The Concept of Mindset and Empirical Psychologists

A case study for the “Territory of Concepts” project

The above diagram uses the “Universal Reference” diagram, the “Kinds of Actors” framework, and a sub-framework of “Ecological Formism” to explore a thematic network around “Mindset” and build a Configurational Theory of “Mindset”.

This diagram goes beyond the original “Universal Reference” diagram and offers us a new creative space for discussing the Concept — Theory Transformation which is part of “the Territory of Concepts”.

In The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration (48 min read), I focused on Theoretical Psychologists and made a demo of theoretical integration by curating Carol S. Dweck’s version of Mindset theory and Peter Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset theory together.

A by-product of the article is the Mental Tuning framework. See the diagram below.

This article will continue the journey and focus on Empirical Psychologists and their mindset-related creations.

Contents

1. Empirical Psychologists and The “Hypothesis — Data” Gap

2. How Do Empirical Psychologists Think

2.1 Empirical Psychologists’ Points of Observation
2.2 A Metaphor of Perspectives
2.3 Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Perspectives
2.4 Example: Job Crafting (Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton, 2001)

3. How Do Empirical Psychologists Work

3.1 A Typology of Knowledge Frameworks
3.2 Example: The Model of Job Crafting and Six Examples
3.3 Example: Self-leadership and Job Crafting (Lui, Peng, and Wen, 2023)
3.4 Two Types of Academic Collaborations
3.5 The “Job Crafting” Knowledge Community

4. Is “Job Crafting” A Mindset?

4.1 The Mental Tuning Framework
4.2 Job Crafting as Mental Tuning
4.3 Formation and Activation of Job Crafting

1. Empirical Psychologists and The “Hypothesis — Data” Gap

In The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration (48 min read), I introduced the Kinds of Actors and defined four types of actors for psychological knowledge engagement.

The above diagram is based on a diagram called Universal Reference. The Vertical group refers to the Degrees of Abstraction of “Knowledge”.

Originally, I used it to discuss sociological knowledge creators. Now we can apply the same logic to discuss psychological knowledge creators.

• Theoretical Psychologists
• Empirical Psychologists
• Intervenors
• Actors

While Theoretical Psychologists and Empirical Psychologists are working on producing public knowledge, Intervenors and Actors are working on solving mental problems or optimizing subjective experience by using psychological knowledge.

These four types of knowledge creators have different perspectives and behavioral patterns because they have different construal levels, practical interests, points of observation, methodological preferences, and expressive conventions (or language habits).

In general, Theoretical Psychologists tend to think and work with the following perspective.

• Construal Levels: Meta-theory or the most abstract level
• Practical Interests: The progress of the discipline as a meaningful whole
• Points of Observation: The “Concept — Theory” Move
• Methodological Preferences: Concept Analysis and Formal Representation
• Expressive Conventions: Mathematical formulas or Conceptual frameworks

Empirical Psychologists move to a different position and they have a different perspective:

• Construal Levels: Specific-theory or abstract models/frameworks
• Practical Interests: Develop a particular innovation concept or framework for the discipline
• Points of Observation: The “Perspective — Framework” Move
• Methodological Preferences: methods for Empirical Research, such as laboratory experiments
• Expressive Conventions: Conceptual frameworks and data charts

Who are Empirical Psychologists? I use the term to refer to psychologists who use a particular method to research psychological themes. I don’t prefer the experimental method but embrace diverse methods.

On Oct 4, 2022, I developed a new visual language called HITED for the Design Wisdom project. Now we can use it to discuss Empirical Psychological Research.

The HITED framework is all about the “Hypothesis — Data” Gap which is a sub-issue of the THEORY — EXPERIENCE (PRACTICE) Gap.

There is a “THEORY” behind a HYPOTHESIS. Each THEORY can generate several HYPOTHESES.

DATA comes from real EXPERIENCE. Experience can generate DATA.

The core of the above diagram is “I” which refers to managers, designers, strategists, researchers, etc. For the present discussion, it refers to academic psychologists, clinical psychologists, behavioral psychologists, etc.

We have to notice that there are three types of “I”:

• Scholars/Scientists: they work on public knowledge creation.
• Professional Workers: clinical psychologists, behavioral psychologists, etc.
• Actors: Ordinary people

I’d like to mention that Professional Workers can be divided into two groups:

• Knowledge Makers
• Knowledge Users

While Knowledge Makers commit to both using knowledge for practical tasks and creating new knowledge for public purposes, Knowledge Users only think about using knowledge for internal activities.

