Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The July/August 2007 issue of “Fast Company” contrasts two models of leadership: growth mind-set leadership versus fixed mind-set leadership. Drawing on work done by Carol Dweck, they define a fixed mind-set as people who believe that intelligence is static. These people are contrasted to those who have a growth mind-set who believe that intelligence can be developed like a muscle.
| Fixed Mind-Set | Growth Mind-Set |
| Avoid Challenges because failure points to your true abilities | Test yourself more despite the risks. |
| Threatened by negative feedback because it will prove that the critic is smarter than you | Accept criticism as you see the value in ultimately making you better |
| Exert less effort because you think you don’t need to try as hard to achieve the same results | Hard-work is a path to mastery |
While most people have a blend of both, we will tend to find ourselves in one camp more times than not, especially when we are pressurized situations. I find this contrast extremely helpful and appreciate Dweck’s work on the topic.
The authors of the article (Chip Heath and Dan Heath) contrast various leaders, including athletes to highlight the differences. They describe Tiger Woods as having a growth mind-set, pointing to his near religious and obsessive approach to making his game better (outside of competitive golf). They contrast Woods with Manny Ramirez of the Boston Red Sox, who may be a great hitter, but has a a “cavalier attitude” toward practice and training.
I also think of Biblical characters that highlight one of these two mind-sets. Saul, the first king of Israel, operated out of a fixed mind-set. He had little success as a leader and never allowed new contexts and learning experiences to define his leadership. He was more bent on executing his ideas rather than follow God’s ways. Contrast him to David, who had a soft heart to God’s call on his life. His experiences shaped his leadership and he allowed God to continue to develop him.
Part of my weekly reflections on leadership are a way for me to be more devoted to developing leadership as a muscle. I can point to several leadership moments where a fixed mind-set was my default rather than a growth mind-set. Reading about leadership, learning from leaders, and receiving feedback allow me to grow as a growth minded leader.
Perhaps West Point is the best example of the growth mind-set leader. The authors of the article, write that West Point develops leaders over the course of 4 years. West Point doesn’t just look for ‘natural-born leaders’, the military academy works hard to develop leadership in every one of its cadets.
Growth mind-set people put their time and energy into learning and training. They recognize the importance of weekly hours spent developing the muscle of leadership. Such time is well-spent for all of us who are in leadership positions.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
Thanks for this series of posts; they are helpful to consider. I like the differences articulated between the Growth Mind-Set and Fixed Mind-Set, but I wonder if the deck is somewhat stacked against the Fixed Mind-Set. There are times where it is important to take a more deliberate, conservative approach as you mention. But your point that we revert to one of the two options in pressure situations is really good and makes me wonder. I know I could be challenged more to embody the Growth Mind-Set. Having been in leadership positions in which we tried to move the group forward and still lost long-time members because of the change, I can say that the Growth Mind-Set is not a bed of roses. Both of these models have significant costs, though overall, I would argue that growth trumps stagnancy.
Also, I’m not sure I entirely agree with the West Point analogy. (Why am I being such a contrarian on your blog these days?) True, the military academies develop leaders in four years, but it’s not from scratch. The application process requires that candidates show leadership abilities and experience during their high school years. It is a difficult process just to get into the academies. Applicants have to acquire recommendations from their US Representative as well as have lots of extracurricular activities and a high GPA. They have to show a wide range of ability, determination, and self-motivation. My point is that the military academies develop existing leaders, not pull a high schooler off the streets and turn them into a leader. What is extremely commendable about the academies, as you point out, is that each student is expected to grow as a leader. How I wish we had that commitment to and high expectations for students in other colleges, universities, trade schools, and high schools.