity: Psychological Foundations and Workplace Relevance

Creativity is recognized as a core competency for addressing complex and evolving challenges across domains such as education, technological innovation, and modern workplaces (Anderson et al., 2014; Henriksen et al., 2018). One of the most influential definitions of creativity is that of Amabile (1996), who describes it as the production of ideas that are both novel and appropriate within a specific context. This conceptualization has guided much of the research on workplace creativity and innovation, highlighting creativity as a central driver of organizational effectiveness and adaptation (Anderson et al., 2014; Zhou & Hoever, 2014). This definition provides the conceptual basis for the present review.

Psychological explorations of creativity began with Guilford (1950), who introduced a distinction between convergent and divergent thinking, the latter characterized by fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. This perspective, later expanded by Torrance (1966) and Guilford (1967), positioned divergent thinking as central to assessing creativity. While early theories emphasized divergent thinking as the main component of creativity, more recent research highlights that creative performance involves the interaction of multiple cognitive processes supporting both idea generation and evaluation (Hughes et al., 2023). The Geneplore model (Finke et al., 1992), for example, explicitly distinguishes between a generative phase, where new mental representations are produced, and an exploratory phase, where these representations are refined and extended. This cyclical process forms the foundation of creative outcomes that are both original and appropriate.

Modern models characterize creativity as a multidimensional construct. Sternberg and Lubart’s (1991) “investment theory” involves cognitive abilities, personality, knowledge of a domain, intrinsic motivation, and the role of contextual factors that may facilitate or hinder creativity. In a similar vein, Amabile’s (1996) componential model identifies expertise, creative-thinking skills, and intrinsic motivation as central elements of creative performance. Trait-based approaches such as McCrae’s (1987) highlight openness to experience, whereas Baas et al. (2008) link positive affect with cognitive flexibility and idea generation, showing how emotion can facilitate creative performance. Rhodes’s (1961) “four Ps” framework—person, process, product, and press—offers another integrative perspective, distinguishing between individual dispositions, cognitive-affective processes, creative output, and environmental influences. Psychology studies creativity primarily as a process, focusing on underlying mechanisms, whereas organizational research often treats it as a product, emphasizing observable innovation (Runco & Acar, 2012).

This divergence may contribute to challenges in developing coherent research models. Given its psychological focus, the present review adopts this perspective and emphasizes the underlying cognitive, affective, and motivational processes involved in creative functioning.

Within workplace environments, translating this theoretical complexity into empirical research has been challenging, leading to the development of multiple models explaining how creative processes unfold. Among the most influential models, Amabile’s componential theory (Amabile, 1996) and Woodman and Schoenfeldt’s interactionist model (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1990) both describe creativity as the result of dynamic interactions between individual-level elements, such as cognition, motivation, and personality, and contextual elements, including leadership style, organizational climate, and available resources.

These frameworks emphasize that creativity does not arise solely from individual abilities but depends critically on social and environmental conditions that enable the expression of creative potential. Supportive organizational cultures, autonomy, and constructive feedback can foster creative behavior, whereas rigid hierarchies or excessive evaluation pressures may suppress it. From this perspective, the work environment functions not merely as a background condition but as an active system that shapes how individuals generate, refine, and implement creative ideas (Anderson et al., 2014). Despite this theoretical recognition of creativity as a complex and multidimensional construct, empirical research often relies on more simplified operationalizations, frequently grounded in classic definitions such as those of Amabile or Guilford. This discrepancy may limit the comparability of findings and pose challenges for the design of studies and the interpretation of results in organizational contexts.

4. Mindfulness and Creativity

4.1. Cognitive and Neurocognitive Processes

The link between mindfulness and creativity has attracted attention across various disciplines, including psychology, education, and organizational research (Henriksen et al., 2022; Stuart-Edwards et al., 2023). Although an increasing number of studies report associations between mindfulness and creative outcomes, the mechanisms underlying this relationship remain only partially understood (Henriksen et al., 2020). Over the past two decades, mindfulness has progressed from a clinical intervention to a potential facilitator of key cognitive and emotional capacities, including cognitive flexibility, working memory, problem solving, and metacognitive awareness, that are central to creative thinking (Moradi et al., 2025; Schäfer et al., 2024).

Cognitive flexibility, understood as the ability to shift perspective, adapt to changing demands, and manage concepts simultaneously, is considered a key component of divergent thinking, as it enables transitions among mental categories (Runco & Acar, 2012). Such flexibility supports the generation of novel ideas by facilitating the exploration of alternative representations and the formation of less conventional associations (De Dreu et al., 2008; X. Yu et al., 2023). Working memory is thought to support idea generation by facilitating the maintenance and manipulation of information, allowing elements to be recombined into new forms, a feature commonly associated with creativity (Csizmadia et al., 2024; Jha et al., 2010). Likewise, metacognitive awareness may contribute to originality by enabling effective switching between idea generation and evaluation (Jiang et al., 2023; Wu & Was, 2023). Problem solving, often described as a higher-order executive function, has been proposed to coordinate other processes such as response inhibition, working memory, and flexibility, thereby contributing to both divergent and convergent thinking (Miyake et al., 2000; Schäfer et al., 2024).

From this perspective, the relationship between mindfulness and creativity appears complex and multifaceted, partly due to the diversity of mindfulness practices, which may engage these cognitive mechanisms in different ways. For example, open monitoring meditation (OMM), characterized by receptive and non-directive attention, has been linked to divergent thinking, whereas focused attention meditation (FAM), which emphasizes sustained concentration, has been associated with convergent thinking and attentional control (Colzato et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2023).

Cognitive neuroscience may also provide important insights into the relationship between mindfulness and creativity. From a neurocognitive standpoint, mindfulness appears to modulate large-scale brain networks involved in creativity. OMM has been associated with changes in the default mode network (DMN), a system related to spontaneous idea generation, self-referential thought, and mental simulation, all processes relevant to divergent thinking (Bremer et al., 2022; Lippelt et al., 2014). In parallel, the executive control network (ECN) supports top-down regulation of attention and executive functions such as cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory (Niendam et al., 2012). Mindfulness may strengthen awareness of spontaneous thoughts without excessive engagement while enhancing ECN activity, thereby allowing both the generation of novel ideas and the selection of relevant ones (Bailey et al., 2019; Beaty et al., 2015).

