the role of mindset in leadership - lewis lau's thesis

Running head: THE ROLE OF MINDSET IN LEADERSHIP 1

Do Growth Mindsets Benefit Leaders? The Role of Mindset in Leadership Self-Efficacy

Lewis Y.F. Lau

Brock University

THE ROLE OF MINDSET IN LEADERSHIP 2

Abstract

Leadership self-efficacy (LSE), an established predictor of leadership performance, has been

linked in the literature to a variety of characteristics, including leadership experience, sex, and

personality traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness. Recently, studies have

demonstrated that individuals’ mindsets (growth or fixed) can predict levels of self-efficacy in

areas such as academics and business. It is unknown, however, whether mindsets regarding

leadership can predict LSE. Using survey data collected from a sample of first-year

undergraduate students, this study tested whether leadership mindset can predict LSE over and

above other well-established predictors. Confirming previous findings, leadership experience,

conscientiousness, and extraversion significantly predicted LSE in the current study. However,

there was no significant relationship between leadership mindset and LSE. These findings

highlight the need for further research that examining the role of mindset in leadership.


Do Growth Mindsets Benefit Leaders? The Role of Mindset in Leadership Self-Efficacy


Leadership is one of the most sought-after transferable skills among employers in the 21st

century, and the development of students’ leadership abilities has been an enduring priority in

higher education (Caza & Rosch, 2014; Dugan & Komives, 2007). Ironically, according to

employers, leadership is one of the most common skill deficiencies among university graduates

(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006). Clearly, further research examining leadership

development among university students is urgently needed.


Though pedagogical research has suggested that taking into account students’ beliefs

regarding leadership can enhance its development, few studies have directly examined these

beliefs (Caza & Rosch, 2014). According to Dweck (2006), it is especially important to examine

individuals’ beliefs regarding the antecedents and malleability of attributes such as leadership

(i.e., whether they are innate or developed through experience). Known as mindset or implicit

theories in the literature, recent studies have identified strong positive relationships between

these beliefs regarding characteristics such as academics, problem solving, and mathematical

ability, and various outcomes, including performance, perseverance, effort, and self-efficacy

(Chase, 2010; Dweck, 2006; Pirrone & Commodari, 2013; Todor, 2014). However, missing from

the growing body of literature on mindsets are studies that examine these beliefs regarding

leadership ability among undergraduate students. The current study aims to address this gap in

the literature by asking whether undergraduate students’ mindsets about leadership can predict

leadership self-efficacy, which has been directly linked to various indicators of leadership ability

(e.g., ratings of leadership potential; Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000). Furthermore, the present

study examines whether students’ mindsets can predict leadership self-efficacy over and above

established predictors, including personality, leadership experience, and sex. Findings from this

study will provide valuable information that have the potential to enhance and advance current

undergraduate leadership development initiatives.

The Importance of Leadership Self-Efficacy

Social-cognitive theory describes the concept of self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s abilities

to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet situational

demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Bandura and Locke (2003) suggest that individuals’

self-efficacy regulates their thinking, effort, motivation, perseverance, emotional well-being, and


decision-making. Ultimately, self-efficacy contributes significantly to performance, and research

has revealed strong positive relationships between self-efficacy and various spheres of

functioning, from athletics to academics (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, &

Harms, 2008; Wood & Bandura, 1989). For example, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) conducted a

meta-analysis of 114 studies that looked at the relationship between self-efficacy and work-

related performance, and found a significant average weighted correlation of .38.

In the field of leadership, the concept of leadership self-efficacy (LSE) describes a

specific form of self-efficacy associated with individuals’ confidence in their own knowledge,

abilities, and skills to effectively lead others, and can be differentiated from self-efficacy

associated with other social roles, such as teaching (i.e., teacher efficacy). LSE has only recently

become a focus of empirical research; nonetheless, there has been a growing body of literature

that suggests that it is directly linked to various measures of leadership ability (Hannah et al.,

2008).

In support of this idea, Chemers et al. (2000) conducted a two-part study to examine the

role of LSE in predicting leadership outcomes among cadets enrolled at several American

universities. In the first part of their study, the cadets’ military science professors rated their

leadership potential, and results indicated that cadets’ LSE significantly and positively predicted

their leadership potential ratings. Chan and Drasgow (2001) replicated these results, also

identifying a positive relationship between LSE and ratings of leadership potential. In the second

part of Chemers et al.’s study, LSE strongly predicted leadership effectiveness ratings from both

peers and superiors at a summer training camp, in addition to objective performance evaluations

in a leadership simulation task. Also examining the relationship between LSE and leadership

effectiveness, Anderson, Krajewski, Goffin, and Jackson (2008) used a multidimensional


measure of LSE (e.g., self-discipline LSE), and examined its relation to several different facets

of leadership effectiveness (e.g., relational leadership effectiveness). Their findings revealed that,

in general, LSE had significant positive relationships with raters’ judgments of participants’

effectiveness across different aspects of leadership.

