MANAGING THE LESS THAN OPTIMAL: THE MODERATING ROLE OF MANAGER GOAL ORIENTATION IN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EMPLOYEE MINDSET AND JOB PERFORMANCE
Research has established that employees with a more incremental mindset are more likely to be related to positive work outcomes than are those with a more entity mindset. However, although an incremental mindset is often ideal, entity mindset individuals and situational factors that run counter to the incremental mindset do exist and need to be managed effectively. Utilizing an experimental design with a sample of 170 and building on research on employee fit, this study looks at how the relationship between mindset and performance could be influenced by the fit with the manager’s goal orientation. Specifically, those with an entity mindset performed better when they appeared to fit better with their manager’s goal orientation than did those with an incremental mindset.
INTRODUCTION
A significant body of psychological research and more recent business research has demonstrated the benefit of having a more incremental or growth mindset. These researchers believe that individuals can change their attributes through effort. In contrast, some individuals have a more entity or fixed mindset and believe that human attributes cannot be changed or are fixed (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Erdley & Dweck, 1993; Han & Stieha, 2020). For example, research on these implicit person theories has found that, when in an achievement situation, individuals with more of an incremental mindset (i.e., those who think human attributes can be changed with effort) tend to be more concerned with learning new skills and gaining more knowledge (Henderson & Dweck, 1990). They are more likely to persevere when faced with challenges (Robins & Pals, 2002) and to invest time and effort when presented with opportunities to influence or change their situations (Hong et al., 1999). In contrast, in an achievement situation, individuals with more of an entity mindset (i.e., those who think you cannot change human attributes through effort) tend to focus on performing well compared to others rather than on learning and developing themselves (Henderson & Dweck, 1990). Because they view themselves as essentially unchangeable, they tend to respond to challenges with a helplessness pattern of behavior; they experience increased levels of self-doubt and disinterest, and they actively try to avoid similar challenges (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Overwhelming research has established the benefits of individuals having a more incremental mindset, often due to their persistence after failure and focus on learning. However, tasks are usually not completed in a vacuum but in strong situations with other influential factors. Although research has consistently found an incremental mindset to be a positive quality regarding many desirable outcomes, situational factors could alter this positive relationship. In this study, I focus on the situational factor of a manager’s goal orientation. Managers and the feedback they supply are often strong situational factors. The relationship between a person’s mindset and performance may depend on their fit with their manager’s goal orientation. Furthermore, although an incremental mindset is ideal in most situations, it is not held by everyone. A more robust understanding of how individuals with either mindset interact with factors that run counter to their mindset could lead to insights that help professionals.
I was motivated to conduct these studies for their potential theoretical and practical implications. First, they extend the theory on mindset by incorporating situational factors that may moderate the mindset-performance relationship. There may be situations where having more of an entity mindset may be preferable. Drawing on the literature regarding person-supervisor fit (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), I propose that a match between employees’ mindsets and managers’ performance goal orientations positively influences employee performance. Specifically, I examine whether employees with more of an entity mindset (i.e., less of an incremental mindset) perform better when their manager has a strong performance goal orientation. Second, these studies will likely broaden knowledge about goal orientation and the workplace. A growing body of literature has examined the influence of individuals’ goal orientations on their job performance (Payne et al., 2007). In this study, I examine how a manager’s goal orientation can act as a situational factor that influences his or her employees’ job performance. Finally, the results of our studies may have implications for performance management. In particular, the results may speak to whether managers may strategically alter their goal orientation, depending on their employees’ mindsets, to increase employee performance.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
The relationship between employees’ mindsets and performance may depend on the managers’ goal orientations, that is, managers’ tendencies to set different goals for themselves or others. Consistent with later refinements regarding the construct and definition of performance goals (VandeWalle, 1997), this study focuses on the moderating role of managers holding one of the two dimensions of performance goal orientation, namely, a performance-avoid goal orientation, on the relationship between employees’ mindsets and their job performance. Although both performance goal dimensions focus on judgments from a social referent, the performance-avoid goal orientation emphasizes a concern with achieving performance goals to avoid unfavorable judgments from others (VandeWalle, 1997). Specifically, I expect employees with more of an entity mindset (i.e., less of an incremental mindset) to perform better when their manager has a performance-avoid goal orientation. In contrast, I expect employees with more of an entity mindset to have worse performance when their manager has a learning goal orientation.