For example, not all clinical psychologists belong to the category of “Knowledge Makers” because many clinical psychologists don’t work on empirical psychological research and make new knowledge for the field.

Different groups of people hold different attitudes to the Hypothesis — Data Issue. See the above diagram.

There are many academic papers about the Hypothesis — Dada Issue. My goal is to develop a new visual language for Professional Workers in order to encourage the discussion about the Hypothesis — Data Issue.

For example, the diagram represents the Hypothetico-deductive Model that considers both Hypothesis and Data. This model has different approaches too. The diagram only shows one approach.

The above diagram highlights two key ideas: Deduction and Validation. While a Hypothesis is generated by deductive reasoning from a pre-existing Theory, the Data is used to test the hypothesis.

You can find more details in Design Wisdom: The HITED Framework for Methodological Empathy.

2. How Do Empirical Psychologists Think

In The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration, I used the Knowledge Discovery Canvas to discuss Theoretical Psychologists’ Points of Observation. I will continue to use the canvas for the present discussion.

The Knowledge Discovery Canvas is divided into four areas: THEORY, PRACTICE, END, and MEANS. Let’s use the “Home — Away” terms as metaphors to describe Points of Observation.

We can assign these areas as Home for four types of creators.

• The THEORY Area: The Home of Theoretical Psychologists
• The PRACTICE Area: The Home of Actors
• The END Area: The Home of Empirical Psychologists
• The MEAN Area: The Home of Intervenors

For each type of creator, the other three types of creators’ Home means Away.

Each type of creator can do their homework in their Home, they can also visit other types of creators’ Home to run the thematic conversation for collaborative knowledge creation.

2.1 Empirical Psychologists’ Points of Observation

What do Empirical Psychologists’ Home look like? See the diagram below.

At the Construal Level, Empirical Psychologists work on specific theories or abstract models/frameworks, while Theoretical Psychologists work at the most abstract level of psychological science. While Empirical Psychologists are busy with the Hypothesis — Data Gap, Theoretical Psychologists think and work as Philosophers in the field of Psychological Science.

The primary Practical Interest of Empirical Psychologists is to develop a particular innovation concept or framework for the discipline. Each empirical psychologist focuses on a particular theme while considering the landscape of the field as context.

A critical aspect of Empirical Psychologists' work is the research method. Each empirical psychologist has to select his/her methods for designing empirical research projects. In the field of contemporary psychological science, laboratory experiments are a mainstream method for conducting scientific psychological research. However, Empirical Psychologists also use other methods such as Ecological Observation, Experience Sampling Method (ESM), etc.

Different methods also lead to different Expressive Conventions. In general, Empirical Psychologists tend to use Conceptual Frameworks and Data Charts to represent their final outcomes.

For the present discussion, we focus on the “Perspective — Framework” Move because it is a significant action of this Point of Observation.

2.2 A Metaphor of Perspectives

In the middle of 2016, I took the pictures below while I visited Children’s Museum Houston with my two sons.

That was an Aha moment for me. I realized two things: 1) Mind as Play. The museum is all about play, but these plays are cognitive activities for kids. Thus, we can understand the Mind as a process of Play. 2) Perspective is not Reality. The above picture shows two perspectives of one object. Though perspectives are not reality, we do rely on perspectives to know reality.

These two ideas inspired me to develop a metaphor for the mind and knowing. Later, the metaphor became my framework for cognition and the terminator of my learning journey in cognitive psychology.

The Mind as Play metaphor has three core elements:

• Objects of Knowing = Actors
• Perspectives = Stage Lights
• Domain = Stage

The second element of Mind as Play is Perspectives. The picture below shows three-stage lights which refer to three perspectives. Everyday life is complex, and a simple way to understand it is by adopting several perspectives to view it. Each perspective represents a unique point of view, a mental frame, a cultural significance, etc.

I made a distinction between spontaneous or naive perspectives and scientific or theoretical perspectives.

The former is common sense such as “teacher’s perspective/parent’s perspective”, “the inner perspective / the outer perspective”, “the process perspective / the outcome perspective”, etc.

The latter is adopted from academic theories, for example, the cognitivism perspective, the 4E perspective, the Affordance perspective, the Activity-theoretical perspective, the Autopoiesis perspective, etc.