A number of studies have also examined the relationship between LSE and leadership

effectiveness within a business context. In a study of LSE among managers, Robertson and

Sandri (1993) examined the relationship between self-reports of LSE from their sample of 89

managerial staff at a bank in the United Kingdom, and performance ratings from their

supervisors. Their results revealed a significant positive relationship between managers’ LSE and

their performance ratings. Luthans and Peterson (2002) further found that managers’ LSE

predicted leader effectiveness ratings from both peers and subordinates, and was positively

related to their employees’ cognitive and emotional engagement, suggesting that LSE may

influence more than just leaders’ abilities and performance.

In addition to employee engagement, LSE has also been associated with individuals’

motivation and attempts to take on leadership roles (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; McCormick et al.,

2002; Paglis & Green, 2002). When given the opportunity, those who are high in LSE are

significantly more likely to attempt to assume a leadership role than those who have low

leadership-self efficacy. Considering the active attempts to influence the actions of others as a

necessary task in the leadership process, these results further establish LSE as a critical factor in

effective leadership (McCormick et al., 2002).

In all, existing literature has clearly established self-efficacy as a key predictor of

individuals’ performance in various areas of functioning (e.g., athletics), and these results have

been extended to leadership. As Chemers et al. (2000) concludes, LSE may be “one of the most


active ingredients in successful leadership” (p. 276). Considering the direct links between LSE

and leadership performance, and potential difficulties with assessing leadership ability within a

sample of first-year university students (e.g., lack of experiences that will allow them to

accurately report their abilities), LSE was selected as the criterion variable of the present study.

Predictors of Leadership Self-Efficacy

Considering the established significance of self-efficacy in the realm of leadership, it

should be unsurprising that a number of researchers have chosen to examine the individual

characteristics that predict LSE. To date, credible empirical evidence has established three main

individual characteristics as key contributors to LSE: personality, experience, and sex.

Personality. Stable personality traits have been associated with LSE. More specifically,

while each of Costa and McCrae’s (1985) Big Five personality traits have been linked to LSE,

conscientiousness and extraversion have emerged as the strongest predictors among

undergraduates (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Hannah et al., 2008; Hendricks & Payne, 2007; Paglis,

2010; Wielkiewicz, Fischer, Stelzner, Overland, & Sinner, 2012). Using a more diverse sample,

Chan and Drasgow (2001) conducted a cross-cultural study that included military recruits and

junior college students (aged 16-19) from Singapore, as well as American undergraduate

students (aged 17-24). Extraversion had the strongest zero-order correlation with LSE among the

Singaporean samples, while conscientiousness emerged as the strongest LSE correlate in the

American sample.

To explain these relationships, Ng, Ang, and Chan (2008) suggest that the outgoing,

sociable, and assertive characteristics associated with extraverts are consistent with the

requirements of the leadership role (e.g., interacting, persuading, and motivating others).

Meanwhile, those with high conscientiousness, tend to be responsible, organized, and hard-


working, and are consequently more confident in their ability as leaders as a result of their will to

accomplish their goals (Ng et al., 2008).

Experience. Another key predictor of LSE that has emerged in the literature is the

number of leadership experiences that individuals have had. For example, McCormick et al.

(2002) found that previous leadership experiences were positively correlated with LSE. More

strikingly, in a large-scale national study examining leadership capacity in American college

students, Dugan and Komives (2007) found that pre-college leadership experiences accounted

for 13% of the variance in LSE among students from 52 different college campuses.

Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) cross-cultural study of Singaporean and American samples

also looked at past leadership experience (as assessed by self-report ratings) as a predictor of

LSE. Across all three samples, experience emerged as one of the strongest predictors of LSE.

Among the Singaporean sample, experience showed stronger positive zero-order correlations

with LSE than all of the Big Five personality traits. Finally, while the construct of LSE wasn’t

directly examined, Wielkiewicz et al. (2012) examined incoming first-year students’ self-ratings

of their own leadership ability, and found that it was predicted by the number of activities that

they were involved in throughout high school. Furthermore, their results suggested that having a

leadership role in a meaningful activity (e.g., being club president or team captain) was

positively related to students’ confidence in their leadership abilities.

Sex. Several studies have also established sex as a significant predictor of LSE. The first

of these is Dugan and Komives’ (2007) national study, which examined a sample of more than

60,000 American college students. Results revealed that sex was a significant predictor for LSE,

with men reporting significantly higher LSE than women. These results were replicated by

Wielkiewicz et al. (2012), who found that among incoming first-year students, males’ self-rated


leadership ability was higher than that of females. Even among McCormick et al.’s (2002)

sample of undergraduate students, who were generally equivalent in their age and education

levels, women tended to report significantly lower LSE than men. Finally, sex differences in

LSE have also been observed among physician-scientists conducting clinical research, as female

physician-scientists were found to have significantly lower self-efficacy for their leadership and

management abilities in research than their male counterparts (Bakken, Sheridan, & Carnes,

2003). In all, these results suggest that there are significant sex differences in LSE, with women

demonstrating significantly lower levels than men.

