Content uploaded by Peter A. Heslin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter A. Heslin on Jan 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Managers’ Implicit Assumptions
About Personnel
Peter A. Heslin and Don VandeWalle
Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University
ABSTRACT—Effective managers recognize both positive
and negative changes in employee performance and take
appropriate remedial action when required. Managers’
assumptions about the rigidity or malleability of personal
attributes (e.g., ability and personality) affect their per-
formance 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 re-
garding how to improve their performance. However, a
growth-mindset intervention can lead managers to relin-
quish their fixed mindset and subsequently provide more
accurate performance appraisals and helpful employee
coaching. Implications for performance evaluation pro-
cedures and avenues for future research are outlined.
KEYWORDS—implicit theories; assumptions; mindset; per-
formance appraisal; coaching
Imagine you have a colleague on your team who used to be a star
performer but over the last few years has consistently made
mistakes that let down the team and make it almost impossible
for you to work effectively. Nonetheless, your boss neglects to
notice any decline in this person’s performance. How would this
situation make you feel?
Organizational effectiveness requires that personnel be
managed, developed, and rewarded based on their actual per-
formance, rather than on managers’ flawed perceptions of
an employee’s performance. In reality, however, managers’ per-
ceptions and decisions about employees are often systematically
biased. Employees tend to receive significantly higher perfor-
mance appraisals and rewards if they were hired by their current
manager, illustrating managers apparently making personnel
decisions guided by adherence to their prior positive judg-
ments about an employee’s performance capability (Schoorman,
1988).
Following Latham and Heslin’s (2003) suggestion for organi-
zational psychologists to draw on well-developed theories from
other subdisciplines of psychology, this article outlines how
educational and social psychological research on implicit the-
ories (cf. Dweck, 1986, 1999) has paved the way for promising
new advances in understanding and addressing personnel
management issues such as those we have mentioned.
IMPLICIT THEORIES
Implicit theories are the assumptions that individuals hold about
the rigidity or malleability of personal attributes such as abili-
ties, intelligence, and personality (Dweck, 1986). A prototypical
entity implicit theory—recently also called a fixed mindset
(Dweck, 2006)—assumes that such personal attributes consti-
tute a largely stable entity that tends to not change much over
time. An entity implicit theory is illustrated by the traditional
notion that people have a given intelligence quotient (IQ) that
cannot really be developed. People who hold predominantly to
entity implicit theory, whom Dweck calls ‘‘entity theorists,’’ tend
to agree with survey items such as ‘‘As much as I hate to admit it,
you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. People can’t change their
deepest attributes’’ (Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998, p. 1431).
In contrast, an incremental implicit theory assumes that personal
attributes are relatively malleable, leading individuals to ex-
press agreement with statements such as ‘‘People can change
even their most basic qualities’’ (Levy et al., p. 1431). Proto-
typical ‘‘incremental theorists’’—also referred to as those with a
growth mindset (Dweck, 2006)—thus tend to believe that people
can change and develop their behavior over time, particularly
when they devote a concerted effort to learn and apply more
effective strategies for task performance.
The terms ‘‘entity theorist’’ and ‘‘incremental theorist’’ are
widely used in the literature for the sake of conveniently
denoting those who subscribe primarily to either an entity or an
incremental implicit theory. In reality, people tend to hold
Address correspondence to Peter A. Heslin, Management & Organi-
zations Department, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, TX 75275-0333; e-mail: heslin@cox.smu.edu.
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 17—Number 3 219Copyright r2008 Association for Psychological Science
implicit theories or mindsets that lie somewhere along the
continuum between the incremental and entity prototypes.
The research on implicit theories or mindsets being discussed
here should not be confused with two very different bodies of
research. These are (a) research on ‘‘implicit personality theory,’’
which pertains to people’s implicit assumptions about the types
of personality attributes (e.g., conscientiousness and friendli-
ness) that tend to co-occur, and (b) ‘‘implicit leadership theo-
ries,’’ which deal with the types of traits and behaviors (e.g.,
acting charismatically or authoritatively) that different people or
cultures assume define ‘‘leadership.’’
Implicit-theory research should also not be confused with the
issue of whether the fixed or growth mindset is more ‘‘correct.’’
While it is well known that there is substantial empirical evi-
dence that supports both fixed (Deary, Whiteman, & Starr,
2004) and growth mindset assumptions (Dweck, 2006) about
the stability of psychological attributes, the implicit-theories
research we discuss here focuses on a very different issue:
specifically, the implications of holding either a primarily fixed
or growth mindset for how one acts and interacts with other
people.