For the present discussion, we focus on scientific or theoretical perspectives. For the Knowledge Discovery Canvas, I use “Approaches” and “Perspectives” for two blocks. What’s the difference between these two terms?

• I use “Approaches” to refer to Theoretical Approaches.
• I use “Perspectives” to refer to both Theoretical Perspectives and Practice Perspectives.

Theoretical approaches and Theoretical perspectives are the same things. Let’s see two examples.

The above two books show two examples of Perspectives, Objects of Knowing, and Domains. Both two creative works adopt the same perspective: the ecological approach to psychological study. However, they work on different Objects of Knowing and Domains.

The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (James J. Gibson, 1979)

• Perspective: The ecological approach
• Object of Knowing: Visual Perception
• Domain: Perceptual psychology

The Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development (Eleanor J. Gibson and Anne D. Pick, 2000)

• Perspective: The ecological approach
• Object of Knowing: Perceptual Learning and Development
• Domain: Child development psychology

Empirical Psychologists could work on developing brand-new theoretical approaches or theoretical perspectives. However, many Empirical Psychologists work on applying existing theoretical approaches or theoretical perspectives to some domains. During the process of application, they could develop Practical Perspectives from theoretical approaches.

2.3 Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Perspectives

Theoretical Perspectives could be high-lever philosophical theories or psychological approaches.

In 1942, Stephen C. Pepper pointed out that there are four root metaphors of world views or conceptual systems: formism, mechanism, contextualism, and organicism in World Hypotheses: a study of evidence. In 1987, Altman and Rogoff reviewed the world views of psychologists and suggested a similar typology: trait, interactional, organismic, and transactionalism.

Source: Michael Mascolo

According to Harry Heft (2012), the foundation of various ecological approaches to psychology is transactionalism, “Frameworks more sympathetic to ecological thinking had been simmering among psychology’s early writings, notably in William James’ radical empiricism and Kurt Lewin’s field theory, but became realized only in the 1960s through the works of James J. Gibson, Roger G. Barker, and others. These frameworks share many of the assumptions of the ecological sciences and, collectively, can be located within a transactional worldview.”

The major difference between the interactional worldview and the transactionalism worldview is their unit of analysis.

• Interactional worldview: The unit of analysis is the individual viewed as a bounded, independent entity, operating separately from the surrounding, while subject to influences from outside its boundaries.
• Transactionalism worldview: The unit of analysis is the person-environment dynamic system. The components of this system operate in a relational, interdependent manner, rather than as independent entities.

Now let’s see some examples of the ecological psychological approaches. According to Oishi and Graham (2010), “Within various areas of psychology, there have been several historical waves of ecological movements… ” The diagram below presents these waves.

In fact, ecological psychologist Roger G. Barker (1968/1989) once suggested that there is a need for an eco-behavioral science independent of psychology.

He said, “Ecological problems and methods of science can be differentiated with precision from experimental problems and methods…Ecological approaches to scientific problems are not incomplete or defective experimental approaches. On the contrary, they provide knowledge that the best experimentation cannot provide, because experimentation by arranging conditions according to the concerns of the experimenter destroys the very thing an ecological investigation seeks to determine. The importance to science of experimental methods is everywhere recognized, but it is perhaps less widely realized that the ecological side of science is also essential.” (p.356)

For Empirical Psychologists, Practical Perspectives are a bridge between theoretical approaches and the object of knowing in a particular domain.

2.4 Example: Job Crafting (Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton, 2001)

In the field of organizational studies, Job Design is a popular theme. The job design literature has historically been a central frame for understanding how individuals experience their jobs. Traditionally, Organizational researchers developed two mainstream perspectives on job design: individual determinants (Dubin, 1956; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Roberson, 1990) such as expectations or values, and External characteristics of the job itself (Griffin, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) such as work tasks or social interaction at work.

In 2001, Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton published a paper titled Craft A Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work and suggested a new perspective: a bottom-up job redesign perspective.

• Name: Job Crafting
• Domain: Organizational Studies
• Object of Knowing: Job Design
• Theoretical Perspectives: Social Constructionism
• Practical Perspective: Bottom-up Job Redesign

According to the authors, “In our perspective we draw on assumptions of social constructionism that ‘place particular stress on the individual’s psychological construction of the experiential world’ (Gergen, 1994:67). The Social context provides employees with the materials they use to build the experience of work (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Interactions with others help employees define and bound tasks by shaping impressions of what is and is not part of the job….”