Taken together, these findings have established clear connections between LSE and

individual characteristics including personality, leadership experience and sex. More specifically,

significant and positive connections have been confirmed between LSE and levels of

extraversion and conscientiousness, and individuals’ number of leadership experiences. Finally,

sex has emerged as a reliable predictor across multiple studies, as males tended to higher levels

of LSE than women. These results may have practical applications in both the realms of leader

selection and leadership development. For example, Paglis (2010) recommends the use of Big

Five measures for organizations to assess and select leaders in light of research identifying

personality traits as predictors of LSE (and ultimately, leadership effectiveness). Furthermore,

results suggesting sex differences in LSE bring to light the need for leadership development

programs specifically targeting women. Nevertheless, research examining other individual

difference variables as predictors of LSE is needed, such as internal locus of control, emotional

intelligence, and mindset.

The Role of Leadership Mindset


A topic that has recently received increased attention in the social-cognitive literature is

the role of individuals’ general beliefs and attitudes regarding different characteristics (e.g.,

intelligence, personality) in predicting various performance outcomes (Dweck, 2006). In the field

of leadership, researchers have recently begun to examine the importance of these personal

beliefs in predicting leadership ability. For example, Caza and Rosch (2014) conducted an

exploratory study on the subject, which revealed that undergraduates’ preexisting beliefs

regarding the general characteristics of a leader predicted multiple leadership outcomes,

including LSE.

In a review of literature examining this issue, Chase (2010) connected the leadership

literature to Carol Dweck’s research on the theory of mindset. Coining the term leadership

mindset, Chase suggested that individuals can either have a fixed mindset, believing that

leadership is an innate quality and that people are born leaders, or a growth mindset, believing

that leadership abilities can be learned and acquired through experience. Individuals who have a

fixed mindset will tend to believe they either have what it takes to succeed as a leader, or they do

not. When faced with failure, Dweck (2006) argues that they will tend to give up. On the other

hand, those with growth mindsets believe that their leadership ability is malleable, and that they

can develop their leadership abilities with experience and effort. Failure does not threaten those

who have growth mindsets, as these experiences are seen a valuable learning experience (Chase,

2010; Dweck, 2006). Dweck’s research on mindsets, also called implicit theories in the

literature, has demonstrated that people’s views regarding the malleability of human attributes

can significantly affect the way they think, feel, behave, and react (Dweck, 2006; Dweck, Chiu,

& Hong, 1995). Compared to those with fixed mindsets, those with growth mindsets are more

likely to perform better (Chase, 2010), persist in the face of obstacles and put forth more effort


(Dweck et al., 1995; Jourden, Bandura, & Banfield, 1991), self-regulate their learning

(Ommundsen, 2003), and have higher self-efficacy (Kanfer, 1990).

A number of studies have examined the relationship between mindset and self-efficacy,

confirming the increased likelihood of those with growth mindsets to have higher self-efficacy.

In a sample of Romanian high school students, Todor (2014) concluded that those who have a

growth mindset regarding math-oriented intelligence (i.e., believing that intelligence can be

developed through effort) were more likely to have a strong self-efficacy regarding mathematics

(i.e., believing they can do well in mathematics). In their sample of Italian high school students,

Pirrone and Commodari (2013) similarly observed that those with a growth mindset regarding

intelligence and personality tended to have more confidence in their those attributes, and higher

self-efficacy in problem solving. In addition to high school students, these results have also been

observed in other samples, including school-aged children (Abdullah, 2008) and entrepreneurs

(Pollack, Burnette, and Hoyt, 2012).

To explain the relationship between growth mindsets and self-efficacy, McCormick

(1999) suggests that when individuals with growth mindsets are faced with mistakes or failures,

they tend to view them constructively, rather than a sign of their lack of ability; therefore, their

self-efficacy is sustained. Indeed, Pollack et al.’s (2012) experimental study confirms this

suggestion. When their sample of business owners were faced with threats to their

entrepreneurial success (e.g., poor business performance), those who had growth mindsets

reported greater self-efficacy than participants who had fixed mindsets. Indeed, Pollack et al.

suggest that believing in the malleability of personal attributes (in this case, entrepreneurship

ability) can serve as a buffer against the potentially damaging effects of failures on individuals’

self-efficacy.


Further evidence connecting self-efficacy with mindset can be found in studies that have

linked self-efficacy with goal-orientation (Hendricks and Payne, 2007; McCormick, 1999).

