“Buddha-like” mentality in workplace: The building of fundamental theory and the empirical test of its validity in Chinese context

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00594

Abstract

Abstract:

As a combination of traditional Buddha culture and modern network culture, Buddha-like mentality has been a popular work attitude in the workplace, yet limited scholarly attentions have been paid to investigate this concept, which is partly due to a lack of established scale. This lack, in turn, lead to incomplete understandings of the facets as well as the consequences of employees’ Buddha-like mentality.

To construct the framework of Buddha-like mentality and examine its consequences, we used qualitative research and quantitative research in this study. We firstly collected participants’ views on Buddha-like mentality through interviews and questionnaires, and searched the contents related to Buddha-like mentality through the Internet. Secondly, the classical grounded theory was adopted to encode the descriptions derived from open survey, so as to conduct an exploration study on the concept and structural dimensions of the Buddha-like mentality in the working context. Based on this qualitative study and the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), an 18-item questionnaire was compiled according to the structural dimension of Buddha-like mentality. Then we conducted a correlation analysis with a sample of 290 participants to examine the discriminant validities between the Buddha-like mentality and existing concepts. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is conducted to test the construct validity with 478 samples. Finally, a time-lagged study is used to test the predictive validity of Buddha-like mentality with 402 valid matching questionnaires collected from 29 enterprises.

The results of grounded theory show that the Buddha-like mentality in the work situation can be divided into four dimensions: unconcerned, satisfied with the status quo, friendly and not argumentative, and letting nature take its course (see Figure 1). EFA (see Table 1) and CFA (see Table 2) of the Buddha-like mentality questionnaire show good reliability and validity, and there is no redundancy of questions. In addition, in the second-order four-factor model, the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant (see Table 3), and all of the standardized loadings of the first-order factor (see Figure 2) and the second-order factor (see Figure 3) are significant, which further confirms that the Buddha-like mentality in the workplace is a second-order structure composed of four first-order factors. Correlation analyses show (1) Buddha-like mentality correlates negatively with extraversion, (2) Buddha-like mentality has no significant correlation with agreeableness (see Table 4). The prediction validity study shows (1) Buddha-like mentality has a significant negative impact on creativity, (2) Buddha-like mentality has a significant positive impact on workplace well-being, (3) The impact of Buddha-like mentality on job performance is not significant (see Table 5~7).

These findings enrich the scholarly understandings of Buddha-like mentality and offer a reliable instrument for the assessment of Buddha-like mentality, which may benefit much for future studies on this concept.

Key words: Buddha-like Mentality, grounded theory, job performance, creativity, workplace well-being

YAN Yu, FENG Ming, ZHANG Yong. (2024). “Buddha-like” mentality in workplace: The building of fundamental theory and the empirical test of its validity in Chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 594-611.

Items	Friendly and not argumentative	Letting nature take its course	Unconcerned	Satisfied with the status quo	α after delete the item
fx35 I am approachable, not aggressive and easy to get along with in the eyes of my colleagues.	0.98	−0.07	−0.22	0.08	0.929
fx34 I will not refuse the request of my colleagues, and I am a “good man” in the eyes of my colleagues.	0.87	0.00	0.06	−0.12	0.928
fx33 At work, I will avoid conflict and friction with people.	0.69	0.09	0.01	0.08	0.927
fx32 At work, I will compromise when I disagree with people’s views.	0.53	0.22	0.15	0.01	0.926
fx31 At work, I do not argue with others about right and wrong, winning and losing.	0.48	0.13	0.31	0.00	0.926
fx41 At work, I do not take the initiative to express my own ideas or make suggestions for my work	−0.11	0.90	−0.12	−0.04	0.931
fx42 For work arrangement, I usually wait for the leader to assign it. Even if I am good at it, I don’t take the initiative to strive for it.	0.16	0.77	−0.16	0.10	0.927
fx45 When I achieve my goals, I do not want to put in more energy to make things better.	0.12	0.65	−0.03	0.05	0.928
fx44 At work, I think it is good to do your best, and the result is not important.	0.17	0.61	−0.01	0.02	0.928
fx43 I will not take the initiative to participate in or compete for posts, awards and other opportunities.	−0.02	0.53	0.40	0.03	0.925
fx11 I do not care about a promotion or a raise	−0.14	−0.22	0.97	0.08	0.930
fx13 I do what I want and don’t care what other people think of me.	−0.10	0.31	0.77	−0.20	0.929
fx14 I don’t care about the gains and losses in the work, task allocation, performance allocation, etc.	0.30	−0.02	0.71	−0.08	0.927
fx12 I do not care about the company’s incentive mechanism.	0.05	−0.26	0.69	0.34	0.928
fx21 I am comfortable in my present job and would not change it.	0.13	−0.17	−0.04	0.90	0.928
fx24 At work, I am not ambitious and do not set high goals for myself.	−0.11	0.24	0.07	0.71	0.926
fx22 When dealing with a new working environment, I think we should take it as it comes.	0.26	0.00	−0.01	0.69	0.926
fx23 I have no plan for my future career development.	−0.28	0.35	0.08	0.67	0.928
Eigenvalue (unrotated)	8.36	1.42	1.26	1.03
Percentage of variance	46.42	7.91	7.00	5.73