When their manager has a performance-avoid goal orientation, I expect a positive relationship between employees’ entity mindsets and performance. First, because a manager with a performance-avoid goal orientation is concerned with ensuring that employees validate their abilities compared to others and avoid doing poorly compared to others, employees with a more entity (i.e., less incremental) mindset will likely perceive both this working environment and the manager who helped foster it as an enabler to their drive to validate their perceived fixed level of ability, thus motivating their performance. Research suggests that employees perceive their manager and the work environment that the manager fosters as either facilitatory of their progress (called an enabler) or impeditive to their progress (called a barrier) (Klein et al., 2006; Lent et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 1992). I argue that employees’ dispositional mindsets help to determine whether they view managers and the conditions that the managers foster as enablers or barriers. This view is consistent with the demand-ability conceptualization of person-supervisor fit (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). More specifically, when their manager emphasizes performance-avoid goals, it seems likely that employees with more of an entity mindset will view themselves as having the ability to meet the demands that their manager has placed on them. The reasoning is that employees with more of an entity mindset may view their manager’s performance goals as an indication of their competence.
Furthermore, consistent with a needs-supplies conceptualization of fit (Kristof, 1996), these employees’ needs for validation would be satisfied by a manager with a performance-avoid goal orientation. This is because performance goals provide the opportunity to avoid negative judgments of their ability (Dweck et al., 1995). Dweck and colleagues (1995) suggested that performance goals enable entity theorists to reassure themselves of the adequacy of their beliefs about their fixed levels of ability. This drive to demonstrate ability will likely motivate entity theorists to perform better. Conversely, employees with a more incremental (i.e., less entity) mindset will likely perceive this working environment and the manager who helped to foster it as a barrier to their drive to cultivate their skills. In addition, they are less likely to view themselves as having the ability to meet these demands, and their needs to learn and improve will not be satisfied by their manager, thus leading to poorer performance.
In contrast, when their manager has a learning goal orientation, I expect a negative relationship between employees’ entity mindsets and performance. Managers with a learning goal orientation are likely to focus on developing the skills and capabilities of their employees. Furthermore, their increasing expectations for success will influence their drive for improvement. Therefore, managers with a learning goal orientation will foster a work environment that stresses developing and pursuing challenging opportunities. Employees with a more entity mindset are likely to have poorer performance when working with a manager with a learning goal orientation because they will likely view this environment as a barrier to their drive to validate their perceived fixed levels of ability and avoid negative judgments. In addition, consistent with a demand-ability conceptualization of fit, a manager’s demands to pursue challenging opportunities is likely to go unmet by an employee who believes that his or her ability is fixed, thus leading to poorer performance. Last, consistent with a needs-supplies conceptualization of fit, an emphasis on learning and development is unlikely to satisfy the needs of employees with entity mindsets who want to focus on activities in which they have established proficiency. Conversely, employees with a more incremental mindset will find this environment an enabler to their drive to cultivate their skills. Furthermore, these employees will feel that they can meet their manager’s demands of pursuing challenges to satisfy their needs to develop themselves, thus resulting in better performance.
For these reasons, I hypothesize that managers’ goal orientation moderates the relationship between employees’ entity mindsets and their job performance. That is, when their manager has a performance-avoid goal orientation, I expect that the relationship is positive (i.e., employees with more of an entity mindset will have better performance), and, when their manager has a learning goal orientation, I expect that the relationship is negative (i.e., employees with more of an entity mindset will have worse performance). This can be formally stated as follows.
Hypothesis: The manager’s goal orientation moderates the relationship between participants’ mindsets and task performance. Specifically, the relationship would be positive with performance-avoid goal orientation and negative with a learning goal orientation.
METHOD
Sample
I invited 259 undergraduate business students to participate in a study in exchange for extra course credit. Because the effect of individuals’ mindsets is most salient to situations involving failure (and because these participants may not have devoted adequate attention to the study), I eliminated 82 participants who were satisfied with their performance after the failure manipulation. I also eliminated seven participants who determined the purpose of the study. Of the remaining 170 participants, 51% were female, and 61% were Caucasian. The average age of the participants was 20.5 years. Last, the participants had an average of 2.5 years of work experience.
Procedure
After completing a consent form and hearing basic directions, participants responded to a short survey, including the mindset measure and filler items. I used the eight-item, domain-specific implicit theories of intelligence scale (Dweck, 1999) to measure participants’ mindsets. I used this measure instead of a domain-general measure because the task in this study is specific to the intelligence domain. Participants responded to each item using a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Because I was concerned with identifying conditions in which those with a more entity (i.e., less incremental) mindset have an advantage, I reverse-scored the four items reflecting an incremental mindset. I then averaged all eight items such that a higher score indicates a more entity mindset (α = .94).