Dweck and Leggett (1988) describe two different goal orientations - performance and learning

goal orientations. Those with strong performance goal orientations are concerned with their

peers’ and superiors’ judgments, and engage in tasks to demonstrate their ability relative to

others, aspiring to achieve their goals to prove their superiority. Those with learning goal

orientations, on the other hand, aim to learn new material and master their performance on a task

strictly for the sake of learning and improvement, without being concerned with their

performance relative to others. Performance goal orientations have been linked to fixed mindsets,

while learning goal orientations have been linked to growth mindsets (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong,

1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Kanfer, 1990). In the realm of leadership, Hendricks and Payne

(2007) conducted a study of a large sample of undergraduate students examining learning goal

orientations as a predictor of LSE. Their results revealed significant positive relationships

between participants’ learning goal orientations and LSE, and confirmed McCormick’s (1999)

earlier findings. Considering the direct relationship between learning goal orientations and

growth mindsets, these results provide further evidence that individuals’ attitudes and beliefs are

closely related to their self-efficacy.

Despite the body of literature that has confirmed the positive relationship between growth

mindsets (along with other mindset-related constructs, such as goal orientation) and self-efficacy

in areas such as mathematics (e.g., Todor, 2014), academics (e.g., Abdullah, 2008), and

entrepreneurship (e.g., Pollack et al., 2012), few have examined the relationship between

leadership mindset and LSE. In an early study by Wood and Bandura (1989), an experimental

design was used to examine the role of mindset in predicting management and decision-making


ability and self-efficacy, an important aspect of leadership. Dividing their sample of graduate

business students into two experimental groups, Wood and Bandura led one group to believe that

management and decision-making was an innate ability (i.e., fixed mindset), and the other to

believe that it was an acquired ability (i.e., growth mindset). When placed in a scenario where

they were asked to make complex decisions regarding the placement, organization, and

motivation of employees, participants in the growth mindset condition showed higher decision-

making self-efficacy, in addition to better performance, and greater improvement over time.

More recently, Burnette, Pollack and Hoyt (2010) conducted a study examining the influence of

leadership mindset on their participants’ self-evaluations of ability after being faced with a

stressful situation that could threaten their self-image. While they found no significant

relationship between leadership mindset and LSE (potentially as a result of their small and

limited sample; N = 51 and all participants were female), their results suggest that the self-

evaluations of participants with growth mindsets were more resilient than those with fixed

mindsets, providing further evidence for McCormick’s (1999) explanation of the relationship

between self-efficacy and mindset.

In all, there is indirect evidence from existing research that connects leadership mindset

and LSE, and studies in other contexts that directly link mindset with self-efficacy. Nonetheless,

there have been no studies to date that have directly examined leadership mindset as a predictor

of LSE among undergraduate students.

The Present Study

Based on the previously reviewed studies, existing evidence suggests that LSE is a direct

predictor of leadership effectiveness (Anderson et al., 2000; Chemers et al., 2000; Luthans &

Peterson, 2002; Robertson and Sandri, 1993). Furthermore, it appears that personality,


experience, and sex are positive predictors of LSE (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; McCormick et al.,

2002; Wielkiewicz et al., 2012). Nonetheless, no study to date has been conducted to examine

the relationship between mindset, a construct that has recently gained prominence within the

social-cognitive literature, and LSE. The present study sought to address this limitation by

utilizing a correlational design to evaluate whether leadership mindset (i.e., growth, fixed) could

predict LSE. More specifically, the current study examined whether or not a growth mindset

could predict LSE, over and above established predictors including personality (i.e.,

conscientiousness, extraversion), experience in leadership roles, and sex. Based on the work of

researchers who have identified a positive relationship between mindset and self-efficacy in

domains such as mathematics (e.g., Todor, 2014), academics (Abdullah, 2008), and business

(Pollack et al., 2012), leadership mindset was expected to positively predict LSE. However,

considering the lack of research investigating whether mindset can predict self-efficacy over and

above established factors, no hypotheses were made regarding the present study’s second

research question.

Method

Participants

A total of 131 first-year Brock University undergraduate students enrolled in an

introductory psychology course (Mage = 18.9 years, SD = 2.72, range = 18-35) signed up to take

part in the study, advertised as “Leadership and Resilience.” The vast majority of the participants

(87.3%; a total of 117) were female, and all participants had completed five or fewer credits,


though only a minority (22.1%) were majoring in psychology. All participants were compensated

with either 1 hour of research participation credit, or a payment of $10.

Procedure

Participants signed up for the study through the Psychology Department’s Research Pool

website (SONA). Participation occurred in person in Brock University’s Workplace Skills Lab,

with an investigator present. Up to five participants took part at a time, and each used their own

secure computer. After providing consent and relevant demographic information, participants

completed a series of questionnaires using an online survey tool. Participation took up to one

hour of participants’ time.