This balance is supported by the salience network (SN), a neural system that detects and filters relevant stimuli and facilitates the transition between the DMN and the ECN. In this way, the SN acts as a hub that enables the shift from spontaneous thought to goal-directed control, a crucial mechanism for creativity and cognitive-emotional regulation (Bremer et al., 2022). Within this framework, Henriksen et al. (2020) proposed that mindfulness may foster deliberate mind wandering, a process in which individuals intentionally allow thoughts to wander to generate new associations while maintaining goal orientation. Unlike spontaneous mind wandering, this deliberate form leverages the DMN for idea generation and the ECN for evaluation, and mindfulness may support the metacognitive regulation that allows mental wandering to become a constructive resource for creativity and complex problem solving.

4.2. Affective and Motivational Processes

Although both creativity and mindfulness involve affective processes, most studies examining their relationship have focused more on cognitive than emotional mechanisms (Colzato et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2023). This imbalance may reflect a methodological bias, as common creativity tests primarily assess cognitive skills such as divergent thinking and insight problem solving, neglecting emotional influences (Lebuda et al., 2016), highlighting a relative underrepresentation of affective processes in the literature. Yet the role of positive affect in facilitating creativity, understood as the generation of ideas that are both novel and appropriate, is well established (Baas et al., 2008; Isen, 2015).

Positive affect appears to be linked to broader cognitive processing, which may facilitate the generation of remote associations and thereby enhance creativity; indeed, the induction of positive emotions, particularly those accompanied by high physiological arousal (such as joy or enthusiasm), has been shown to be a modest but consistent predictor of improvements in divergent thinking skills, including fluency and cognitive flexibility (Ashby et al., 1999; Baas et al., 2008; Fredrickson, 2001; Isen & Daubman, 1984).

Intrinsic motivation, closely related to positive affect, is another key factor supporting creative behavior, particularly in organizational contexts (Amabile et al., 2005; Stanley et al., 2020). As He (2023) suggests, positive affect may further enhance motivation in creative activities, not only through stable mood dispositions but also by influencing momentary emotional states, although the magnitude of these effects can vary depending on contextual and individual factors.

When individuals are motivated by interest and enjoyment, they tend to explore innovative ideas, persist despite challenges, and may enter flow states, characterized by deep engagement and intrinsic reward (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). The relationship between affect and motivation plays a key role in shaping individual creativity. Affective states influence motivational processes, and together they contribute to the enhancement of creative performance. This relationship has also been examined in the organizational literature through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT). From this perspective, intrinsic motivation constitutes a favorable condition for the emergence of creative processes, as it is more likely to develop when the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported. Under these conditions, individuals tend to adopt exploratory attitudes that foster creativity, although outcomes may vary depending on personality and context (Deci & Ryan, 1985; He, 2024; Ye et al., 2025).

Within this framework, affective and motivational systems appear to play an important, yet not fully understood, role in creativity, with mindfulness emerging as a potentially relevant mechanism that may help explain this relationship through its influence on emotion regulation, positive affect, and motivation. Although evidence remains limited, studies conducted in workplace contexts suggest that mindfulness has been associated with reductions in negative states such as stress and anxiety, and with increases in positive outcomes including vitality, autonomy, and self-esteem (Allen et al., 2021; Michaelsen et al., 2023).

These emotional benefits may contribute to cognitive processes relevant to creativity, as mindfulness promotes emotion regulation and a nonjudgmental awareness of internal experience, thereby reducing cognitive interference and encouraging exploratory thinking (Chiesa et al., 2011; Hülsheger et al., 2013). Research in workplace settings, which is more closely tied to contextual factors, suggests that mindfulness may help individuals manage demanding and uncertain environments (Mohamed et al., 2022; Mortlock et al., 2022). In such contexts, mindfulness may be particularly relevant, as it may enhance tolerance of ambiguity and cognitive flexibility, two capacities widely regarded as central to sustaining creativity (Altan-Atalay et al., 2024; Henriksen et al., 2022; Taskan et al., 2025).

Recent research further suggests that affective and motivational processes facilitated by mindfulness may contribute to the development of broader psychological resources (Fredrickson, 2001). In line with this perspective, dispositional mindfulness has been positively associated with psychological capital (PsyCap), a construct that includes hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy. PsyCap may partly mediate the relationship between mindfulness and creativity. This suggests that the reflective capacities developed through mindfulness may help build psychological resources that, in turn, support creative processes (He, 2024; Luthans et al., 2007).

Overall, these findings suggest that affective and motivational processes may play a key role in linking mindfulness and creativity, although their integration within organizational research remains limited.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Protocol and Registration

The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed in conducting this review (Page et al., 2021), and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024627551). Although initially conceived as a systematic review, the limited number and heterogeneity of eligible studies led the review team to adopt a narrative synthesis approach while maintaining PRISMA transparency and methodological rigor (see Section 5.6).

5.2. Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility criteria were defined using the PICO strategy (Methley et al., 2014):

• Population: Adults (≥18 years), employees or professionals in workplace or organizational contexts.
• Intervention: Mindfulness-based practices, formal or informal, structured, or unstructured. To ensure that mindfulness was a central element, studies were included only if at least 50% of the intervention content consisted of mindfulness practice. This proportion was estimated from reported session structure, time allocation, or protocol descriptions. When information was incomplete, inclusion decisions were made by consensus among reviewers, ensuring conceptual alignment with the research questions.
• Comparison: Any comparison group (e.g., no intervention, passive control, active control) or no comparison.
• Outcome: The primary outcomes considered in this review included creativity and closely related processes. Specifically, direct measures of creativity comprised divergent thinking and insight-based problem solving, while related processes included convergent thinking, innovation, idea generation, and problem solving. Secondary outcomes encompassed broader psychological mechanisms indirectly associated with creativity, such as cognitive flexibility, emotion regulation, adaptability, and coping.
• Study Design: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, open trials with pre–post analysis, pilot studies, feasibility trials, and quasi-experimental studies. Only quantitative studies involving intervention or prevention programs were eligible. Reviews, theoretical papers, qualitative-only studies, conference proceedings, dissertations, and book chapters were excluded.