Here we found a theoretical perspective behind their work: Social Constructionism. Inspired by the theoretical perspective, they developed a Practical Perspective on Job Design.

… However, job boundaries, the meaning of work, and work identities are not fully determined by formal job requirements. Individuals have latitude to define and enact the job, acting as ‘job crafters.’

We define job crafting as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work. Thus, job crafting is an action, and those who undertake it are job crafters.

Our perspective illuminates how, when, and why employees are likely to craft their jobs, and how crafting revises both employees’ work identities and work meanings.

The author also compared the Job Crafting perspective with other organizational perspectives. See the chart below.

A Practical Perspective could adopt several theoretical perspectives to support it. For example, the goal of Job Crafting aims to “illuminate how, when, and why employees are likely to craft their jobs…”, the authors adopted SDT (Self-determination theory, a theory of motivation) to explain the “Why” part. We will see more details in the next section.

3. How Do Empirical Psychologists Work

As mentioned above, we focus on the “Perspective — Framework” Move because it is a significant action of this Point of Observation.

Now let’s see the details of Knowledge Frameworks.

3.1 A Typology of Knowledge Frameworks

the Knowledge Discovery Canvas used four areas: THEORY, PRACTICE, MEANS, and END.

By using the MEANS—END spectrum, I identified six purposes for using and making Knowledge Frameworks.

• Explanation
• Research
• Intervention
• Exploration
• Reflection
• Remember

You can find more details in the original article.

There are three purposes for making public benefits on the END side:

• Explanation
• Research
• Intervention

Many knowledge frameworks are developed for the purpose of Explanation. They aim to offer a solution for understanding a particular topic or theme, not for designing a program and real actions.

Some frameworks are developed for Empirical Research. In order to support empirical research, creators tend to use operational concepts to develop frameworks. In this way, people can use these operational concepts to guide the data-collecting process.

Intervention is about designing a practical intervention program with a framework. Intervention programs could produce some outcomes for pubic knowledge building.

There are three purposes for making personal benefits on the MEANS side:

• Exploration
• Reflection
• Remember

Empirical Psychologists could use or make these three types of knowledge frameworks to develop their personal tacit knowledge. Exploration refers to the unknown which means a creative space. Reflection refers to reviewing a finished knowledge project. Remember refers to curating pieces of information into a meaningful whole for remembering.

3.2 Example: The Model of Job Crafting and Six Examples

As mentioned above, Empirical Psychologists tend to use knowledge frameworks and data charts as two types of formats to represent their outcomes. For example, the diagram below is a model of Job Crafting.

How did the author do Empirical Research?

They conducted six case studies and used them as data to support the above model.

#1 Hospital cleaners integrating themselves into care delivery system

• Source: Dutton, Debebe, & Wrzesniewski's (2000) personal interviews with twenty-eight members of a hospital cleaning staff

#2 Hairdressers cutting hair and crafting a more enjoyable job

• Source: Cohen and Sutton’s (1998) ethnographic study

#3 Engineers creating jobs to enable the success of projects and others

• Source: Fletcher’s (1998) research on the work of female design engineers

#4 Nurses creating a pocket of care around patients

• Source 1: Benner and her colleagues interviewed and observed nurses from a variety of units (1996)
• Source 2: Jacques observed nurses from a single unit to quantify acts of caring in their work (1993)

#5 Information technicians supporting the computer workplace

• Source: Star and Strauss (1999) analyzed technicians’ work in computer-supported cooperative work environments

#6 Restaurant kitchen employees creating cuisine

• Source: Fine’s ethnographic study of work in restaurant kitchens (1996)

The authors used a hybrid approach to deal with the Hypothesis — Data Gap. The source of the #1 case comes from the authors’ own research. The other five cases were curated from other researchers’ research.

3.3 Example: Self-leadership and Job Crafting (Lui, Peng, and Wen, 2023)

Empirical Psychologists work on different levels of abstraction. For example, some researchers can study a sub-theme of Job Crafting.

In 2023, Geng Liu, Huimin Peng, and Hao Wen published a paper titled How self-leadership promotes job crafting: Based on the perspective of self-determination theory.