Measures

Four of the five target variables (i.e., LSE, leadership mindsets, leadership experience,

and personality) were assessed in the current study using various psychometrically sound

measures from the literature. All variables were assessed using self-reports. Participants reported

their sex – the fifth target variable of the present study – in the demographics section of the

questionnaire.

Leadership self-efficacy (LSE). Participants’ LSE was assessed using Kane and Baltes’

(2008) measure, as cited by McCormick et al. (2002). The 8-item questionnaire asked

participants to self-report their level of confidence about performing the following leadership

tasks: (1) perform well as a leader across different group settings, (2) motivate group members,

(3) build group members’ confidence, (4) develop teamwork, (5) “take charge” when necessary,

(6) communicate effectively, (7) develop effective task strategies, and (8) assess the strengths


and weaknesses of the group. Participants provided their responses on a 10-point Likert scale,

with higher scores indicating greater confidence (1 = no confidence and 10 = 100% confident).

The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) across the 8 items was .87.

Leadership mindset. Participants’ leadership mindsets (growth; fixed) were assessed

using Dweck et al.’s (1995) 3-item measure, which included: (1) “You have a certain amount of

leadership ability and you can’t do much to change it, (2) “Your leadership ability is something

about you that you can’t change very much”, and (3) “You can learn new things, but you can’t

really change your basic leadership ability.” Respondents indicated their agreement with each

statement using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree), with higher

scores indicating a stronger growth mindset. The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) across

the 3 items was .84.

Leadership experiences. A single item was used to assess respondents’ leadership

experience item (specifically, participants reported on the number of times that they had acted as

a leader in various settings) on a 10-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating more

experience (1 = no leadership experiences and 10 = 10 or more leadership experiences).

Personality. Ten items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg,

1998) were selected to assess participants’ relevant personality traits. Five items assessed

conscientiousness (i.e., I am always prepared; I pay attention to details; I get my chores done

right away; I like order; I follow a schedule), and five items assessed extraversion (i.e., I am the

life of the party; I feel comfortable around people; I start conversations; I talk to a lot of different

people at parties; I don’t mind being the center of attention). Participants reported their level of

agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater

agreement (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s


alpha) was .71 for the IPIP subscale assessing conscientiousness, and .83 for the subscale

measuring extraversion.

Results

Prior to conducting a hierarchical regression to answer the main question of interest in

this study, an examination of correlations (see Table 1) revealed that all independent variables,

with the exception of leadership mindset and sex, were significantly correlated with LSE.

Mindset showed no significant correlations with any other variables assessed in the present

study.

The hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate whether participants’

leadership mindset scores could predict their LSE, after controlling for leadership experience,

extraversion, conscientiousness, and sex. In the first step of the hierarchical regression,

participants’ leadership experience, sex, and conscientiousness and extraversion scores were

entered. This model explained a significant 39% of the variance in LSE, F(4, 126) = 20.16, p

< .001 (see Table 2). Participants’ leadership mindset scores were entered in step two. The total

variance in LSE explained by the model after the entrance of leadership mindset was 39.1%, F(5,

125) = 16.07, p < .001. The introduction of leadership mindset explained an additional 0.1% of

the variance in scores assessing LSE, but this change in R2 was not statistically significant, FΔ

(1, 125) = .27, p = .64. In the final model, all predictors were statistically significant, p < .05,

with the exception of sex and leadership mindset. Participants’ leadership mindset scores did not

significantly predict their LSE, after controlling for other established predictors, as shown in

Table 2. Results suggest that leadership mindset does not make a unique and significant

contribution to predicting LSE, and our hypotheses were not supported.

Discussion

Tanya Martini, 04/20/16,

In general, I’m trying to steer you away from the use of “our study”, given that it’s your work. In addition, you should continue to use an acronym (LSE) once you have introduced it, rather than going back and forth b/w LSE and spelling out “leadership self-efficacy”.


Consistent with previous literature, three of the four variables that have been established

as predictors of LSE (leadership experience, extraversion, and conscientiousness) also emerged

as significant predictors in the present study. However, contrary to expectations, the results of

this study indicated that students’ mindsets regarding leadership did not predict their LSE.

Mindset, in fact, did not predict any of the variables that were assessed in this study. Each of

these findings will be discussed in turn.

Experience, Personality and Sex as Predictors of LSE

Though mindset was not a significant predictor of LSE, results of the present research

largely confirmed findings from previous studies that have examined other predictors of this

construct. For example, consistent with findings from a number of previous studies (e.g., Chan &

Drasgow, 2001), conscientiousness and extraversion emerged as significant positive predictors of

leadership self-efficacy. Our results confirmed Ng et al.’s (2008) suggestion that those with more

outgoing, sociable, responsible, and organized personalities are more likely to be confident in

their own leadership abilities. Furthermore, we found that leadership experience was also a

significant predictor of LSE, confirming the results from past studies that found positive

relationships between LSE and previous experiences in leadership roles (Chan & Drasgow,

2001; Dugan & Komives, 2007; McCormick et al., 2002; Wielkiewicz et al., 2012).