Next, participants were asked to assume the employee role and were told that their manager would assign them tasks to complete. Because the effects of mindset are theorized to occur in response to failure, the participants’ first task was a “failure task”. In the failure task, the participants were asked to unscramble ten sets of letters into meaningful English words using all of the letters only once. I included 10 groups of letters from Feather (1966), including 4 of low difficulty (i.e., MIDEDL, VERBLA, INNERD, and SECNOD), 2 of average difficulty (i.e., ONERSP, and AFILYM), and four that were impossible to solve (i.e., ALSEGT, EMAGLE, FESLNI, and OPUSGN). To ensure that the task had its intended effect (partly because some participants made up solutions to the impossible scrambles), I asked participants to respond to a manipulation check item, namely, “How satisfied are you with your performance on this task?” using a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Only those 170 participants who indicated that they were dissatisfied with their performance (i.e., chose a 1 or a 2) were included in the analysis.
Next, the participants completed two rounds of a second related task. In this task, participants were asked to complete two rounds of a word creation exercise developed by Vance and Colella (1990). In each round, participants were given a set of seven letters (i.e., round 1: UONHMEY and round 2: KHAWLME) and were asked to list as many words as possible. The participants were given the following rules: (a) words must be from the English language, (b) words must be two or more letters long, (c) words cannot be proper nouns, and (d) letters presented in the list can only be used once in the same word.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the learning goal condition or the performance-avoid goal condition. Before each round, the participants read a message including the information intended to convey a goal orientation. For example, before round two of the task, the participants in the learning goal condition viewed the following message: “Do not worry about how your performance compared to others—just focus on improving your score each round. Learning is the most important thing. It is even more important than how you compare to others.” The participants in the performance-avoid goal condition viewed the following message:
Do not worry about anything else—just focus on creating as many words as you can each round, so you do not look bad compared to others. Not appearing incompetent is the most important thing. It is even more important than learning and improving your skills.
Last, the participants responded to a short survey that included manipulation checks and demographic items. The first manipulation check item was “According to the instructions I received after each round. It was more important for me to outperform others than it was for me to learn and develop my skills.” The second item was “According to the instructions I received after each round, it was more important for me to learn and develop my skills than it was for me to outperform others.” The participants responded to these items on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Results
Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for and correlations between all study variables. The participants’ entity mindsets were not significantly related to their task performance (r = -.06, n.s.). Furthermore, the participants’ task performance was not significantly related to the experimental condition (r = .09, n.s.; learning goal condition, M = 6.7; performance-avoid goal condition, M = 7.5). As expected, participants who performed well on the failure task had better performance on the main task (r = .42, p < .001).
I conducted a t test on our two manipulation check items to ensure that our manipulations were effective. I found that participants in the performance-avoid goal condition more strongly agreed that they should aim to outperform others (M = 3.43, SD = 1.23) than did the participants in the learning goal condition (M = 2.22, SD = 1.08; t168 = 6.85, p < .01). Conversely, the participants in the learning goal condition more strongly agreed that they should aim to learn and develop their skills (M = 4.15, SD = .80) than did the participants in the performance-avoid goal condition (M = 2.80, SD = 1.26; t168 = 8.36, p < .001).
To test my hypothesis, I used hierarchal regression. In the first step, I entered the control variable, namely, failure task performance, because I was interested in isolating the effects of participants’ motivations due to the condition. In the second step, I entered the participants’ mindsets and a dummy variable representing the experimental condition (learning goal condition = 1 and performance-avoid goal condition = 2). Last, in the third step, I entered the interaction term comprised of participants’ mindsets and experimental conditions.
I expected that goal orientation would moderate the relationship between participants’ mindsets and their task performance. Specifically, I proposed that the relationship would be positive with a performance-avoid goal orientation and negative with a learning goal orientation. As shown in Table 2 (step 3), the interaction term (participants’ mindset × goal condition) is significantly related to participants’ task performance (β = .88, p < .01). To explicate this interaction for participants’ task performance, I calculated the predicted values for task performance for the performance goal orientation condition and the learning goal orientation condition. As shown in Figure 1, participants’ mindsets are positively related to performance in the performance goal orientation condition (b = .82, p < .05) and negatively related to performance in the learning goal condition (b = -.85, p < .05), thus supporting my hypothesis.
Citation: Performance Improvement Journal 62, 6; 10.56811/PFI-23-0004
DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that the influence of participants’ mindsets on their task performance is contingent on the type of goals their manager emphasizes. Specifically, when presented with performance-avoid goals, participants with a more entity (i.e., less incremental) mindset had higher task performance than those with a more incremental (i.e., less entity) mindset. In contrast, when presented with learning goals, participants with a more entity mindset had lower task performance than did those with a more incremental mindset. These results highlight the importance of fit between participants and situational factors, such as the manager’s goal orientation.