According to self-determination theory, the present study develops a moderated mediation model to investigate how and when self-leadership promotes employees’ job crafting, emphasizing the mediating effect of autonomous motivation and the moderating effect of leader empowering behavior.

We analyze and test the hypotheses based on 269 valid three-wave data from employees.

The findings show that self-leadership has a significantly positive impact on job crafting, and a positive indirect effect on job crafting via autonomous motivation.

Furthermore, leader empowering behavior not only enhances the positive impact of self-leadership on autonomous motivation, but also positively moderates the mediating effect of autonomous motivation in the relationship between self-leadership and job crafting.

Practically, our study provides insights into how to promote job crafting. We also propose limitations and directions for future research.

The diagram below is their model for study. This is a typical knowledge framework for Research because it was designed to guide a study. See the signs: H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, and H6.

The authors used these signs to represent a set of hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: Self-leadership is positively related to job crafting.
• Hypothesis 2: Self-leadership is positively related to autonomous motivation.
• Hypothesis 3: Autonomous motivation is positively related to job crafting.
• Hypothesis 4: Autonomous motivation mediates the relationship between self-leadership and job crafting.
• Hypothesis 5: Leader empowering behavior moderates the relationship between self-leadership and autonomous motivation such that the relationship is stronger when leader empowering behavior is high.
• Hypothesis 6: Leader empowering behavior moderates the mediation effect of autonomous motivation on the relationship between self-leadership and job crafting, such that the mediation effect is stronger when leader empowering behavior is high.

The paper also shared details about samples and procedures:

To avoid the contextual constraints of industries and generalize the research findings, we collected data from ten Chinese enterprises, such as retailing and real estate. In order to reduce common method variance, we designed and implemented a three-wave data collection, 2 weeks apart. In all surveys, an instruction accompanying the questionnaire showed that the data would be used only for academic research, and the anonymity and confidentiality of responses were guaranteed. At Time 1, each employee was invited to answer his/her demographic variables, and evaluate self-leadership and leader empowering behavior. In this stage, 350 questionnaires were sent out and 326 employees participated in the survey. At Time 2, we invited employees who participated in the Time 1 survey wave to fill out an autonomous motivation scale after 2 weeks. In this stage, 326 questionnaires were sent out and 298 employees participated in the survey. After another 2 weeks, at Time 3, employees were invited to measure their job crafting. In this stage, 286 questionnaires were eventually returned.

The outcome of the study was represented with several data charts. The chart below shows the results of hierarchical regression analyses. The authors used the results to verify Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 1.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression analyses

To test the research hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analysis using SPSS 26 software. Table 3 showed the detailed results of hierarchical regression analysis. To start with, Model 2 revealed that after controlling for the effects of all control variables, self-leadership had a significantly positive effect on autonomous motivation (β = 0.346, p < 0.001), indicating that Hypothesis 2 was supported. Similarly, we introduced all control variables into Model 4 and then added self-leadership into Model 5. Model 5 showed that after controlling for the effects of all control variables, self-leadership had a significantly positive effect on job crafting (β = 0.315, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was verified.

You can find more details in the original paper.

3.4 Two Types of Academic Collaborations

In The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration, I have discussed Theoretical Psychologists’ work.

What are the differences between Theoretical Psychologists’ work and Empirical Psychologists’ work?

The above discussion points out a major difference: the objective and the object. While Theoretical Psychologists work on the Concept — Theory Transformation, Empirical Psychologists work on the Perspective — Framework transformation.

The primary action of the Concept — Theory Transformation relies on conceptual analysis without touching empirical data. A theoretical psychologist can work on a project with a litter sources and support. He or she only needs to read books and papers.

However, Empirical Psychologists have to select a method and design a research project for collecting data, then run the Hypothesis — Data verification cycle. An empirical psychologist needs more resources and support.

From the above two examples of the Job Crafting model, we can discover two types of academic collaborations.

• Internal Collaboration
• External Collaboration

Co-authoring research belongs to internal collaboration because authors join the same research project and work closely.

In 2001, Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton published a paper titled Crafting A Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work. Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton worked in Internal Collaboration because they worked on the same research project.

In 2023, Geng Liu, Huimin Peng, and Hao Wen published a paper titled How self-leadership promotes job crafting: Based on the perspective of self-determination theory. These three authors worked in Internal Collaboration too because they worked on the same research project.