The nonsignificant relationship that was observed between sex and LSE in this study

differs from the findings of Dugan and Komives (2007), Bakken et al. (2003), McCormick et al.

(2002), and Wielkiewicz et al. (2012). The discrepancy in the results may be a result of the fact

that the majority of the participants in the present study were female (87.3%). Considering the

use of a relatively sex-balanced sample in prior studies, findings from the present research

regarding sex should be interpreted with caution.


Mindset as a Predictor of LSE

The present study’s main hypothesis – that leadership mindset would predict LSE over

and above established variables – was not supported by the results. The nonsignificant

correlation between LSE and mindset that was observed in this study may be partially explained

by the use of only three items to assess leadership mindset. This mindset measure was based on

one that was used by Dweck et al. (1995), who argued that only three items were necessary

because mindset is a construct with a simple, unitary theme, and rephrasing the same idea

repeatedly may lead to participants’ boredom or confusion. However, considering the complex

and multifaceted nature of leadership, more items may be necessary to fully capture participants’

mindsets regarding the different aspects of leadership (e.g., motivating group members,

developing teamwork). Furthermore, leadership is a concept with varying definitions, so the

inclusion of a clear definition of leadership in future measures may lead to responses that capture

participants’ leadership mindsets more accurately.

Our findings were inconsistent with results from past studies that found significant

relationships between mindset and self-efficacy in areas outside of leadership. Todor (2014)

found a significant correlation between mindsets regarding intelligence and self-efficacy in

mathematics, while Pirrone and Commodari (2013) found significant correlations between

mindsets regarding intelligence and personality, and self-efficacy in problem solving. Similarly,

Abdullah (2008) found that children’s mindsets regarding intelligence significantly predicted

their overall self-efficacy. Comparable to the present study, the first two investigations used

samples of just over 100 participants with a mean age of approximately 17-18 years, so

dissimilar results are unlikely to be a result of differences in the sample. However, unlike the

present study, all three of these studies used more than three items to measure participants’


mindsets. This supports the speculation that null results may have been obtained in this study due

to the lack of comprehensiveness in the mindset measure.

Two other studies that were reviewed used a comparable three-item measure based on

Dweck et al.’s (1995) work. Pollack et al. (2012) similarly adopted the three-item measure in

assessing entrepreneurship mindsets. While they found significant results when considering

mindset as a moderator in the relationship between threatening conditions and entrepreneurship

self-efficacy, they were unable to find a significant direct relationship between entrepreneurship

mindset and entrepreneurship self-efficacy. Similarly, Burnette et al. (2010) used the same three-

item measure of leadership mindset that was used in the current study. Interestingly, their results

also mirrored that of the present study – mindset was unable to significantly predict LSE, both

before and after a threatening scenario. The lack of significant results in Burnette et al.’s study

could also be attributed to limitations in their sample, as they used a restricted sample of 51

female undergraduates students in an introductory psychology class. However, the present study

used a larger sample of students of both sexes, and nonetheless found null results. Thus, it is

more likely that nonsignificant results are due to limitations in the measures than in the sample.

The null results that were obtained in the present study may also be an indication that a

more sophisticated model is needed to capture the relationship between mindset and leadership.

For example, it is possible that the relationship may be moderated by a third variable, such as

threats to self-efficacy (e.g., failure). This suggestion aligns with McCormick’s (1999) theory

that mindset serves as a buffer against the loss of self-efficacy after experiencing threatening

events, such as failure. Put another way, the relation between mindset and LSE may only be

significant after failure, and these conditions were not tested in the present study. Several studies

have confirmed the role of threats to self-efficacy as a potential moderator in the mindset - self-


efficacy relationship. Wood and Bandura’s (1989) classic study found that those with growth

mindsets showed greater self-efficacy in decision making in a scenario where they had to make

highly challenging decisions. Similarly, results in Pollack et al.’s (2012) study revealed that after

being exposed to various conditions that threatened their self-efficacy (e.g., poor business

performance), participants who had a growth mindset regarding entrepreneurship ability reported

greater self-efficacy. In the context of leadership, Burnette et al. (2010) found that growth

mindsets regarding leadership ability predicted greater overall self-esteem after a stereotype

threat (i.e., female participants being told that leadership is a primarily male characteristic).

