Altered states of leadership: mindfulness meditation, psychedelic use, and leadership development

There have recently been anecdotal reports of individuals using altered states of consciousness for peak performance and leadership development (Kotler and Wheal, 2017). While there may be several ways to induce altered states of consciousness, two such interventions—mindfulness meditation and psychedelics such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)—have become increasingly common in society (Simonsson et al., 2020; Livne et al., 2022).Yet there is relatively little empirical data on how these interventions, especially psychedelics, might affect leadership development.

The cultivation of mindfulness through meditation or other practices has been found to influence several outcomes related to leadership (Donald et al., 2021). For instance, Urrila (2021) conducted a systematic review on mindful leadership and identified 28 leadership-related outcomes (e.g., stress reduction, sleep, creativity, emotion regulation) that may be impacted by mindfulness-based interventions, which highlights the wide-ranging potential of mindfulness training for leadership development. The studies to date on mindful leadership have, however, had relatively small sample sizes and have not utilized nationally representative samples free of significant self-selection bias. There has also been a lack of research on potential negative impacts of mindfulness training on leadership (see Britton et al., 2021 for meditation-related adverse effects; see also Purser, 2018). It is therefore important to build on previous findings by addressing these limitations.

While psychedelics are largely unexplored in the leadership literature, recent quantitative findings suggest that moderate-to-high doses of psychedelics—if administered in safe and supportive contexts—may also impact outcomes related to leadership (see also Schlag et al., 2022 for potential risks), including psychological health (Galvão-Coelho et al., 2021), creative thinking (Prochazkova et al., 2018; Wießner et al., 2022), and interpersonal attitudes and behaviors (Griffiths et al., 2006, 2008; Roseman et al., 2021). Other qualitative research indicates that regular use of psychedelics in low doses for prolonged periods (i.e., “microdosing”) may have an impact on productivity and other leadership-related outcomes (Webb et al., 2019; see also Johnstad, 2018; Fadiman and Korb, 2019; Hutten et al., 2019). It is thus possible that psychedelics could be used as a potential tool for leadership development, but little remains known about the direct link between psychedelic use and leadership outcomes.

Previous research indicates that there may be parallels between the neurophysiology and phenomenology of altered states induced by mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use (Millière et al., 2018). Other research suggests that mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use may exert complementary long-term effects and could, in theory, be used in conjunction to amplify and prolong beneficial outcomes (Heuschkel and Kuypers, 2020). No study has so far investigated, however, in what ways the potential effects of mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use on leadership development might overlap and contrast with each other.

To address the gaps in the literature, the present study aimed to investigate the perceived impact of mindfulness meditation and psychedelic experiences on leadership at work. Using samples representative of the US and UK adult populations with regard to sex, age, and ethnicity (N = 9,732), we used quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine if and how mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use may have influenced leadership among respondents with a management position as their primary role at work. The perceived impact of mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use, respectively, was also compared to better understand in what ways such self-reported effects might overlap and contrast with each other.

The respondents were recruited in August 2022, through Prolific Academic,1 which is a platform that facilitates study participant recruitment for researchers. The platform offers representative samples of two national populations—the United States and the United Kingdom—that are stratified on three census-matched factors: sex (Male, Female), age (18–27, 28–37, 38–47, 48–57, 58+), and ethnicity (White, Mixed, Asian, Black, Other). Previous research suggests that Prolific Academic provides high data quality, relative to other recruitment platforms (Peer et al., 2017, 2021). In this study, we used Prolific Academic’s representativeness function to recruit US (N = 4,867) and UK (N = 4,865) residents who were 18 years or older. The study description did not mention psychedelics to avoid potential self-selection bias. The respondents were asked questions about demographic characteristics, employment status, mindfulness meditation, and psychedelic use. This study was part of a larger survey and respondents were paid £0.9 for completing the full survey. Study procedures were determined to be exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for respondents in a management position (n = 3,150; 32.4% of total study sample). As shown in the table, 1,373 of respondents in a management position reported having tried mindfulness meditation (14.1% of total study sample; 43.6% of management sample), 559 reported having tried psychedelics (5.7% of total study sample; 17.7% of management sample), and 334 reported having tried both (3.4% of total study sample; 10.6% of management sample). A total of 396 responses on mindfulness meditation and leadership were coded as no impact (28.8%), 974 were coded as positive impact (70.9%), and 3 were coded as negative impact (0.2%). A total of 324 responses on psychedelics and leadership were coded as no impact (58.0%), 227 were coded as positive impact (40.6%), and 8 were coded as negative impact (1.4%).

Table 2 presents results from logistic regressions testing the associations of lifetime number of hours of mindfulness meditation practice and psychological insight during respondents’ most intense psychedelic experience with leadership impact. As demonstrated in the table, greater lifetime number of hours of mindfulness meditation practice was associated with a higher likelihood of describing a positive impact on leadership. Similarly, reporting greater psychological insight scores was associated with a higher likelihood of describing a positive impact on leadership. Sensitivity analyses revealed broadly the same results for mindfulness meditation and psychedelics, respectively.