If we see these two groups of researchers as two teams, we see an External Collaboration between two teams. They both contributed to the growth of Job Crafting Theory.

If we see the Job Crafting Theory as a knowledge theme, then we can use the ARCH model to discuss these two types of academic collaborations.

The above basic model of the ARCH framework defines five stages of Collaborative Project Engagement.

• External Collaboration: Think Together, Shared Theme
• Internal Collaboration: Work Together, Shared Object

You can find more details in ARCH: A Visual Language of Interpersonal Interactions and Collaborative Project Engagement.

If we see the Job Crafting Theory as a knowledge enterprise, then we can use the model below to understand two types of academic collaborations.

The model is inspired by Project-oriented Activity Theory. Each phase refers to a focus. The three-phase development is inspired by the following diagram which is one of a series of diagrams in the book.

I used the above diagram to explain the concept of “culture” from the perspective of Project-oriented Activity Theory. It zooms out to a large view that connects the Individual mind (Idea) and Collective theme (Zeitgeist) through Collective Projects (Concept).

For the present discussion, the Idea is “Bottom-up Job Redesign”, the Concept is “Job Crafting”, and the Zeitgeist is “the Job Crafting community”.

There is a gap between the phase of “Knowledge Center” and the phase of “Knowledge Community”. Now we can claim that External Collaboration is a critical mechanism to close the gap.

3.5 The “Job Crafting” Knowledge Community

The 2001 paper Crafting A Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work has been cited over 6000 times. The diagram below shows a network of academic papers around the concept of “Job Crafting”.

Source: connectedpapers.com

In 2008, Justin M. Berg, Jane E. Dutton, and Amy Wrzesniewski published a paper titled What is Job Crafting and Why Does It Matter? The authors summarized four different lines of research about job crafting from 2001 to 2008.

• The first theory summarized in the figure is from a seminal article by Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane Dutton that established the foundation for job crafting theory.
• The second model included in the figure is the product of empirical research on service employees by Adam Grant and his colleagues.
• The third piece is from a study of educators by Justin Berg, Adam Grant, and Victoria Johnson.
• The fourth contribution is from a doctoral dissertation by Brianna Barker Caza on how midwives cope with adversity at work.

This is a great example of Academic Collaboration.

4. Is “Job Crafting” A Mindset?

Now we are going to invite Theoretical Psychologists to visit the Empirical Psychologists’ Home, and return to the theme of “Mindset”.

In The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration, our Theoretical Psychologists made the Mental Tuning framework which was born from the process of curating Carol S. Dweck’s version of Mindset theory and Peter Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset theory together.

If our Theoretical Psychologists have a thematic conversation with the two teams of Empirical Psychologists about Job Crafting, they could discuss an interesting question:

Is Job Crafting a Mindset?

4.1 The Mental Tuning Framework

Let’s start with the Mental Tuning framework. See the diagram below.

The above diagram has three parts. The blue part refers to the Mindsets and Mental System. The green part refers to the Behavioral System. The pink part refers to the connection between the Mental System and the Behavioral System.

The difference between Dweck’s version of Mindset and Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset indicates a fundamental psychological view.

• Carol S. Dweck: Mindset = Belief = Content of Thoughts
• Peter Gollwitzer: Mindset = Cognitive procedures = Processes of Thoughts

Our framework will put these two views of Mindset together. In other words, these two views are the two aspects of the Mindsets which mean the Predictive Model of the Mental System.

On the other side, I use “Life Domains” and “Life Experiences” to represent the Behavioral System. Both Dweck’s version of Mindset and Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset emphasize the connection between Mindset and particular life domains. However, they didn’t use “Life Domains” as a theoretical concept.

I’d like to use the concept of “Life Domains” to emphasize the Objective aspect of the Behavioral System. For example, Gollwitzer’s four phases of action can be understood as a specific type of objective structure of life domains.

According to Peter Gollwitzer, “the course of action is understood to be a temporal, horizontal path starting with a person’s desires and ending with the evaluation of the achieved action outcome… It raises questions concerning how people choose action goals, plan and enact their execution, and evaluate their efforts.” (1990)

It’s clear that we can find other types of Objective Structures of life domains. Moreover, some specific life domains have their own Unique Structures.

The diversity of Life Domains requires a general theory of Mindset.