Whether managers hold predominantly fixed- or growth-ori-
ented assumptions about others significantly affects the accu-
racy of their performance appraisals, as well as their engagement
in employee coaching.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
An extensive program of research by Carol Dweck and her col-
leagues (cf. Dweck, 1999) established that entity theorists’
implicit assumption that personal attributes are largely stable
leads them to quickly form strong impressions of others that they
resist revising, even in light of contradictory information.
Holding an incremental implicit theory, however, makes indi-
viduals likely to view others’ behavior as the product of mal-
leable personal characteristics such as their effort and strategies
(Heyman & Dweck, 1998). Individuals holding an incremental
implicit theory also pay more attention than entity theorists to
information that is inconsistent with their expectations (Plaks,
Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001). A noteworthy charac-
teristic of these studies is that they were conducted with either
children or students performing tasks unrelated to their role as
students.
To examine whether managers’ implicit theories affect their
judgments of employees, we (Heslin, Latham, & VandeWalle,
2005) assessed nuclear power plant managers’ implicit theories
before having them observe and evaluate a hypothetical em-
ployee’s video-recorded ‘‘poor’’ negotiation performance. The
managers then observed and evaluated the same employee ex-
hibiting ‘‘good’’ negotiation performance in similar situations.
As predicted, the extent to which the managers held a growth
mindset positively predicted their accurate recognition of
improvement in the employee’s performance.
1
In other words,
managers with a fixed mindset did not fully acknowledge the
extent to which the employee’s performance had improved (see
Fig. 1).
This finding established that the results from Dweck and
colleagues’ student-based research generalize to managers
performing a task relevant to their managerial role. The outcome
of this study also raised the fundamental issue of whether the
results reflected (a) managers with a growth mindset providing
higher subsequent performance evaluations in accordance with
their optimism about people’s growth potential, or (b) a fixed
mindset leading to evaluations affected by managers’ rigidly
held initial impressions.
We (Heslin et al., 2005) explored these competing alternatives
with a second study in which a different sample of nuclear power
plant managers evaluated first the employee’s good negotiation
performance and then his poor negotiation performance. The
result—that managers’ degree of growth mindset predicted their
recognition of decline in employee performance—established
that a growth mindset seems to make managers more data-driven
in response to performance change, rather than being either (a)
unduly optimistic about an employee’s performance trajectory,
or (b) as apparently biased by their initial impressions as the
managers with a more fixed mindset. This study, however, raised
yet another interesting issue. Specifically, do the results of this
second study reflect an anchoring effect, whereby a fixed mindset
leads managers’ judgments to be anchored by their initial im-
pressions of the employee’s performance, leading them to under-
adjust their subsequent evaluations of changed performance?
Or alternatively, could the results of this second study reflect a
consistency effect, whereby managers with a growth mindset ex-
aggerate observed behavioral changes in order to provide ratings
2.12
3.68
2.07
4.12
1
2
3
4
5
Performance Rating
Fixed Mindset
Growth Mindset
Poor Performance
(
Time 1
)
Good Performance
(
Time 2
)
Fig. 1. Managers’ performance ratings of poor and then good employee
performance as a function of their fixed- or growth-oriented mindset.
1
As compared to the ‘‘true’’score rating of good performance (M54.06), which
was determined by Borman’s (1978) protocol of subject matter experts viewing
the performance twice, taking notes, and discussing their observations before
recording their ratings.
220 Volume 17—Number 3
Managers’ Implicit Assumptions
that are consistent with their espoused belief that people can
change?
In a third experimental study, we (Heslin et al., 2005) inves-
tigated these alternative explanations using a longitudinal de-
sign, in order to minimize the possibility that participants would
perceive a connection between completing the implicit-theory
survey and subsequently evaluating employee performance. Six
weeks after we assessed all participants’ implicit theories, those
participants randomly assigned to the treatment group read
negative background information about the employee, while
those in the control condition did not receive this information.
All participants then observed and evaluated the employee’s
‘‘good’’ negotiation performance. Contrary to the potential con-
sistency effect, participants with a growth mindset did not pro-
vide higher ratings of good performance if they had previously
been given the negative background information about the
employee’s prior performance. In contrast, those with a fixed
mindset provided lower ratings of good performance if they had
received the negative background information about the
employee’s prior performance. This finding supports the an-
choring explanation for the role of managers’ implicit theories in
their recognition of change in employee performance.