However, mindset did not predict LSE, even after the threatening scenario, though their

nonsignificant results may be a result of their small and limited sample size. Despite Burnette et

al.’s contradictory findings, these results nonetheless collectively seem to suggest that mindset

may be a buffer against loss in self-efficacy after threatening situations. Therefore, the lack of

threat to participants’ self-efficacy may be a reason that a relationship between leadership

mindset and self-efficacy was not found in the present study.

Limitations and Future Directions

In addition to the previously discussed limitations of this study, several additional factors

need to be considered when interpreting our null results. First, despite the large sample that gave

this study sufficient statistical power, the sample strictly consisted of first-year university

students from a single undergraduate institution, the majority of whom were female. It is unclear

whether these results are representative of all North American undergraduate students; results

may differ if the sample was older, more sex-balanced, and drawn from multiple institutions.

Furthermore, unlike Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) cross-cultural study of Singaporean and


American students, this study provides no basis for generalizing the results to undergraduate

students in other cultural contexts.

Another significant limitation of the present study is its correlational design. While LSE

and mindset may not be directly related when examined using a correlational analysis, effects

may emerge when the relationship is tested using an experimental design. In support of this idea,

Pollack et al.’s (2012) two-part study found no significant direct relationships between mindset

and entrepreneurial self-efficacy when utilizing a correlational design; however, when an

experimental design was employed (participants’ mindsets were manipulated) they found that

those in the growth mindset condition had greater self-efficacy compared to participants in the

fixed mindset condition. Similarly, Wood and Bandura (1989) manipulated participants’

mindsets regarding decision making and found that growth mindset significantly buffered losses

in self-efficacy in a context of challenges and failures. Therefore, though a correlational design

may be insufficient in identifying a significant relationship between leadership mindset and self-

efficacy, studies using experimental designs may tell a different story.

The use of self-reports in this study should also be considered as a limitation when

interpreting the results of this study. LSE is a cognitive phenomenon that can fluctuate based on

context, and students’ self-reports of their levels of self-efficacy in a context where cognitive

demands and stress are minimal may not be an accurate assessment of their levels of self-

efficacy in an actual leadership context. Leadership mindset is also vulnerable to changes in

context and social situation, as the opinions and beliefs of individuals can differ based on the

perceived opinion of others. Thus, social desirability bias may also have influenced the results

that were obtained in this study.


To further investigate the role of mindset in leadership, future research will need to take

different approaches to theory and design. The use of a sample that is more representative, an

experimental design, and alternatives to self-reports (e.g., reports from observers, colleagues,

supervisors, etc.) may benefit future studies. Furthermore, our study highlights the importance of

comprehensive measures of mindset. As discussed earlier, previous studies that have used three-

item measures of mindset have also found insignificant results; thus, future studies in the field

should consider using a better elaborated measure of mindset. A more sophisticated model that

explains the relationship between leadership mindset and self-efficacy should also be explored.

In addition to considering contexts of threats to self-efficacy as a moderator between the

leadership mindset and LSE relationship, leadership mindset can also be examined as a

moderator variable between threats to self-efficacy and actual LSE. When examining mindset as

a moderator, Pollack et al. (2012) found that it significantly moderated the relationship between

threats to success and self-efficacy in the context of entrepreneurship. An examination of

whether Pollack et al.’s model will be also supported in the context of leadership will be

beneficial to the field. Finally, another possible direction for future studies is an examination of

whether mindset is related to actual leadership ability instead of self-efficacy.

Our results also support the possibility that mindset has no relation to self-efficacy in the

context of leadership. If future studies continue to find no effects of mindset in leadership,

perhaps the role of other cognitive variables, such as self-esteem, locus of control, or optimism,

should be explored instead. For example, self-esteem (a more global concept than self-efficacy)

significantly predicted LSE in Burnette et al.’s (2010) analysis, and further research can build on

these preliminary findings.

Conclusions


Our study contributes valuable insight to the new and emerging body of literature on both

mindset and self-efficacy in the context of leadership, in addition to confirming some of the

findings from past studies. These results may have practical implications for leadership

development among undergraduate students. As a result of the null results that were obtained in

the present study and Burnette et al.’s (2010) study (to our knowledge, the only other study that

examines mindset in the context of leadership), the incorporation of mindset into leadership

development should be delayed until further research is conducted. Nonetheless, confirming

previous findings, our results suggest that leadership experience, extraversion, and

conscientiousness significantly predicted LSE. Thus, providing undergraduate students with

more opportunities to engage in leadership roles, and contexts that cultivate extraversion and

conscientiousness, will significantly benefit students’ self-efficacy in leadership.

In summary, our results suggest that a model that directly links leadership mindset and

LSE may be insufficient, and that a more sophisticated one needs to be examined in future

studies. Additional research exploring models that include cognitive correlates (including

mindset) may assist undergraduate institutions in cultivating leadership, an important goal given

the importance of this skill in today’s workplace.