5.3. Data Sources and Search Strategy

A comprehensive search was conducted on 13 February 2025 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. The main search terms were “mindfulness”, “mindfulness meditation”, “awareness training”, “focused attention”, “open monitoring”, and “meditation practice”, in combination with the creativity-related terms “creative thinking”, “divergent thinking”, “convergent thinking”, “idea generation”, “problem solving”, and “innovation”. Additional terms captured workplace settings (e.g., “workplace,” “organizational context”, “employee creativity”, and “team creativity”) and intervention-related terms (e.g., “intervention,” “program,” “training”, and “mindfulness intervention”). Full search strategies are reported in Supplementary Table S1. No date restrictions were applied, and only articles published in English were considered.

5.4. Study Screening and Selection Process

Duplicates were removed using Zotero, and article screening and coding were conducted with the Rayyan QCRI tool (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts based on predefined eligibility criteria, consulting a third reviewer to resolve discrepancies. In the original search, 195 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 173 titles and abstracts were screened, and 18 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 14 were excluded: 10 because of a non-quantitative or non-pre–post design, 2 because they involved participants under 18 years of age, and 2 because they did not meet the predefined criteria regarding the intervention or the assessment of creativity- or innovation-related outcomes (see Supplementary Table S2). Four studies therefore met the inclusion criteria in the original search. One additional study was identified through the updated search conducted in September 2026 (Section 5.7), resulting in a total of five included studies.

5.5. Data Extraction

Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers using a standardized form. Extracted information included author(s), year, country, study design, sample characteristics, intervention features (type, duration, delivery mode), comparator condition, creativity-related outcomes, and main quantitative findings. Consistency was ensured through cross-checking of extracted data, with any discrepancies resolved by consensus with a third reviewer.

5.6. Rationale for Narrative Synthesis

The present article is a critical narrative review, while the systematic search strategy described in the Methods Section was used to identify the available empirical evidence in a structured and rigorous manner.

The five included studies were randomized controlled trials; however, they differed substantially in their populations, intervention characteristics, outcome domains, and measurement approaches.

The nature of the outcomes assessed across the five studies further illustrates this heterogeneity. Nadler et al. (2020) and Kurosawa et al. (2026) directly assessed creativity through workplace competencies and a self-perceived creativity scale, respectively, whereas Mohamed et al. (2022) and Wild et al. (2020) examined problem solving, and Mortlock et al. (2022) assessed working memory. Secondary psychological processes were also assessed, including emotion regulation (Nadler et al., 2020), coping (Mohamed et al., 2022), and cognitive flexibility (Kurosawa et al., 2026). Although conceptually related to creativity, these outcomes represent distinct constructs and were operationalized using different measures, limiting the meaningfulness of direct quantitative comparison across studies.

Given the small number of included studies (n = 5) and their substantial heterogeneity in interventions, populations, outcomes, and measurement approaches, quantitative synthesis was considered of limited interpretative value. A critical narrative synthesis was therefore adopted to integrate findings across these heterogeneous domains, identify methodological and conceptual gaps, and interpret the available evidence in relation to the theoretical literature (Popay et al., 2006).

The PROSPERO protocol initially specified the use of standardized risk-of-bias tools (RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I). Following study selection, all included studies were randomized controlled trials, making ROBINS-I inapplicable to the final evidence base. Given the subsequent adoption of a critical narrative review approach and the small, heterogeneous body of evidence, a formal RoB 2 assessment was not undertaken. This represents a deviation from the original protocol and is reported transparently here. Instead, methodological strengths and limitations of the individual studies were examined narratively and are considered in detail in the Discussion Section.

5.7. Updated Literature Search

To ensure that the review reflected the most recent available evidence, an updated literature search was conducted in September 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using the same search strategy and search terms as in the original search conducted on 13 February 2025. No modifications were made to the original search string. Records published or indexed after the original search date were screened for eligibility using the same study selection criteria described above.

The updated search yielded 58 records (PubMed n = 16; Scopus n = 28; Web of Science n = 14). After removal of three duplicates, 55 titles and abstracts were screened, and two full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. One was excluded because the intervention did not meet the predefined intervention criteria, and one additional eligible study, Kurosawa et al. (2026), met the inclusion criteria and was incorporated into the review. Following this update, a total of five studies were included in the final synthesis.

6. Results

6.1. Overview of Descriptive Findings

Figure 1 summarizes the study selection process for both the original and the updated search. Four studies were identified in the original search (up to February 2025) and one in the updated search (September 2026), yielding a total of five included studies.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram (adapted from Page et al., 2021; Kurosawa et al., 2026; Li et al., 2026).

6.2. Characteristics of the Included Studies

The five included studies were RCTs conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, and Japan between 2020 and 2026. Total randomized sample sizes ranged from 88 to 430 participants, including company employees, Royal Navy officer cadets, Japanese workers recruited online, and emergency responders.

In accordance with the PROSPERO registration (CRD42024627551), creativity and problem solving were defined as primary outcomes, while cognitive flexibility, emotion regulation, adaptability, and coping were considered secondary outcomes. Working memory, assessed in Mortlock et al. (2022), was not specified in the original protocol and was incorporated during the review process because of its theoretical relevance to creative functioning. It is therefore reported as an exploratory outcome.

The interventions varied in format and duration and included an eight-week online mindfulness course (Nadler et al., 2020), an eight-week team mindfulness training (TMT) program (Mortlock et al., 2022), a 12-week workplace health promotion (WHP) program (Mohamed et al., 2022), a four-week smartphone-based mindfulness meditation program (Kurosawa et al., 2026), and a six-week group-based resilience intervention incorporating mindfulness and stress-management components (Wild et al., 2020). The comparator conditions also varied: Nadler et al. (2020) and Kurosawa et al. (2026) used waitlist controls; Mohamed et al. (2022) provided the control group with a general stress brochure; Mortlock et al. (2022) compared TMT with a minimally adapted MBSR program; and Wild et al. (2020) used an active online psychoeducation comparator.

Follow-up periods also differed across studies. Mortlock et al. (2022) included a two-month follow-up, Kurosawa et al. (2026) a one-month postintervention follow-up, and Wild et al. (2020) a three-month follow-up. Mohamed et al. (2022) assessed outcomes only at baseline and three months after the end of the intervention, without an immediate post-intervention assessment, and Nadler et al. (2020) was limited to pre–post assessment. The detailed characteristics of the studies are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies.