Together, these three studies suggest that holding a fixed
mindset makes managers disinclined to adequately alter either
a positive or a negative initial impression of an employee’s
performance. The practical significance of this finding is un-
derscored by the fact that employees could become resentful,
unmotivated, and inclined to leave an organization in which
improvements in their initially subpar performance are not ap-
preciated. Recall the thought exercise that opened this paper,
about how you would feel if your boss neglected your colleague’s
chronic performance deterioration. Perhaps even more impor-
tantly, an unnoticed decline in the performance of personnel
such as airline pilots, nuclear power plant operators, paramed-
ics, surgeons, or security guards could seriously compromise
organizational effectiveness and human safety. Performance
declines clearly need to be recognized so that appropriate re-
medial action (e.g., on-the-job coaching, job redesign, or dis-
ciplinary action) can be undertaken. Next, we address how
managers’ inclination to coach employees also stems from their
mindset.
EMPLOYEE COACHING
Dweck, Chiu, and Hong (1995) theorized that adopting the entity
assumption that human attributes are unalterable could make
individuals disinclined to invest in helping others to develop and
improve, relative to those who hold the incremental assumption
that people can change. After all, why bother investing in other
people’s performance improvement if you hold the fixed mindset
that substantial behavioral change is unlikely to occur?
Consistent with this reasoning, laboratory studies have re-
vealed that, compared to those with a fixed mindset, people with
a growth mindset are more likely to educate rather than punish a
‘‘wrongdoer’’ (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997); provide helpful
learning suggestions to a struggling fellow student (Heyman &
Dweck, 1998); and express interest in helping other less well-off
children by collecting money for a UNICEF event (Karafantis &
Levy, 2004). In two longitudinal field studies, using different
methodologies, we (Heslin, VandeWalle, & Latham, 2006) ex-
plored whether these findings generalize to the workplace. In
both studies, managers’ incrementalism predicted employee
evaluations of the extent to which managers had coached their
employees.
The evidence that a fixed mindset impedes managers’ ac-
knowledgment of employee behavioral change and their
engagement in employee coaching raises a theoretically and
practically important question. Specifically, can managers with a
fixed mindset be trained to adopt a sustained growth mindset that
increases their proclivity to recognize employee performance
change and to coach employees when required?
CHANGING IMPLICIT THEORIES
Implicit theories tend to be relatively stable over time (Robins &
Pals, 2002), although they can be experimentally manipulated
(Dweck, 1999; Wood & Bandura, 1989). However, a fixed
mindset is more readily cultivated than a growth mindset (Ta-
bernero & Wood, 1999). We (Heslin et al., 2005) investigated
whether managers with a fixed mindset could be trained to adopt
a growth mindset that lasts beyond the duration of an experi-
mental session. To do so, we developed an incremental inter-
vention—based on principles of self-persuasion (Aronson,
1999)—that exposed those with a distinct fixed mindset to the
following five components:
Scientific testimony regarding the validity of incremental
assumptions, using both a customized ‘‘scientific’’ report and
an incremental-mindset induction video that illustrated how
the brain is capable of ‘‘growing like a muscle’’ throughout
life.
Counter-attitudinal idea generation, which involved having
participants generate responses to the question, ‘‘As a
manager, what are at least three reasons why it is importan t to
realize that people can develop their abilities? Include im-
plications for both yourself and for the employees you
manage.’’
Counter-attitudinal reflection, in which participants an-
swered three 2-part reflection questions about when and how
they, and people they know, have changed and developed
their abilities and personality over time.
Counter-attitudinal advocacy, in which participants wrote an
e-mail of advice to their hypothetical prote
´ge
´, ‘‘Pat,’’ out-
lining evidence that abilities can be developed, together
with anecdotes about how they have personally overcome
professional development challenges.
Volume 17—Number 3 221
Peter A. Heslin and Don VandeWalle
Cognitive dissonance, induced by asking participants to
identify (a) three instances when they had observed some-
body learn to do something they thought this person could
never do, (b) why they think this occurred, and (c) what could
have been the implications of their doubt about this person’s
potential; to reinforce the incremental message, participants
then read aloud and discussed their advocacy ‘‘e-mails’’ and
responses to the cognitive dissonance questions in groups of
three.
Six weeks later, the fixed-mindset managers who received the
intervention exhibited a relatively enduring increase in their
incrementalism; they also (a) provided the employee with a
higher quantity and quality of suggestions for improving his
performance (Heslin et al., 2006) and (b) exhibited greater ac-
knowledgment of improvement in the employee’s performance
than fixed-mindset managers in the placebo condition (Heslin
et al., 2005). Indeed, 6 weeks after receiving the incremental
intervention, managers who had held a fixed mindset provided
appraisal ratings and coaching suggestions that were similar to
those of managers with a chronic growth mindset.
IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS
To enhance workforce productivity, cues for managers to adopt a
growth mindset could be built into performance evaluation
systems. These cues might include written, verbal, and video-
based reminders to managers who conduct performance ap-
praisals that all employee skills tend to be developed over time
with practice and helpful feedback. Managers could also be held
accountable for employee coaching and for their responsiveness
to actual employee performance change.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Many interesting questions regarding how managers’ assump-
tions affect their personnel management remain to be answered.