The concept of “Life Experiences” is used to emphasize the subjective aspect of the Behavioral System. This aspect is very important to understanding the Formation of Mindsets, especially the “content of thoughts” which refers to the “Belief” part of Mindsets. We have to notice that “Life Experiences” is also related to the Activation of Mindsets.

The middle part of the new framework is defined by a new term called “Mental Tuning” which is inspired by Gollwitzer’s term “Cognitive Tuning”.

As mentioned above, Gollwitzer went deeply with a series of sub-themes about the Mindset theory of Action Phases (MAP) in the 1990s. For example, the theme of “Cognitive Tuning” refers to the relationship between mindsets and information processes. The theme of “Biased Inferences” is about feasibility-related information and desirability-related information. He also noticed that deliberative and implemented mindsets differ in openness to information. However, the relationship between Mindset and Emotions was not clear in his 2012 paper.

In contrast, Dweck discussed the relationship between goals and affect in her 1988 paper.

Within a performance goal, experiencing failure or effort exertion warns of a low-ability judgment and thus poses a threat to self-esteem. Such a threat might first engender anxiety, and then, if the negative judgment appears increasingly likely, depressed affect and a sense of shame may set in…All of these emotions — anxiety, depressed affect, boredom, defiance — were apparent among the helpless subjects in the Diener and Dweck (1978, 1980) studies as failures accrued.

Within a learning goal, however, the occurrence of failure simply signals that the task will require more effort and ingenuity for mastery. This creates, for some, the opportunity for a more satisfying mastery experience, producing the heightened positive affect noted earlier.

…

In summary, because of their different meanings in the context of the two goals, events that produce negative or depressed affect within one goal may produce positive affect and heightened engagement within the other.

In order to cover the connection between emotions and mindsets, I used “Mental Tuning” to define an abstract concept which is the parent category of “Cognitive Tuning”.

In a general sense, “Mental Tuning” refers to active self-regulation strategic techniques that aim to improve particular psychological functions that are related to Life Domains. For example, MCII (Mental Contrasting and Implementation Intentions) is a particular technique.

I also list some psychological functions as examples:

• Attention
• Information Processing
• Thought Production
• Emotional Feeling
• Behavioral Performance

The above discussion describes a rough abstract general theoretical framework that can capture Dweck’s version of Mindset and Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset as its two concrete cases.

While we consider “Content of Thoughts” and “Processes of Thoughts” as two aspects of Mindsets, the above discussion also leads to an insight into the structure of Mindsets.

• Objective aspect: Life Domain Orientation
• Subjective aspect: Life Experience Principle
• Strategic aspect: Mental Tuning Techniques

Life Domains could differ by Categories, Structures, and other aspects. These differences require different Mindsets. We can use Life Domain Orientation to name this objective aspect of Mindsets. For example, Dweck’s version of Mindset is oriented by the domain of Intelligence (a category of Life Domain). Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset is oriented by action phases (a specific type of Structure of Life Domains).

For a particular Life Domain, a particular person could form his/her principles of mindset. These principles come from beliefs, knowledge, and experience. For example, Dweck’s version of Mindset — the Growth mindset and the Fixed mindset — can be seen as two types of Principles of mindset.

For a particular Life Experience Principle, a person could develop relevant strategic techniques in order to execute the “Mental Tuning” process. For example, Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset uses the MCII method as a strategic technique to improve a Mental Tuning process about the Implementation Mindset.

4.2 Job Crafting as Mental Tuning

It’s clear that we can use the Mental Tuning framework to understand the Job Crafting model.

Let’s start with the “Behavior System (Life)” part. The Job Crafting model describes a simple domain of life.

• Life Domains: Work (Job Design)
• Life Experiences: Meaning of Work + Work Identity

Work is an important life domain and work-related life experiences are associated with significant aspects of life, such as meaning, identity, achievements, social networks, material supply, etc.

According to Hai-Jiang Wang and Evangelia Demerouti, Job Crafting is important for satisfying psychological needs.

Work plays a significant role in almost everyone’s life. Individuals work not only for material benefits (e.g., money), but also for fulfilling psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Individuals can thus derive achievement, meaning, satisfaction, and identity out of work. Moreover, individuals are often not passive recipients of their work environment (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). When they feel that their psychological needs are not being met in their jobs, individuals will be motivated to initiate changes in their job tasks and characteristics, which is referred to as job crafting.