Items	Friendly and not argumentative	Letting nature take its course	Unconcerned	Satisfied with the status quo	α after delete the item
fx35 I am approachable, not aggressive and easy to get along with in the eyes of my colleagues.	0.98	−0.07	−0.22	0.08	0.929
fx34 I will not refuse the request of my colleagues, and I am a “good man” in the eyes of my colleagues.	0.87	0.00	0.06	−0.12	0.928
fx33 At work, I will avoid conflict and friction with people.	0.69	0.09	0.01	0.08	0.927
fx32 At work, I will compromise when I disagree with people’s views.	0.53	0.22	0.15	0.01	0.926
fx31 At work, I do not argue with others about right and wrong, winning and losing.	0.48	0.13	0.31	0.00	0.926
fx41 At work, I do not take the initiative to express my own ideas or make suggestions for my work	−0.11	0.90	−0.12	−0.04	0.931
fx42 For work arrangement, I usually wait for the leader to assign it. Even if I am good at it, I don’t take the initiative to strive for it.	0.16	0.77	−0.16	0.10	0.927
fx45 When I achieve my goals, I do not want to put in more energy to make things better.	0.12	0.65	−0.03	0.05	0.928
fx44 At work, I think it is good to do your best, and the result is not important.	0.17	0.61	−0.01	0.02	0.928
fx43 I will not take the initiative to participate in or compete for posts, awards and other opportunities.	−0.02	0.53	0.40	0.03	0.925
fx11 I do not care about a promotion or a raise	−0.14	−0.22	0.97	0.08	0.930
fx13 I do what I want and don’t care what other people think of me.	−0.10	0.31	0.77	−0.20	0.929
fx14 I don’t care about the gains and losses in the work, task allocation, performance allocation, etc.	0.30	−0.02	0.71	−0.08	0.927
fx12 I do not care about the company’s incentive mechanism.	0.05	−0.26	0.69	0.34	0.928
fx21 I am comfortable in my present job and would not change it.	0.13	−0.17	−0.04	0.90	0.928
fx24 At work, I am not ambitious and do not set high goals for myself.	−0.11	0.24	0.07	0.71	0.926
fx22 When dealing with a new working environment, I think we should take it as it comes.	0.26	0.00	−0.01	0.69	0.926
fx23 I have no plan for my future career development.	−0.28	0.35	0.08	0.67	0.928
Eigenvalue (unrotated)	8.36	1.42	1.26	1.03
Percentage of variance	46.42	7.91	7.00	5.73

Model	χ²	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Four-factor model	467.38^***	129	3.62	0.07	0.93	0.92	0.05
Three-factor model	692.32^***	132	5.24	0.09	0.89	0.87	0.06
Two-factor model	1079.30^***	134	8.05	0.12	0.81	0.79	0.08
Single factor model	1318.60^***	135	9.77	0.14	0.77	0.74	0.08
Second-order four-factor model	469.50^***	131	3.58	0.07	0.93	0.92	0.05

Model	χ²	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Four-factor model	467.38^***	129	3.62	0.07	0.93	0.92	0.05
Three-factor model	692.32^***	132	5.24	0.09	0.89	0.87	0.06
Two-factor model	1079.30^***	134	8.05	0.12	0.81	0.79	0.08
Single factor model	1318.60^***	135	9.77	0.14	0.77	0.74	0.08
Second-order four-factor model	469.50^***	131	3.58	0.07	0.93	0.92	0.05

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Unconcerned	2.82	1.31
2. Satisfied with the status quo	3.63	1.29	0.58^**
3. Friendly and not argumentative	4.10	1.24	0.55^**	0.59^**
4. Letting nature take its course	3.36	1.33	0.62^**	0.61^**	0.60^**