Theoretical Implications
The results of this study have several theoretical implications. First, the findings provide further support and suggest refinements of Dweck and colleagues’ social-cognitive model of individual mindset (e.g., Dweck, 1986; 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). By examining the role of a manager’s performance goal orientation, I identified a condition under which employees with a more entity mindset have a relative advantage over employees with a more incremental mindset. Specifically, employees with a more entity mindset have higher performance when their manager emphasizes performance goals. Past research examining a direct relationship between individuals’ mindsets and goal orientations has yielded inconsistent findings (e.g., Tabernero & Wood, 1999; VandeWalle, 1997). The present study suggests that orientation is indirectly related to employee mindset, creating a perceived enabling condition or a perceived barrier to performance. Whereas research has shown that those with more entity mindsets respond to failure and setbacks with a pattern of helplessness and avoidance (e.g., Henderson & Dweck, 1990), it appears that a condition that emphasizes performance goals may alter this tendency. Thus, the results refine the social-cognitive model of mindset by suggesting that some conditions may be more or less motivating and performance-enhancing for individuals with different implicit theories (mindsets). In particular, the results highlight a condition that may help overcome the typically maladaptive response pattern to failure that is exhibited by those with an entity mindset.
Second, by examining the role of a manager’s performance goal orientation, I contribute to the person-supervisor fit literature (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002; Krishnan, 2002). Most research in this area has focused on surface-level characteristics, such as demographic characteristics, instead of deep-level characteristics, such as disposition (Glomb & Welsh, 2005; Harrison et al., 2002; Harrison et al., 1998). Therefore, this study contributes to the person-supervisor fit literature by examining two different but related deep-level characteristics: performance-avoid goal orientation and performance-prove goal orientation. Specifically, I identified managerial characteristics, namely, their performance goal orientations, which, combined with employees’ mindsets, appear to result in a fit (or a non-fit) between the employee and his or her manager, thus influencing the employees’ performance.
Practical Implications
The results suggest that organizations wishing to enhance the performance of employees based on their mindsets need to understand, first and foremost, that an entity mindset is not necessarily maladaptive. Like other traits (e.g., narcissism) that may initially be perceived negatively, there may be upsides and downsides to having an entity mindset (Dweck et al., 1995). Individuals with a more entity mindset may perform better with an appropriate manager. Specifically, strong performance goal orientation managers will be better suited to manage employees with a more entity mindset. In contrast, those with a weak performance goal orientation will be better suited to employees with a more incremental mindset (i.e., less entity mindset). This notion of ensuring fit may prove particularly important when hiring employees as well as when assigning employees to managers or other work roles (e.g., project teams). In short, despite a preference for malleability in employees for development purposes, this study supports the practical notion of not only getting the right people “on the bus” but also getting those people “in the right seats” (Collins, 2001).
Next, this study provides additional insights into factors that promote employee performance. Specifically, our findings suggest that employees perform better when there is alignment between their mindsets and their managers’ goal orientations. Therefore, organizations should consider how they might assess a fit between a manager’s orientation and an employee’s mindset as well as, more importantly, how they might manage potential misfits. For example, managers could emphasize performance goals when employees seem to have a more entity mindset and emphasize learning goals when an employee has a more incremental mindset. By strategically altering their goal orientation, managers could take steps toward maximizing their employees’ productivity and help foster quality relationships.
Conclusion
The results of the present studies indicate that employees’ mindsets interact with managers’ performance goal orientations to influence employees’ performance. This situation can lead to positive performance from those with an entity mindset. The ideal scenario is for all employees to have an incremental mindset; however, the world is less than ideal, and it is therefore essential to examine and learn how to manage these situations. I hope this research motivates others to examine other situations with less-than-ideal mindsets (i.e., entity mindsets) and the likely typical misfits that occur when different mindsets work together.
Employees’ Task Performance and Employees’ Mindsets for Learning Goal and Performance-avoid Goal Conditions
Contributor Notes
MATT ZINGONI is an Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Management and Marketing at the University of New Orleans, Kirschman Hall, Room 351, 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70148. Dr. Zingoni received his PhD from Syracuse University and holds an MBA from Bentley University and a BS in Investment Management from Duquesne University. Dr. Zingoni conducts research in the areas of performance management and employee development with a focus on employees’ persistence and resilience after failure. His research has been published in Basic and Applied Social Psychology, the International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processing, and the Cambridge University Press. Dr. Zingoni has presented research at various conferences, including those of the Academy of Management and the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Email: mzingoni@uno.edu