Source: A review of job-crafting research: The role of leader behaviors in cultivating successful job crafters (2016)

Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton emphasized two effects of job crafting: 1) creates alterations in the meaning of the work, and 2) revisions of work identity.

• Job crafting changes the meaning of the work by changing job tasks or relationships in ways that allow employees to reframe the purpose of the job and experience the work differently (Tausky, 1995). Psychological meaningfulness of work results when people feel worthwhile and valuable at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Thus, any actions that increase feelings of purpose are likely change the meaning of the work.
• Job crafting also has the potential to shape one’s work identity. Again, the reasons for shaping a work identity are basic. People attempt to create social communities that support desirable images of themselves (Schlenker, 1985). The people with whom one interacts on and off the job play a role in cocreating and sustaining the claims one makes about one’s work identity.

They also pointed out that the work meanings and identities employees forge by job crafting are not static, “Employees are likely to use these meanings and identities as feedback about their crafting activities, and they may be motivated to engage in additional job crafting to further shape the work meaning and work identity.”

In a general sense, “Mental Tuning” refers to active self-regulation strategic techniques that aim to improve particular psychological functions that are related to Life Domains.

For the present discussion, we focus on particular Job Crafting practices which can be seen as self-regulation strategic techniques.

The above diagrams combine ideas from two teams.

Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton discovered three types of forms of Job Crafting.

Self-leadership and Leader Empowering Behavior are discussed by the other team.

Finally, we are going to define the mindset corresponding to Job Crafting. Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton didn’t use the term “Job Crafting Mindset” in their paper. In order to avoid misunderstanding, I named it “Proactive Working Mindset”. I also named its opposite mindset “Reactive Working Mindset”. See the diagram below.

The Mental Tuning framework claims that the Mindset is the Predictive Model of Behavior System (Mental System).

• Life = Behavioral System = Natural System
• Self = Mental System = Formal System
• Mindset = Predictive Model

The Proactive Working Mindset could be used to predict a person’s Job Crafting practices. On the other hand, a person’s Job Crafting practices could be used to identify the person’s Proactive Working Mindset.

If a person doesn’t take Jobe Crafting practices, we assume that the person holds the Reactive Working Mindset.

The above diagram puts three parts together. It represents a new picture of the Job Crafting model.

Is Job Crafting a Mindset?

If we use the term “Job Crafting Mindset” to name “Proactive Working Mindset”, then the answer is “Yes”.

I’d like to claim that Job Crafting is Mental Tuning while the corresponding mindset is called “Proactive Working Mindset”.

4.3 Formation and Activation of Job Crafting

In the 2001 paper, Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton also considered Perceived Opportunities as an important aspect of Job Crafting.

Perceived Opportunities to craft a job refers to the sense of freedom or discretion employees have in what they do in their job and how they do it. Like other opportunity perceptions, opportunities to job craft are psychologically positive, since they imply autonomy to act…perceived opportunity for job crafting moderates the relationship between motivation to job craft and job crafting behaviors; perceived opportunities for job crafting can restrict or open op possibilities for employees to see paths are available in how they enact their jobs.

The Mental Tuning Framework considers Formation of Mindsets and Activation of Mindsets as two dynamic aspects of Behavior System (Mental System). In order to connect the Job Crafting model with the Mental Tuning framework, let’s use “Resourceful Perception” for the present discussion.

In the 2008 paper, Justin M. Berg, Jane E. Dutton, and Amy Wrzesniewski described the creative aspect of Job Crafting:

Fundamentally, job crafting is about resourcefulness. A job crafting perspective implies that the tasks and interpersonal relationships that make up a job are a flexible set of building blocks that can be reorganized, restructured, and reframed to construct a customized job. These building blocks expose employees to a variety of resources — people, technology, raw materials, etc. — that can be utilized when job crafting. The success of a job crafter may depend largely on his or her ability to take advantage of the resources at hand.

The authors also use “Treat cooking as an art” as an example. See the diagram below.

According to the authors, the aforementioned restaurant cooks could utilize food by making it their artistic medium, kitchen appliances by using them to create artwork, and customers by viewing them as beneficiaries of their artwork.

Resourceful Perception leads to perceived opportunities which activate the “Proactive Working Mindset” for Job Crafting.

The “Job Crafting” Knowledge Community also develops the Job Crafting Exercise to help people learn the skills and the mindsets about Job Crafting. This can be seen as the Formation of the “Proactive Working Mindset” for Job Crafting.