Authors, Year, Country	Study Design	Sample (% Female)	Dropouts (n)	Participant Type	Age Mean (SD)	Intervention (Format)	Control Condition	Duration	Follow-Up
Nadler et al. (2020), USA	RCT	IG: 138 (N.R); CG: 137 (N.R)	IG: 101; CG: 72	Company employees	N.R.	Mindfulness (course)	Waitlist control (creativity not assessed)	8 w (sessions 3–20 min, mean 10 min)	-
Mortlock et al. (2022), United Kingdom	RCT	105 (14% female; N.R. by group)	N.R.	Officer cadets from the Royal Navy	23 (N.R S.D; N.R by group)	Team Mindfulness Training (TMT)	MBSR	8 w (2 h/w; delivered across 10 calendar weeks)	2 m
Mohamed et al. (2022), Malaysia	RCT	IG: 44 (11.4%); CG: 44 (20.5%)	IG: 0, CG: 0	Company employees	IG: 35.98 (9.31), CG: 36.05 (8.09)	WHP program	Stress brochure (minimal control)	12 w (N.R.)	None (single post-assessment at 3 m)
Kurosawa et al. (2026), Japan	RCT	MM: 100 (55.3% F); WCG: 99 (65% F)	MM: 21; WCG: 23	General workforce (multiple employers)	MM: 35.02 (9.65); WCG: 37.45 (8.65)	Mindfulness meditation (smartphone app)	Waitlist control	4 w (6–12 min/day)	1 m
Wild et al. (2020), United Kingdom	RCT	RI: 317 (58.7% F); PE: 113 (56.6% F)	RI: 61; PE: 21	Emergency responders (police, fire, ambulance, S&R)	RI: 41.09 (9.98); PE: 42.32 (9.20)	Group resilience intervention (stress mgmt. + mindfulness)	Online psychoeducation	6 w (1 session/week)	3 m

Note. This table summarizes the main characteristics of the included studies as reported by the original authors. IG: intervention group; CG: control group; RCT: randomized controlled trial; N.R.: not reported; F: female; MM: mindfulness meditation; WCG: waitlist control group; RI: resilience intervention; PE: psychoeducation; TMT: team mindfulness training; MBSR: mindfulness-based stress reduction; WHP: workplace health promotion; S&R: search and rescue; w: weeks; h: hours; min: minutes; m: months.

6.2.1. Primary Outcomes: Creativity and Problem Solving

Creativity

Nadler et al. (2020) assessed creative competencies using the Workplace Competency Assessment. The intervention group showed a significant increase in creativity (M = 4.51 → 5.19, d = 0.58, p < 0.001). However, workplace competency measures were administered only within the intervention condition; therefore, no intervention-versus-waitlist comparison was available for creativity. The study nevertheless reported a clear within-group increase in the creativity competency.

Kurosawa et al. (2026) assessed self-perceived creativity using three items from George and Zhou’s (2001) scale, adapted for self-report by Dul et al. (2011), in a three-arm RCT comparing mindfulness meditation, self-compassion meditation, and a waitlist control. Unlike Nadler et al. (2020), creativity was assessed across all three study arms, allowing a direct group × time comparison. No significant within-group change was observed in the mindfulness group (M = 11.55 → 11.08, d = −0.10, p = 0.24), and the group × time interaction across the three arms was also not significant, F(2,224) = 1.61, p = 0.20. Thus, the two studies produced different patterns of findings: Nadler et al. (2020) reported a significant within-group increase in creativity, whereas Kurosawa et al. (2026) found no significant change in the mindfulness condition and no differential effect across groups.

Problem Solving

Mohamed et al. (2022) reported significant improvements in problem solving in the intervention group (Δ = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.51–2.31, p < 0.001), while no significant change was observed in the control group (Δ = −0.07, p = 0.767). The between-group difference in change was 1.98 (d = 1.395).

Wild et al. (2020) also assessed problem solving, using a reliable although unpublished instrument (α = 0.90), in a trial comparing a group-based resilience intervention that incorporated mindfulness tools with an active psychoeducation comparator among emergency responders. No significant between-group difference was observed either post-intervention (p = 0.751) or at the three-month follow-up (p = 0.929).

6.2.2. Secondary Outcomes: Processes Related to Creativity

Coping Skills

Mohamed et al. (2022) evaluated coping processes using the Brief COPE-28 self-report questionnaire. Within the intervention group, significant pre–post improvements were observed in social support (Δ = 2.52, p < 0.001), while changes in avoidance (Δ = −0.45, p = 0.160) and positive thinking (Δ = −0.05, p = 0.898) were not significant. The control group, on the other hand, showed no significant changes in social support (Δ = 0.11, p = 0.818) or avoidance (Δ = 0.36, p = 0.062) and a significant reduction in positive thinking (Δ = −0.95, p = 0.002). Between-group differences favored the intervention group for social support (Δ = 2.41, 95% CI = 2.36–2.46), avoidance (Δ = −0.81, 95% CI = −1.08 to −0.56), and positive thinking (Δ = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.79–1.03).

Working Memory

Mortlock et al. (2022) compared TMT with MBSR, with both groups showing significant improvements in working memory from pre to post (F(1,60) = 5.747, p = 0.020, ηp² = 0.087). However, these gains were not maintained at the two-month follow-up, with both groups returning to levels similar to baseline (F(1,60) = 6.967, p = 0.011, ηp² = 0.104). No significant group × time interaction was observed (F(2,120) = 0.534, p = 0.588, ηp² = 0.009), indicating that there were no differential effects between the two interventions. As noted in Section 6.2, working memory is reported as an exploratory outcome.

Emotion Regulation

Nadler et al. (2020) assessed emotional intelligence using the Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment–Workplace (MEIA-W; Tett et al., 2006), which includes specific dimensions of emotion regulation. They reported a significant time × condition interaction for emotional intelligence (F(6,95) = 5.64, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.26), with greater increases in the intervention group than in the control group across all facets except empathy (p < 0.01), including regulation of emotion in the self (M = 3.51 → 4.14 vs. control M = 4.01 → 4.03; F(6,95) = 8.16, ηp² = 0.08) and regulation of emotion in others (M = 4.03 → 4.27 vs. control M = 4.09 → 4.01; F(6,95) = 13.70, ηp² = 0.12).

