Understanding Growth Mindset
Growth vs Fixed Mindset, What Leaders Should Know (Part One)
I’ve talked about Carol Dweck’s research about the effects of praise on kids ever since Po Bronson and I wrote about it for New York magazine and then in our book, NurtureShock. But there is more to say on Dweck’s research on mindset, and its relevance for leaders, and there has been some exciting recent research worth discussing. So I thought I’d do that in this and the next issue.
Before I dive in though, if you’re enjoying Sherwood, please consider recommending it to your friends and colleagues. Substack has a new referral program, so as a thank you for sending people to Sherwood, Substack and I will give you a complimentary monthly subscription (the more referrals, the longer it is).
And thank you again for your support and reading Sherwood!
Growth/Fixed Mindsets (A Primer)
While the term “mindset” isn’t new (according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term’s been around since 1909), Stanford University professor Carol Dweck pioneered the research underlying the now famous construct of having a “growth mindset” or a “fixed mindset.”
According to Dweck, having a growth mindset means you believe you can improve over time. Those with a growth mindset constantly look for opportunities to learn so they can get better. They believe that increasing their effort will move them closer to their goal of improvement.
By contrast, someone with a fixed mindset believes that their talents and abilities are innate and set in stone. They’re as good as they’re going to be and won’t get significantly better. They reason that, if they have the prerequisite ability from the start, then they shouldn’t need to put in that extra effort. Thus exerting effort signals they’re a failure. They adopt performance goals—ways to demonstrate their abilities to themselves and others.
While people may be more predisposed to one or the other mindset, the reality is that many (most?) of us will have both mindsets—or varying degrees of them—depending on the situation and surrounding context.
For example, a child may think they can get better at English if they keep reading and writing, but, no matter what, they’re doomed when it comes to math.
While a corporate executive may have a growth mindset when it comes to their career, they could adopt a fixed mindset when it comes to dating, insisting their relationship success depends on instant attraction.
Mindsets don’t just apply to individuals’ views of themselves. A fixed mindset can be how people think of others, too (e.g., “people don’t change”).
And teams and organizations can have fixed/growth mindsets, too.
Quick Shots:
A study of 257 Australian schools found that principals with a growth mindset used budgeting to communicate their strategic goals, be innovative, and shape their schools’ culture. These principals were also more likely to engage in fundraising (to fill budgeting gaps), and they used more non-financial rewards for their teaching staff.
During workshops, 126 international participants were asked to adopt a fixed or growth mindset when considering the coming adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in their fields….
With a fixed mindset, participants discussed the worst possible outcomes. They were concerned they would lose their sense of purpose, social connections, and the ability to support their families.
In the growth mindset frame, the workshop participants were excited by the challenge posed by the new technology. They predicted that AI would handle the drudgery of their work, so they would be free to pursue their true purpose in life.
In a lab study, socially anxious people who believed that they had poor social standing learned more from negative social feedback than positive social feedback. But that only made them more anxious.
Mindset for Leaders
Just as with other cultural factors, when it comes to mindset, leaders set the tone.
People will be more attracted to go work at a firm that matches their mindset. And existing employees will adopt the company’s mindset over time—since acting on it will be the basis for the evaluations, promotions, financial rewards, etc.
In other words, context is key.
While there isn’t nearly as much research on organizational mindset as there is in other fields of inquiry, there have been some stunning studies of mindset at work.
During a 2020 study of Fortune 1000 firms, Elizabeth Canning and colleagues examined if companies having a fixed-mindset approach would predict employees’ attitudes and behaviors. (They measured companies’ fixed mindsets with measures asking if “This company seems to believe that employees have a certain amount of talent and they can’t really do much to change it,” and reviewed firm mission statements for comments such as “Our success has resulted directly from the talent of our people; we are interested in attracting . . . talented people.”)
Compared to those working at companies with more of a growth-mindset culture, both employees and their supervisors at fixed-mindset firms described their companies’ employees as lower in collaboration, innovation, and intellectual risk-taking. Employees at fixed-mindset firms were also lower in organizational commitment and organizational trust—the belief their companies would act with integrity and benevolence. And these companies’ employees engaged in more unethical behavior.
Given those results, leaders might want to revisit mission statements. And consider that “Talent Management” may not be the best description for personnel offices.
But beyond that, even as leaders want to promote a growth mindset, they should refrain from insisting that everyone at their company must immediately have one.
Dweck and others warn that we should not demonize people for having a fixed mindset. Don’t force people to pretend they always have a growth mindset.
Instead, the better approach is for leaders to understand why people (including leaders themselves) may have more of a fixed mindset. They should be asking what’s going on in the environment that is making a fixed mindset more likely (see box), so leaders can respond appropriately.
In Your Sight:
In 2014, when Satya Nadella took over as Microsoft CEO, Meta (then Facebook) was Glassdoor’s #1 best place to work. Microsoft was becoming an industry afterthought, tech-wise, and the company’s culture wasn’t doing anything to change that. A forced distribution system of employee ratings meant 10% of Microsoft’s staff was rated as “poor,” no matter what they did. The result was that everyone had to constantly prove they were the smartest in the room.
Having read Dweck’s book Mindset, Nadella ended the forced rating system and replaced it with a system of regular feedback. He instituted new culture teams and issued statements about how the company would change from “know-it-alls” to “learn-it-alls.”
Within a few years, Microsoft was once again an industry leader with stock at a historic high, and it had a Glassdoor employee approval rating of 99%.
In 2023, Microsoft is now ranked 13th in Glassdoor’s list of best places in the U.S. to work, while, at the struggling Meta, managers recently gave about 10% of its workforce subpar performance reviews, shortly before layoffs were announced. Meta is no longer in Glassdoor’s best places to work list.