References

Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, Goffin, & Jackson. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and

its relation to effective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 595–608.

Bakken, L., Sheridan, J., & Carnes, M. (2003). Gender differences among physician-scientists in

self-assessed abilities to perform clinical research. Academic Medicine, 78(12), 1281–1286.


Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. The

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.

Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., & Hoyt, C. L. (2010). Individual differences in implicit theories of

leadership ability and self-efficacy: Predicting responses to stereotype threat. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 3(4), 46–56. http://doi.org/10.1002/jls.20138

Caza, A., & Rosch, D. M. (2014). An exploratory examination of students’ pre-existing beliefs

about leadership. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1586–1598.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801434

Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership:

Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481

Chase, M. A. (2010). Should coaches believe in innate ability? The importance of leadership

mindset. Quest, 62(3), 296–307.

Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership

effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–277.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory: Manual, form S and form

R. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students:

Findings from a national study. Retrieved from http://173.236.126.226/leadersh/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/mslreport-final.pdf

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House Publishing Group.


Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and

reactions: A world from 2 perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. The American

Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review

and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007

Hendricks, J. W., & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the big five: Leader goal orientation as a

predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20(4), 317–343.

Jourden, F. J., Bandura, A., & Banfield, J. T. (1991). The impact of conceptions of ability on self-

regulatory factors and motor skill acquisition. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,

13(3), 213–226.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation and individual differences in learning: An integration of

developmental, differential and cognitive perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences,

2, 221–239. http://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(90)90023-A

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy:

implications for managerial effectiveness and development. Journal of Management

Development, (5-6), 376.

McCormick, M. J. (1999). The influence of goal-orientation and sex-role identity on the

development of leadership self-efficacy during a training intervention. Texas A & M

University, College Station, TX.


McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & López-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory

to leadership: A review and empirical test. Retrieved from

http://www.journalofleadershiped.org/attachments/article/23/JOLE_1_2_McCormick_Tangu

ma_Lopez-Forment.pdf

Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated

mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733–743. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.733

Ommundsen, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in physical

education classes, 23(2), 141–157.

Paglis, L. L. (2010). Leadership self-efficacy: Research findings and practical applications.

Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 771–782.

Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for

leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (2), 215.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Are They Really Ready to Work? Employers’

Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century

U.S. Workforce. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?

id=ED519465

Pirrone, C., & Commodari, E. (2013). Implicit theories of intelligence and personality, self-

efficacy in problem solving, and the perception of skills and competences in high school

students in Sicily, Italy. Book Review, 39.

Pollack, J. M., Burnette, J. L., & Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Self-efficacy in the face of threats to

entrepreneurial success: Mind-sets matter. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 287–

294. http://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.674452


Robertson, I. T., & Sadri, G. (1993). Managerial self-efficacy and managerial performance.

British Journal of Management, 4(1), 37.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240.

Todor, I. (2014). Investigating “the old stereotype” about boys/girls and mathematics: Gender

differences in implicit theory of intelligence and mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. Procedia

- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 319–323. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.380

Wielkiewicz, R. M., Fischer, D. V., Stelzner, S. P., Overland, M. & Sinner, A. M. (2012).

Leadership attitudes and beliefs of incoming first-year college students: A multi-institutional

study of gender differences. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(2), 1–25.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms

and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407–

415. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407


Table 1

Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Sex, Leadership Experience, Leadership Self-Efficacy, Mindset, Extraversion and Conscientiousness

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Sex -.05 -.09 -.11 -.14 -.01

2. Experience .37*

.00 .27* .26*

3. LSE -.05 .51* .33*

4. Mindset .01 -.10

5. Extraversion .04

6. Conscientiousness

M 1.89 7.56 7.04 2.97 5.52 4.59

SD .31 2.61 1.37 1.31 .87 1.25

Note. For sex, 1 = male, 2 = female; Leadership Experience assessed on a 10-point scale, with higher scores indicating more experience; Leadership Self-Efficacy (LSE) assessed with 8 items on a 10-point scale with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy; Leadership Mindset assessed with 3 items on a 7-point scale, with lower scores indicating a stronger growth mindset; Extraversion and Conscientiousness assessed with 10 items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1998), with higher scores indicating greater extraversion and conscientiousness. * p < .01.


Table 2

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Leadership Self-Efficacy From Leadership Mindset

Predictor ΔR2 β

Step 1 .39***

Sex – .03

Conscientiousness .27***

Extraversion .45***

Leadership Experience .18*

Step 2 .00

Leadership Mindset – .03

Total R2 .39***

n 131

Note. Conscientiousness and extraversion was assessed using ten items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1998). Leadership mindset was assessed using a modified version of Dweck et al.’s (1995) three-item scale.

*p < .05. *** p < .001.

the role of mindset in leadership - lewis lau's thesis

Documents