Cognitive Flexibility

Kurosawa et al. (2026) assessed cognitive flexibility with the Cognitive Flexibility Scale. In the mindfulness group, scores did not change from pre- to post-intervention (M = 45.81 → 45.86, d = 0.01, p = 0.91), and the group × time interaction across the three arms was not significant, F(2,220) = 1.70, p = 0.19. No significant change was observed in the mindfulness group at the one-month follow-up, F(2,126) = 1.97, p = 0.14. In sensitivity analyses adjusted for age and prior meditation experience, a significant group × time interaction emerged, F(2,223) = 3.13, p = 0.046; this reflected a change in the self-compassion meditation group, whereas no significant change was observed in the mindfulness or waitlist groups.

The detailed findings of primary and secondary outcomes are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Outcomes and Main Findings.

Study	Primary Creativity-Related Outcome and Measure	Secondary Psychological Process and Measure	Pre–Post Findings	Follow-Up	Interpretation
Nadler et al. (2020)	Creativity–Workplace Competency Assessment (WCA), self-rating	Trait emotional intelligence/emotion regulation–MEIA-W (Tett et al., 2006), particularly Regulation of Emotion in Self and Regulation of Emotion in Others	Creativity: M = 4.51 → 5.19, d = 0.58, p < 0.001; no intervention-versus-waitlist comparison available. EI: significant time × condition effect, F(6,95) = 5.64, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.26. Regulation-self: M = 3.51 → 4.14 vs. control M = 4.01 → 4.03, F(6,95) = 8.16, ηp2 = 0.08; Regulation-others: M = 4.03 → 4.27 vs. control M = 4.09 → 4.01, F(6,95) = 13.70, ηp2 = 0.12. All facets except empathy improved significantly relative to control, p < 0.01.	–	Significant improvement in self-rated creativity and self-perceived emotional intelligence. Creativity was not compared with the waitlist control, and both creativity and emotional intelligence were explicitly addressed within the intervention content.
Mortlock et al. (2022)	–	Working memory–objective computer-based WM test (Unsworth et al., 2005); exploratory/post hoc outcome	Both groups showed significant improvement in working memory immediately post-intervention (F(1,60) = 5.747, p = 0.020, ηp2 = 0.087). No significant group × time interaction (F(2,120) = 0.534, p = 0.588, ηp2 = 0.009), indicating no differential effect between TMT and MBSR.	Gains were not maintained at the two-month follow-up; both groups returned to levels similar to baseline (F(1,60) = 6.967, p = 0.011, ηp2 = 0.104).	Both mindfulness-based interventions showed comparable short-term improvements in working memory; TMT was not superior to MBSR, and gains were not sustained.
Mohamed et al. (2022)	Problem solving–Brief COPE-28	Coping: social support, avoidance, positive thinking–Brief COPE-28	Problem solving: intervention Δ = 1.91, 95% CI [1.51, 2.31], p < 0.001; control Δ = −0.07, p = 0.767; between-group difference = 1.98 a, d = 1.395. Social support: Δ = 2.52, p < 0.001, between-group Δ = 2.41, 95% CI [2.36, 2.46]. Avoidance: Δ = −0.45, p = 0.160, between-group Δ = −0.81, 95% CI [−1.08, −0.56]. Positive thinking: Δ = −0.05, p = 0.898 (control decreased significantly, Δ = −0.95, p = 0.002), between-group Δ = 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.03].	Single post-intervention assessment, conducted three months after the end of the intervention.	Improvements were clearest for problem solving and social support.
Kurosawa et al. (2026)	Creativity–self-perceived creativity, 3 items (George & Zhou, 2001; adapted by Dul et al., 2011)	Cognitive flexibility–Cognitive Flexibility Scale	MM group: M = 11.55 → 11.08, d = −0.10, p = 0.24 (non-significant within-group decrease). No significant group × time interaction across MM, SCM, and waitlist arms, F(2,224) = 1.61, p = 0.20. Cognitive flexibility: MM group M = 45.81 → 45.86, d = 0.01, p = 0.91; group × time interaction F(2,220) = 1.70, p = 0.19.	No significant change within the MM group at the one-month follow-up, F(2,128) = 1.23, p = 0.29. No significant change in cognitive flexibility at follow-up, F(2,126) = 1.97, p = 0.14.	No evidence of a mindfulness-specific effect on self-perceived creativity; scores in the mindfulness group did not differ from the waitlist control at any assessment point.
Wild et al. (2020)	Problem solving–unpublished 8-item questionnaire (α = 0.90)		Resilience Intervention vs. Psychoeducation: standardized mean difference = −0.15 (0.47) vs. 0.04 (0.46); between-group difference not significant, p = 0.751.	No significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up, p = 0.929.	No evidence of a differential effect of the multicomponent resilience intervention with mindfulness components on problem solving relative to an active psychoeducation comparator.

Note. All estimates are reported as published by the original authors; no effect sizes or confidence intervals were recalculated. ^a For Mohamed et al. (2022), the between-group mean difference in problem solving was reported as 1.98 with a 95% CI of [2.04, 2.70]. Because this interval does not contain the point estimate, the reported confidence interval appears internally inconsistent and may reflect a reporting error in the original publication. The point estimate is retained in the table because it is consistent with the difference between the within-group changes reported for the two groups (1.91 − [−0.07] = 1.98), whereas the inconsistent confidence interval is reported only in this note. Interpretation of this finding is based primarily on the internally consistent within-group change in the intervention group (Δ = 1.91, 95% CI [1.51, 2.31], p < 0.001) and the absence of significant change in the control group.

6.3. Summary of Main Findings

In summary, five RCTs met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1), and their characteristics and findings are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Findings across the included studies were mixed. Mindfulness-based interventions were associated with improvements in some creativity-related outcomes, including a within-group increase in creativity in Nadler et al. (2020), although no between-group comparison was reported for this outcome, and a significant within-group improvement in problem solving in Mohamed et al. (2022). Nadler et al. (2020) and Mohamed et al. (2022) also reported improvements in psychological processes, namely emotion regulation and coping, respectively. In Mortlock et al. (2022), working memory initially improved in both groups, although there was no significant group-by-time interaction, and these improvements were not maintained at the two-month follow-up. Kurosawa et al. (2026) did not observe a significant improvement in self-perceived creativity or cognitive flexibility in the mindfulness condition; although an adjusted sensitivity analysis identified a significant group-by-time interaction for cognitive flexibility, this effect was attributable to the self-compassion condition rather than mindfulness. Wild et al. (2020) found no significant between-group differences and little to no within-group change in problem solving following a multicomponent resilience intervention.

