A Growth and Fixed Mindset Exposition of the Value of Conceptual Clarity

Comments on an article by D. Scott DeRue et al. (see record 2012-21053-002). In reading their constructive review of the learning agility literature (DeRue et al.), the methodical deconstruction and reconstruction of the definition of learning agility struck me as a valuable process. In essence, learning agility is not defined as the motivation to learn or by performance success. Rather, learning agility is about how one learns from experience within the conceptual parameters of speed and flexibility. This conceptual clarity then provides a strong foundation to propose six cognitive and behavioral processes that underlie how one learns from experience. Despite my concerns about the proposed antecedents of learning agility, these concerns only reinforce my belief in the potential contributions of the authors’ article as it illustrates why conceptual clarity is so important. Specifically, the authors’ conceptual clarity and specification of the underlying cognitive and behavioral processes provide a strong platform for the purpose of this commentary: a proposal that Dweck’s (1999) implicit theory concept is a promising predictor of learning agility and engagement in the processes underlying learning agility. In summary, the focal article provides an excellent example of the vital, nitty-gritty research required to understand the essence of a construct, which is, in turn, a critical step for developing valid measures of the construct. This commentary sought to illustrate yet another powerful benefit of such research—that we also need conceptual clarity to effectively develop and test theoretical models of the substantive relationships of a construct such as learning agility

A Growth and Fixed Mindset Exposition of the Value of Conceptual Clarity

Comments on an article by D. Scott DeRue et al. (see record 2012-21053-002). In reading their constructive review of the learning agility literature (DeRue et al.), the methodical deconstruction and reconstruction of the definition of learning agility struck me as a valuable process. In essence, learning agility is not defined as the motivation to learn or by performance success. Rather, learning agility is about how one learns from experience within the conceptual parameters of speed and flexibility. This conceptual clarity then provides a strong foundation to propose six cognitive and behavioral processes that underlie how one learns from experience. Despite my concerns about the proposed antecedents of learning agility, these concerns only reinforce my belief in the potential contributions of the authors’ article as it illustrates why conceptual clarity is so important. Specifically, the authors’ conceptual clarity and specification of the underlying cognitive and behavioral processes provide a strong platform for the purpose of this commentary: a proposal that Dweck’s (1999) implicit theory concept is a promising predictor of learning agility and engagement in the processes underlying learning agility. In summary, the focal article provides an excellent example of the vital, nitty-gritty research required to understand the essence of a construct, which is, in turn, a critical step for developing valid measures of the construct. This commentary sought to illustrate yet another powerful benefit of such research—that we also need conceptual clarity to effectively develop and test theoretical models of the substantive relationships of a construct such as learning agility

Performance Appraisal Procedural Justice: The Role of Manager\u27s Implicit Person Theory

Although there is a vast literature on employee reactions to procedural injustice, little is known about the important issue of why some managers are less procedurally just than others. In this field study we found that a manager’s implicit person theory (IPT; i.e., extent of assumption that people can change) predicted employees’ perceptions of the procedural justice with which their last performance appraisal was conducted. These procedural justice perceptions in turn predicted employees’ organizational citizenship behavior, as partially mediated by their organizational commitment. This research provides an initial empirical basis for a new line of inquiry that extends existing IPT theory into the realm of perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral responses to people as a function of their IPT. Other contributions to the IPT, performance appraisal, and procedural justice literatures are discussed

Managers\u27 Implicit Assumptions About Personnel

Effective managers recognize both positive and negative changes in employee performance and take appropriate remedial action when required. Managers\u27 assumptions about the rigidity or malleability of personal attributes (e.g., ability and personality) affect their performance of these critical personnel management tasks. To the extent that managers assume that personal attributes are fixed traits that are largely stable over time, they tend to inadequately recognize actual changes in employee performance and are disinclined to coach employees regarding how to improve their performance. However, a growth-mindset intervention can lead managers to relinquish their fixed mindset and subsequently provide more accurate performance appraisals and helpful employee coaching. Implications for performance evaluation procedures and avenues for future research are outlined

Managers\u27 Implicit Assumptions About Personnel

Effective managers recognize both positive and negative changes in employee performance and take appropriate remedial action when required. Managers\u27 assumptions about the rigidity or malleability of personal attributes (e.g., ability and personality) affect their performance of these critical personnel management tasks. To the extent that managers assume that personal attributes are fixed traits that are largely stable over time, they tend to inadequately recognize actual changes in employee performance and are disinclined to coach employees regarding how to improve their performance. However, a growth-mindset intervention can lead managers to relinquish their fixed mindset and subsequently provide more accurate performance appraisals and helpful employee coaching. Implications for performance evaluation procedures and avenues for future research are outlined

Keen to Help? Managers\u27 Implicit Person Theories and Their Subsequent Employee Coaching

Although coaching can facilitate employee development and performance, the stark reality is that managers often differ substantially in their inclination to coach their subordinates. To address this issue, we draw from and build upon a body of social psychology research that finds that implicit person theories (IPTs) about the malleability of personal attributes (e.g., personality and ability) affect one\u27s willingness to help others. Specifically, individuals holding an entity theory that human attributes are innate and unalterable are disinclined to invest in helping others to develop and improve, relative to individuals who hold the incremental theory that personal attributes can be developed. Three studies examined how managers\u27 IPTs influence the extent of their employee coaching. First, a longitudinal field study found that managers\u27 IPTs predicted employee evaluations of their subsequent employee coaching. This finding was replicated in a second field study. Third, an experimental study found that using self-persuasion principles to induce incremental IPTs increased entity theorist managers\u27 willingness to coach a poor performing employee, as well as the quantity and quality of their performance improvement suggestions

The Effect of Implicit Person Theory on Performance Appraisals

Four studies examined whether implicit person theory (IPT) regarding the malleability of personal attributes (e.g., personality and ability) affects managers\u27 acknowledgment of change in employee behavior. The extent to which managers held an incremental IPT was positively related to their recognition of both good (Study 1) and poor (Study 2) performance, relative to the employee behavior they initially observed. Incremental theorists\u27 judgments were not anchored by their prior impressions (Study 3). In the 4th study, entity theorists who were randomly assigned to a self-persuasion training condition developed a significantly more incremental IPT. This change in IPT was maintained over a 6-week period and led to greater acknowledgment of an improvement in employee performance than was exhibited by entity theorists in the placebo control group