“Buddha-like” mentality in workplace: The building of fundamental theory and the empirical test of its validity in Chinese context

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Buddha-like mentality	3.88	1.34
2. unconcerned	3.68	1.55	0.83^**
3. satisfied with the status quo	3.66	1.65	0.84^**	0.62^**
4. friendly and not argumentative	4.44	1.46	0.85^**	0.62^**	0.61^**
5. letting nature take its course	3.65	1.69	0.87^**	0.60^**	0.64^**	0.62^**
6. extraversion	4.63	0.56	−0.32^**	−0.21^**	−0.22^**	−0.26^**	−0.36^**
7. agreeableness	4.24	0.38	0.06	0.02	0.11	0.05	0.04	0.28^**

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Single factor model (F +T+C+W)	2969.27^***	152	19.54	0.22	0.46	0.39	0.20
Two-factor model (F、T+C+W)	3385.33^***	151	22.42	0.23	0.38	0.30	0.25
Three-factor model (F、T+C、W)	1089.71^***	149	7.31	0.13	0.82	0.79	0.07
Four-factor model (F、T、C、W)	381.15^***	146	2.61	0.06	0.96	0.95	0.04

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1. Gender	0.62	0.49
2. Ages	35.21	8.59	−0.11^*
3. Education	2.60	0.75	0.10^*	−0.37^**
4. Tenure	9.33	7.54	−0.04	0.74^**	−0.17^**
5. Job levels	1.31	0.58	−0.09	0.18^**	0.06	0.26^**
6. Enterprise type 1	0.31	0.46	−0.09	0.09	−0.36^**	−0.10^*	0.08
7. Enterprise type 2	0.05	0.22	−0.01	−0.06	0.05	−0.10^*	0.00	−0.15^**
8. Industry type 1	0.18	0.39	0.05	−0.02	−0.11^*	−0.26^**	−0.02	0.21^**	−0.11^*
9. Industry type 2	0.14	0.35	−0.01	0.07	−0.12^*	0.08	−0.01	0.62^**	−0.09	−0.19^**
10. Industry type 3	0.04	0.20	−0.14^**	−0.09	0.01	−0.10^*	0.15^**	0.24^**	0.12^*	−0.10^*	−0.09
11. Industry type 4	0.04	0.18	−0.05	−0.01	−0.03	−0.04	−0.01	−0.13^*	0.83^**	−0.09	−0.08	−0.04
12. Industry type 5	0.04	0.18	−0.05	−0.08	−0.03	−0.15^**	−0.08	0.20^**	−0.04	−0.09	−0.08	−0.04	−0.04
13. Industry type 6	0.10	0.29	−0.10	−0.15^**	0.20^**	−0.15^**	−0.05	−0.16^**	0.04	−0.15^**	−0.13^**	−0.07	−0.06	−0.06
14. Buddha-like mentality	3.75	0.93	0.03	0.20^**	−0.21^**	0.17^**	−0.07	0.08	−0.12^*	0.02	0.04	0.04	−0.11^*	−0.03	−0.09
15. Job performance	5.48	0.99	0.04	0.05	−0.04	0.11^*	0.19^**	0.03	0.06	−0.08	0.08	−0.10^*	0.06	−0.16^**	−0.06	−0.03
16. Creativity	4.81	1.26	−0.07	0.01	−0.01	0.04	0.05	−0.06	0.03	−0.16^**	0.08	−0.14^**	0.02	−0.10^*	0.02	−0.16^**	0.65^**
17. Workplace well-being	4.44	1.15	−0.02	0.18^**	−0.10	0.12^*	0.112^*	0.08	−0.06	0.11^*	−0.02	−0.05	−0.05	0.13^**	−0.09	0.17^**	−0.06	−0.17^**