7. Discussion

7.1. Main Findings

Overall, the available evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effects of mindfulness-based interventions on creativity in workplace contexts. The most favorable findings concerned creativity assessed as a workplace competency (Nadler et al., 2020) and problem solving (Mohamed et al., 2022). Improvements were also observed in related psychological processes, including emotion regulation and coping (Mohamed et al., 2022; Nadler et al., 2020). However, creativity outcomes were not always compared with a control condition (Nadler et al., 2020), and the only study that compared self-perceived creativity between a mindfulness condition and a control condition (Kurosawa et al., 2026) found no significant effect of mindfulness. In addition, improvements in working memory, a cognitive process implicated in creative thinking, were also observed in the active control group and were not maintained at follow-up (Mortlock et al., 2022), and no significant effect on problem solving emerged in the context of a broader resilience intervention (Wild et al., 2020). This mixed pattern suggests that the relationship between mindfulness and creativity may depend not only on mindfulness practice itself, but also on the outcomes assessed, the characteristics of the intervention, and the context in which it is delivered. Given this limited and inconsistent evidence, the following sections examine the psychological processes through which mindfulness may contribute to creative functioning, drawing on the broader literature on mindfulness and creativity (Hughes et al., 2023; Lebuda et al., 2016).

7.2. Psychological Processes

The reviewed studies provide an initial basis for understanding the psychological processes through which mindfulness may be associated with creativity in organizational contexts, particularly by highlighting the potential involvement of cognitive, affective, and motivational processes.

Among the reviewed studies, Nadler et al. (2020) included a measure of creativity in a workplace setting characterized by stress and high job demands. Specifically, creativity was evaluated as part of a broader set of self- and peer-rated competencies, and the intervention group showed a significant increase in the creativity-related competency, which encompasses originality and innovative thinking. However, these findings were based on subjective performance evaluations rather than objective or cognitive measures of creative performance. The study also assessed trait emotional intelligence using the Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment–Workplace (MEIA-W), reporting significant improvements across several dimensions, including the recognition and regulation of emotions in both the self and others, except for empathy. Although the study did not directly examine the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity, the co-occurrence of improvements in these domains is consistent with the possibility that affective processes such as emotion regulation may support cognitive processes relevant to creative functioning.

In contrast, Kurosawa et al. (2026) found no significant change in self-perceived creativity following a fully self-guided, smartphone-delivered mindfulness intervention. This divergence may reflect differences between the studies, including intervention duration (eight versus four weeks) and the presence of creativity-specific content in the program of Nadler et al. (2020). Together, these two studies suggest that creativity-related outcomes following mindfulness training may depend on intervention content, duration, and study design, although with only two studies, this cannot be established.

Kurosawa et al. (2026) also assessed cognitive flexibility, a process considered relevant to creative functioning because it supports the ability to shift between perspectives, adapt cognitive strategies, and consider alternative responses (Moore & Malinowski, 2009). The measure used in this study explicitly captures the capacity to generate diverse ideas and conceive response alternatives, thereby overlapping conceptually with the generative component of creativity. However, the mindfulness intervention did not produce measurable improvements in cognitive flexibility, either at post-intervention or at the one-month follow-up, and the only significant effect observed in adjusted analyses was attributable to the self-compassion condition. Together with the absence of change in self-perceived creativity, this finding suggests that a four-week, fully self-guided smartphone program may be insufficient to affect the cognitive processes most closely linked to idea generation, although this interpretation remains tentative given that it rests on a single study.

Mohamed et al. (2022) reported improvements in self-reported problem solving, assessed as a coping strategy through the Brief COPE, which is considered relevant for managing stressful situations (Fteiha & Awwad, 2020). Although problem solving does not represent a direct measure of creativity, it involves executive functions such as inhibition and cognitive flexibility, which are considered relevant to creative cognition (Yilmaz & Kafadar, 2024). The study also examined other coping strategies as secondary outcomes, including social support, avoidance, and positive thinking. Coping strategies may be particularly relevant in demanding work contexts because they influence how individuals manage stress and mobilize psychological and interpersonal resources, thereby shaping conditions that may facilitate or constrain creative functioning (Zhou & Hoever, 2014). Among these, social support showed the clearest effect, improving significantly within the intervention group and relative to controls. For avoidance and positive thinking, between-group differences also favored the intervention group, but no significant within-group change was observed, and the difference in positive thinking was largely driven by a decline in the control group.

In contrast to the improvement reported by Mohamed et al. (2022), Wild et al. (2020) found no significant between-group difference in problem solving, and within-group change was also minimal. This divergence may partly reflect differences in intervention content, as problem solving was explicitly trained in Mohamed et al. (2022), whereas in Wild et al. (2020), it was assessed as one outcome within a broader resilience intervention.

A third aspect concerns working memory (Mortlock et al., 2022). Both the TMT group and the active control group, which received a minimally adapted MBSR program, showed significant improvements immediately after the intervention, with no significant difference between groups; however, these gains were not maintained at the two-month follow-up. Although introduced post hoc as an exploratory outcome, working memory may be conceptually relevant to creativity: it may support creative problem solving by enabling the flexible integration of complex information (Paz-Baruch & Maor, 2023) and, since creativity also involves the adaptive application of ideas under uncertainty, may facilitate rapid synthesis and flexible responses (De Dreu et al., 2012; Isaksen et al., 2010). These short-term improvements were observed in a high-stress work environment and may therefore provide preliminary evidence for a role of working memory in the relationship between mindfulness and creativity, although the absence of a non-mindfulness comparison and of maintenance at follow-up warrants caution.

7.3. Toward a Preliminary Integrative Conceptual Framework of Cognitive, Affective, and Motivational Processes

The present review highlights a clear gap between the growing theoretical interest in the relationship between mindfulness and creativity and the limited availability of robust empirical evidence. Nevertheless, previous research suggests an association between mindfulness practice and cognitive processes relevant to creativity (Hughes et al., 2023; Lebuda et al., 2016), although the intervention studies included in this review show mixed results. Within organizational psychology, mindfulness has also been linked to emotion regulation and motivation as mechanisms that may support creative performance (He, 2024; Langer, 2016). However, a clear conceptual understanding of how mindfulness may be associated with creativity remains limited, partly because both constructs are inherently multidimensional (Sternberg, 2022; Van Dam et al., 2018).