Using representative samples of the US and UK adult populations with regard to sex, gender and ethnicity, this study applied quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine if and how mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use might impact leadership among respondents with a management position as their primary role at work. The quantitative analyses revealed that lifetime number of hours of mindfulness meditation practice was associated with a higher likelihood of describing a positive impact on leadership and greater psychological insight during respondents’ most intense psychedelic experience was associated with a higher likelihood of describing a positive impact on leadership. In the qualitative analyses, no discernible themes emerged from the responses coded as negative impact due to low counts, but the analyses assessing positive impact on leadership revealed four overarching themes that were common to both mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use: (1) wellbeing and health; (2) presence and awareness; (3) productivity and performance; and (4) interpersonal attitudes and behaviors. There were notable overlaps and differences within these themes when comparing mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use, which suggests that these two interventions may produce comparable and also complementary effects on leadership at work. While there were several subthemes (e.g., focus, creativity, patience, empathy, compassion) that were frequently reported with both mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use, there were a few that were relatively unique to mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use, respectively. For example, improved sleep was commonly reported among respondents who had engaged with mindfulness meditation, but sleep was not mentioned in any response among those who had used psychedelics. Another notable difference was the extent to which respondents who had engaged with mindfulness meditation reported stress reduction and calming effects as compared to those who had used psychedelics. It was, however, more common for respondents who had used psychedelics to report greater self-understanding and also positive changes in interpersonal attitudes and behaviors than those who had used mindfulness meditation. These identified overlaps and differences contribute to the emerging research literature on the potential complementary effects of mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use (Millière et al., 2018; Heuschkel and Kuypers, 2020; Payne et al., 2021; see also Simonsson and Goldberg, 2022; Simonsson et al., 2023).

There was a higher prevalence of responses coded as positive impact among respondents who reported mindfulness meditation practice (70.9% versus 40.6% of those who reported psychedelic use) and a higher (though still low) prevalence of responses coded as negative impact among respondents who reported lifetime psychedelic use (1.4% versus 0.2% of those who reported mindfulness meditation use). Such differences do not necessarily reflect a higher risk–benefit ratio for mindfulness meditation relative to psychedelic use in leadership development. It is possible, for example, that those who reported psychedelic use had taken these substances in unsupportive contexts, in low doses, or in combination with other substances, all of which could have influenced responses. The same could also be true for those who reported mindfulness meditation use.

These findings must be considered in light of several limitations with the research design. First, although the responses were coded by two researchers independently, it is possible that the respondents themselves or other researchers would disagree with the coding of the responses. It may also have been useful to have utilized more than two researchers coding the responses to reduce potential bias. Second, the respondents were asked a single qualitative question about leadership and were not asked to provide additional details about their use of mindfulness meditation or psychedelics that could have been important to evaluate (e.g., age of first use, context of use, delivery of mindfulness training, dose of psychedelics). No questions were asked, for example, about whether the use of mindfulness meditation or psychedelics preceded work experience in a management position, which would have been important to better understand temporal sequence. The single qualitative question also did not ask about the durability of the potential effects (e.g., transient, lasting). Third, respondents who reported current employment were asked to select the response option that best described their primary role at work, but no additional questions were asked that could have been useful (e.g., company size, staff responsibilities). Fourth, the findings cannot be used to infer causality, due to the cross-sectional design of the study. Fifth, the responses were collected from a single survey and were both retrospective and self-reported, which increases the likelihood of response biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003). It is possible, for instance, social desirability influenced responses (Van de Mortel, 2008), especially those related to substance use (Latkin et al., 2017). Sixth, the samples were stratified to reflect the US and UK populations with regards to sex, age and ethnicity, but it is possible that individuals with negative experiences of mindfulness meditation or psychedelic use are less represented on online recruitment platforms such as Prolific Academic. If this were indeed true, it would limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should utilize in-depth qualitative interviews and longitudinal research designs, including randomized controlled trials, to better understand if, for whom, and under what circumstances mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use might influence leadership development. It would be particularly important to investigate potentially harmful effects of mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use, especially in relation to the workplace.

While the findings in this study should be considered preliminary due to the limitations of the research design, the results suggest that mindfulness meditation and psychedelic use may produce comparable and also complementary effects on leadership at work. If replicated in future studies with more rigorous research designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials), such findings could lead to the development of novel training programs that combine both mindfulness meditation and psychedelics to improve leadership at work.

Data and code are available at figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23541459.v1↗.

Study procedures were determined to be exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

OS conceptualized and designed the study. OS and WO analyzed the data. OS wrote the manuscript, with comments from CS, SG, PH, and WO. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

OS was supported by Ekhaga Foundation and Olle Engkvist Foundation. SG was supported by a grant (K23AT010879) from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Support for this research was also provided by the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (FORMAS; FR-2018-0006; FR-2018-00246), Forte (2020–00977), and the University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and with funding from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

PH was on the scientific advisory board of Bright Minds Biosciences Ltd., Eleusis Benefit Corporation, and Reset Pharmaceuticals Inc. OS was a co-founder of Eudelics AB.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.