Can the results of the growth-mindset intervention just de-
scribed be replicated within an organizational setting, when
employee perceptions of managers’ coaching and appraisal
fairness are assessed as a function of the induced incremental-
ism of managers who held a fixed mindset? What elements of
organizational leadership and climate affect how long induced
incrementalism endures? Are managers with a growth mindset
perceived as more procedurally just, by virtue of providing more
accurate appraisals and employee coaching? How do such po-
tential employee perceptions affect their subsequent attitudes
and behaviors, such as organizational commitment and citi-
zenship behaviors—that is, willingness to ‘‘go the extra mile,’’
beyond their formal job requirements, to help achieve organi-
zational objectives?
Students’ fixed mindsets predict their formation of and ad-
herence to stereotypes about other people (Levy et al., 1998).
Research is needed on whether this finding generalizes to the
workplace, thereby affecting organizational processes such as
the development of effective working relationships within het-
erogeneous teams and first-impression biases within selection
interviews. Empirical support for these speculations would
suggest additional ways that growth-mindset training could fa-
cilitate effective personnel management. Finally, research could
usefully explore potential downsides of an extreme growth
mindset, such as continued fervent investment by managers in
developing poor-performing employees who show virtually no
discernible performance improvement over time.
Recommended Reading
Dweck, C.S. (1999). (See References). Provides a comprehensive
summary of research regarding the role of implicit theories in self-
regulation (e.g., goal setting and reactions to setbacks), as well as
how implicit theories affect interpersonal judgments and inter-
actions with other people, as addressed in the present article.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). (See References). Offers highly accessible ideas
for understanding and applying insights about the mindsets to life
domains including sports, business, intimate relationships, and
parenting, as well as additional methods for cultivating a growth
mindset.
Heslin, P.A., Latham, G.P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). (See References).
Offers further details about the nature and rationale for the five-
component incremental/growth mindset intervention described in
this article.
Heslin, P.A., VandeWalle, D., & Latham, G.P. (2006). (See References).
Outlines the rationale and results of three studies that provide
evidence that managers’ incrementalism positively predicts the
quantity and quality of their employee coaching.
REFERENCES
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psycholo-
gist,54, 873–890.
Borman, W.C. (1978). Exploring upper limits of reliability and validity
in job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,63,
135–144.
Chiu, C., Dweck, C.S., Tong, J.Y., & Fu, J.H. (1997). Implicit theories
and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,73, 923–940.
Deary, I.J., Whiteman, M.C., & Starr, J.M. (2004). The impact of
childhood intelligence on later life: Following up the Scottish
mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,86, 130–147.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Ameri-
can Psychologist,41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality,
and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York:
Random House.
Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y.Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their
role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives.
Psychological Inquiry,6, 267–285.
222 Volume 17—Number 3
Managers’ Implicit Assumptions
Heslin, P.A., Latham, G.P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of
implicit person theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology,90, 842–856.
Heslin, P.A., VandeWalle, D., & Latham, G.P. (2006). Keen to help?
Managers’ IPTs and their subsequent employee coaching. Per-
sonnel Psychology,59, 871–902.
Heyman, G.D., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Children’s thinking about traits:
Implications for judgments of the self and others. Child Develop-
ment,69, 391–403.
Karafantis, D.M., & Levy, S.R. (2004). The role of children’s lay theories
about the malleability of human attributes in beliefs about and
volunteering for disadvantaged groups. Child Development,75,
236–250.
Latham, G.P., & Heslin, P.A. (2003). Training the trainee as well as the
trainer: Lessons to be learned from clinical psychology. Canadian
Psychology,44, 218–231.
Levy, S.R., Stroessner, S.J., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Stereotype formation
and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,74, 1421–1436.
Plaks, J.E., Stroessner, S.J., Dweck, C.S., & Sherman, J.W. (2001).
Person theories and attention allocation: Preferences for stereo-
typic versus counterstereotypic information. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology,80, 876–893.
Robins, R.W., & Pals, J. (2002). Implicit self-theories of ability in the
academic domain: A test of Dweck’s model. Self and Identity,
1, 313–336.
Schoorman, F.D. (1988). Escalation bias in performance appraisal: An
unintended consequence of supervisor participation in hiring
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,70, 58–62.
Tabernero, C., & Wood, R.E. (1999). Implicit theories versus the social
construal of ability in self-regulation and performance on a com-
plex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
78, 104–127.
Wood, R.E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on
self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology,56, 407–415.
Volume 17—Number 3 223
Peter A. Heslin and Don VandeWalle