This multidimensionality is reflected in the variety of conceptual and methodological approaches used to assess both constructs, which complicates comparability across studies and may partly account for the heterogeneity of findings (Baas et al., 2014; Lebuda et al., 2016).

A mindfulness intervention is proposed to act on affective and motivational processes, which shape the conditions for creative functioning, and on cognitive processes, which are more directly involved in it, with the two groups of processes interacting within the organizational context. Solid outlines indicate constructs reported as outcomes in the studies included in this review; dashed outlines indicate constructs not reported in this review and proposed on theoretical grounds. Thicker arrows indicate a more direct role in creative functioning; thinner arrows indicate an enabling role. None of the pathways were tested in the included studies.

Integrating the empirical findings identified through the structured search with the broader theoretical literature, the present review outlines a preliminary integrative conceptual framework (Figure 2) in which the relationship between mindfulness and creativity can be understood through the interplay between cognitive processes more directly involved in creative functioning and affective and motivational processes that may create favorable conditions for its expression. Cognitive processes more directly involved in creative functioning may include cognitive flexibility, working memory, and problem solving, which may contribute to the generation, maintenance, restructuring, and evaluation of ideas (Colzato et al., 2012; Jha et al., 2010; Miyake et al., 2000).

Figure 2. Preliminary Integrative Conceptual Framework.

Affective and motivational processes, in turn, may contribute by shaping conditions that facilitate creative functioning. These include emotion regulation, coping, stress management, and motivation. Although these processes may be less directly involved in the cognitive operations underlying idea generation and evaluation, they may support the conditions under which creativity-related cognitive processes unfold. For example, they have been associated with broadened attentional focus and associative thinking (Colzato et al., 2012; Lebuda et al., 2016), as well as with positive affective states linked to more flexible and expansive modes of cognitive processing (Baas et al., 2008; Fredrickson, 2001). Under conditions of interest and engagement, individuals may be more likely to explore novel ideas, persist in the face of challenges, and enter states of deep involvement such as flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).

In organizational contexts, these affective and motivational processes may be particularly relevant because creative functioning unfolds within social and relational environments, where interactions with colleagues and leaders, as well as organizational demands and climate, can shape individuals’ emotional and motivational states. These dynamics may also extend to interpersonal functioning: social-support coping increased in one of the included studies (Mohamed et al., 2022). While this finding does not establish a direct pathway to creativity, it points to a potentially relevant interpersonal dimension. Greater use of social support may, in turn, encourage collaborative engagement.

At the organizational level, such tendencies may align with environments characterized by psychological safety, empathetic communication, and collaborative team dynamics, all of which have been associated with creative outcomes (Doornich & Lynch, 2024; Michaelsen et al., 2023; Vonderlin et al., 2020).

This integrative perspective also carries methodological implications. Future studies could benefit from designs that capture cognitive, affective, and motivational indicators within the same sample and test their relations formally. Although some of the included studies assessed more than one domain (e.g., Kurosawa et al., 2026; Nadler et al., 2020), none tested whether changes in one domain accounted for changes in creativity-related outcomes. Mediation analyses within longitudinal or experimental designs, for example testing whether improvements in emotion regulation or motivation statistically account for gains in creativity-related outcomes, would move the field beyond the co-occurrence of effects toward a clearer understanding of underlying mechanisms.

Conceptually, these cognitive, affective, and motivational processes may be better understood as interdependent rather than separate pathways. Their interplay may shape the conditions under which creative functioning emerges and is expressed. Given the limited evidence base, this account remains tentative and may help inform future research on how mindfulness relates to creativity in workplace contexts. Accordingly, the proposed framework should be regarded as preliminary and heuristic rather than as an empirically validated model.

7.4. Methodological and Conceptual Constraints of the Current Evidence

The findings of the present review should be interpreted considering several methodological and conceptual limitations that characterize the current evidence base. The reviewed studies showed considerable heterogeneity in the content, duration, and delivery of mindfulness interventions, ranging from self-guided online programs (Nadler et al., 2020) and smartphone-based meditation interventions (Kurosawa et al., 2026) to structured group-based protocols such as team mindfulness training (Mortlock et al., 2022) and workplace health promotion programs (Mohamed et al., 2022). This variability, combined with small sample sizes and diverse control conditions, limits comparability across studies and constrains the generalizability of the findings.

Evidence regarding optimal intervention length also remains inconclusive. While some studies suggest that medium-length programs may be more effective in enhancing creativity (Hughes et al., 2023), others report broader psychological benefits associated with longer interventions (Demarzo et al., 2017). These inconsistencies highlight the need for further research to clarify how the duration and intensity of mindfulness interventions influence different outcomes and underlying mechanisms.

A further limitation concerns the assessment of creativity. Only two of the included studies directly assessed creativity, and they did so using different approaches. Nadler et al. (2020) assessed creativity as part of a broader workplace competency measure, including dimensions such as originality and innovative thinking, whereas Kurosawa et al. (2026) assessed self-perceived creativity in terms of idea generation at work. The remaining studies assessed psychological processes theoretically relevant to creative functioning, such as problem solving, coping strategies, and working memory (De Dreu et al., 2012; Yilmaz & Kafadar, 2024). While these constructs are theoretically relevant to creative processes, they do not constitute direct measures of creative performance. This limitation complicates the interpretation of findings and restricts the ability to draw firm conclusions about the relationship between mindfulness and creativity. More broadly, this issue reflects not only a methodological constraint but also a conceptual challenge, highlighting the need for more precise and context-sensitive operationalizations of creativity in organizational research.

Recent methodological reviews have further emphasized that many of the tools currently used to assess creativity are decontextualized and poorly adapted to organizational environments, highlighting the need to develop more sensitive and contextually valid measures (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004; McKay et al., 2024).

In addition, the reliance on self-report measures, the brevity of follow-up periods, and the use of passive control groups introduce potential sources of bias and limit the ability to evaluate the stability and durability of the observed effects over time. Three of the five included studies incorporated a follow-up assessment in addition to the post-intervention measurement (Kurosawa et al., 2026; Mortlock et al., 2022; Wild et al., 2020), whereas Mohamed et al. (2022) assessed outcomes only once, three months after the intervention. Follow-up intervals were brief (one to three months), and only one of the two studies that directly assessed creativity (Kurosawa et al., 2026) included a follow-up for this outcome.