Predictive variable	Job performance (T2)				Creativity (T2)				Workplace well-being (T2)
Predictive variable	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Control variable
Gender	0.03	0.10	0.04	0.10	−0.26	0.13	−0.24	0.13	0.00	0.12	−0.02	0.12
Ages	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01
Education	0.00	0.08	0.00	0.08	−0.04	0.10	−0.08	0.10	−0.04	0.09	0.00	0.09
Tenure	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
Job levels	0.32^***	0.09	0.31^***	0.09	0.17	0.11	0.12	0.11	0.19	0.10	0.22^*	0.10
Enterprise type 1	0.73^**	0.21	0.73^**	0.21	0.27	0.28	0.28	0.27	0.04	0.26	0.03	0.25
Enterprise type 2	0.98^*	0.43	0.97^*	0.43	0.90	0.55	0.87	0.55	0.33	0.51	0.36	0.50
Industry type 1	−0.63^***	0.17	−0.63^***	0.17	−0.83^***	0.22	−0.82^***	0.22	0.35	0.21	0.35	0.20
Industry type 2	−0.63^*	0.25	−0.63^*	0.25	−0.26	0.32	−0.27	0.32	−0.06	0.30	−0.05	0.30
Industry type 3	−1.49^***	0.32	−1.48^***	0.32	−1.66^***	0.41	−1.59^***	0.41	−0.29	0.38	−0.35	0.38
Industry type 4	−0.78	0.50	−0.78	0.50	−1.06	0.65	−1.13	0.64	−0.56	0.60	−0.49	0.59
Industry type 5	−1.43^***	0.31	−1.44^***	0.31	−1.18^**	0.41	−1.21^**	0.40	0.98^**	0.38	1.01^**	0.37
Industry type 6	−0.41^*	0.18	−0.41^*	0.18	−0.30	0.24	−0.32	0.23	−0.13	0.22	−0.12	0.22
Independent variable
Buddha-like mentality (T1)			−0.02	0.05			−0.22^**	0.07			0.19^**	0.06
R²	0.13		0.13		0.09		0.11		0.08		0.10
ΔR²			0.00				0.02				0.02

[1]	ZHANG Nan, CAO Peiling, LI Ning, SUN Xiaomin, QIAO Zhihong, ZHAO Jingwu. An exploration of the antecedents and consequences of judges’ time poverty at work: A qualitative study [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2024, 56(6): 814-830.
[2]	WANG Yating, CHEN Zhijun, LI Rui, ZHOU Mingjian. Positive effects of leader perceived overqualification on team creativity [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2024, 56(3): 326-338.
[3]	ZHANG Jianwei, ZHOU Yufan, LI Linying, LI Haihong, HUA Weijun. How to teach resourcefully? The mechanism of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity of college students [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(8): 1301-1316.
[4]	XU Minya, LIU Beini, XU Zhenyu. Lost radiance: Negative influence of parental gender bias on women’s workplace performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(7): 1148-1159.
[5]	LI Liyuan, GAO Xiangyu, ZHENG Xiaoming. An examination of configural effects of employees’ proactive behavior: A process perspective [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(5): 792-811.
[6]	DONG Niannian, YIN Kui, XING Lu, SUN Xin, DONG Yanan. The effects of daily supervisor negative feedback on employee creativity [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(5): 831-843.
[7]	LI Xin, LIU Pei, LI Aimei, WANG Xiaotian, ZHANG Junwei. A multipath model of leader after-hours electronic communication expectations and employee job performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(8): 964-978.
[8]	CHENG Tong, CHENG Nanhua, WANG Meifang, WANG Zhengyan. Toddlers' anxiety predicts their creativity at the age of five: The chain mediation effects of general cognition and mastery motivation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(7): 799-812.
[9]	ZHANG Ying, DUAN Jinyun, WANG Fuxi, QU Jinzhao, PENG Xiongliang. “Attraction of the like”: How does coworkers’ proactive behavior stimulate employees’ motivation and job performance? [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(5): 516-528.
[10]	WANG Dan, WANG Dianhui, CHEN Wenfeng. The relationship between adolescents’ resilience and their malevolent creative behaviors [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(2): 154-167.
[11]	CHENG Rui, LU Kelong, HAO Ning. The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(8): 847-860.
[12]	KE Xiaoxiao, QI Huizi, LIANG Jiahui, JIN Xinyuan, GAO Jie, ZHANG Mingxia, WANG Yamin. Situational assessment method of the Chinese people’s holistic thinking characteristics and their application [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(12): 1299-1309.
[13]	LI Qiaoling, ZHAO Junzhe, QIAO Shiqi, GUO Tengfei, WANG Minghui, ZHAO Guoxiang. Mechanisms of different purposes of social media usage on employees’ job performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(11): 1260-1270.
[14]	ZHANG Jinghuan, FU Mengmeng, XIN Yuwen, CHEN Peipei, SHA Sha. The development of creativity in senior primary school students: Gender differences and the role of school support [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(9): 1057-1070.
[15]	HU Qiaoting,WANG Haijiang,LONG Lirong. Will newcomer job crafting bring positive outcomes? The role of leader-member exchange and traditionality [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(5): 659-668.