These methodological weaknesses constrain both internal and external validity, making it difficult to establish causal inferences or confirm the persistence of intervention effects. These limitations should also be understood in the context of the early stage of development of this research area, where empirical evidence remains limited and fragmented. Addressing these challenges will require more rigorous, context-sensitive, and methodologically consistent research designs capable of capturing the complexity of the relationship between mindfulness and creativity in organizational settings.

7.5. Practical Implications for Organizations

Although the current evidence does not support presenting mindfulness programs as an established tool for enhancing creativity at work, the present review suggests that the potential contribution of mindfulness to organizational contexts may lie less in directly increasing creative performance than in fostering the psychological and organizational conditions under which creativity can emerge. From this perspective, mindfulness-based interventions may be conceived not only as tools for stress reduction and well-being, but also as resources for supporting the cognitive, affective, and motivational processes that the literature recognizes as relevant to creative functioning and innovation (Anderson et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2023).

This view is consistent with Kudesia’s (2019) call to adapt mindfulness to the specific characteristics of organizations rather than transferring protocols developed for clinical or educational settings unchanged. Some of the interventions included in this review already reflect this orientation, such as the online program evaluated by Nadler et al. (2020), which incorporated workplace-relevant themes including creativity and decision-making, and the Team Mindfulness Training developed by Mortlock et al. (2022) for high-pressure operational settings. Rather than applying a single standardized protocol, organizations could therefore design interventions starting from the psychological processes relevant to their specific creative challenges. For example, contexts in which idea generation is a priority might emphasize practices that cultivate open, receptive attention, which has been linked to divergent thinking (Colzato et al., 2012; Lippelt et al., 2014), whereas settings characterized by high complexity or uncertainty might place greater emphasis on emotion regulation, non-reactivity, and tolerance of ambiguity (Altan-Atalay et al., 2024; Taskan et al., 2025). Where engagement and innovation are central goals, interventions might also address intrinsic motivation and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Amabile et al., 2005; Ye et al., 2025).

Beyond the individual level, the implications of mindfulness extend to leadership and organizational climate. Mindful leadership has been associated with more attentive and empathetic communication and higher-quality relationships with team members (Doornich & Lynch, 2024; Reb et al., 2020), and at the team level, team mindfulness has been linked to reduced conflict and greater collaboration (L. Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018). By supporting emotion regulation and less reactive forms of interaction, mindfulness may thus contribute to climates characterized by trust and psychological safety, conditions widely regarded as important for the expression of creative ideas (Anderson et al., 2014). Finally, organizations implementing such programs should evaluate their effects systematically, including creativity-related outcomes, so that practice can contribute to building the evidence base. Mindfulness may thus be better understood not as an end in itself, but as a flexible resource that can be integrated into programs designed around the creative goals of the organization, the characteristics of its context, and the needs of its members.

7.6. Future Directions and Research Implications

As this remains an emerging field of inquiry, clarifying the conceptual foundations of both mindfulness and creativity is a crucial first step for future investigations. Future studies could benefit from examining mindfulness in terms of its specific components, as each may exert distinct influences at various stages of the creative process. Likewise, creativity should be approached as a multidimensional phenomenon that integrates cognitive, motivational, contextual, and social aspects, requiring more refined and context-sensitive assessment tools. Beyond measurement, greater attention is also needed to how mindfulness itself is conceptualized within organizational settings. In this regard, Kudesia (2019) argues that mindfulness should not simply be “borrowed” from other contexts and transferred unchanged into organizations. Instead, a “blending” approach is needed, whereby existing conceptualizations are adapted and reworked in relation to the specific characteristics of organizational contexts.

A second area of interest concerns emotional and motivational factors. Processes such as positive affect, resilience, intrinsic motivation, emotion regulation, and tolerance of uncertainty not only support creativity but may also mediate or moderate its relationship with mindfulness, thus operating as part of affective and motivational processes through which mindfulness may be associated with creative functioning (Amabile et al., 2005; Baas et al., 2008; He, 2024). Although this perspective appears promising, it remains underexplored and would benefit from more systematic empirical investigation.

A third priority involves extending research toward ecological and collective contexts, acknowledging that creativity depends not only on individual abilities but also on social interactions and organizational climates. In this context, increasing attention has been devoted to the concept of team mindfulness, understood as the shared belief that group interactions are characterized by present-moment attention and a nonjudgmental attitude. This construct has shown potential in reducing conflict and fostering collaboration (Liu et al., 2022; L. Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018) and may also support teams in navigating adverse organizational conditions (Feng et al., 2025). The integration of individual and collective mindfulness practices may contribute to enhancing collaborative creativity and innovation, although a more comprehensive framework integrating cognitive, affective, and relational processes remains to be developed.

Another relevant direction is to compare different contemplative approaches, such as focused attention (FA) and open monitoring (OM) (Colzato et al., 2012; Lippelt et al., 2014). Understanding whether and how these methods differentially support stages of the creative process, such as idea generation or evaluation, could shed light on their underlying mechanisms and guide the targeted design of interventions.

Finally, future studies should address the methodological limitations identified in this review. This would involve assessing creativity with direct and well-validated measures, ideally combining self-report with performance-based tasks and treating it as a primary outcome; including control conditions for all outcomes; using follow-up periods long enough to evaluate the durability of effects; and designing studies able to separate the contribution of mindfulness from that of other components in multicomponent programs.

8. Conclusions

This critical narrative review highlights a discrepancy between the growing interest in the relationship between mindfulness and creativity in organizational settings and the methodological rigor of the intervention research currently available. The evidence gathered in this still-emerging field offers only a partial understanding of how mindfulness may contribute to creativity at work. This limitation does not stem solely from the small number of studies, but also from the limited range of psychological processes investigated, with few studies examining affective and motivational processes, and from methodological weaknesses related to the heterogeneity of mindfulness interventions, the assessment of creativity, the use of control conditions, and the length of follow-up periods.

Beyond synthesizing the available evidence, this review proposes a preliminary integrative conceptual framework linking cognitive, affective, motivational, and organizational processes. The framework suggests that the key question is not only whether mindfulness enhances creativity, but also through which psychological processes it may do so and under which organizational conditions these processes are more likely to support creative outcomes.

A better understanding of these relationships may help researchers design studies that assess creativity directly and test the proposed processes as potential mechanisms. It may also provide a stronger basis for designing and implementing mindfulness-based interventions in organizations.