Mindset in Dutch High Schools: the Relationship between Growth Mindset and Organizational Commitment
André J. Duijkers University of Amsterdam
Author Note
The progress of this Master’s thesis was supervised by dr. L.A. van Oortmerssen, and is part of the master track Corporate Communication at the University of Amsterdam. By André Duijkers, student number 10742336.
Abstract
As previous research showed that cultivating a growth mindset may have beneficial consequences for both individuals as well as for organizations, this present study aimed to further examine separate variables to which mindset expectedly correlates. To specify, the core relationship that was studied in this present research was the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. In addition, the role of self-efficacy, resistance to change, and openness of the communication climate in this relationship were also studied. In total, 87 respondents participated in the cross-sectional survey design study. Firstly, findings show a significant relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. Secondly, openness of the communication climate significantly acts as a moderator in the relationship between mindset and normative commitment. Thirdly, a direct relationship between mindset regarding personality and self-efficacy was found to be significant. Lastly, a significant direct relationship between resistance to change and continuance commitment was found. As these findings aim to provide a more solid understanding of mindset in relation to different organizational and psychological constructs, this present research can be regarded as an exploratory correlational study.
Keywords: Mindset, Organizational Commitment, Education, Self-Efficacy, Resistance to Change, Openness of the Communication Climate
Mindset in Dutch High Schools: the Relationship between Growth Mindset and Organizational Commitment
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change”. This quote by Albert Einstein beautifully illustrates the concept of mindset developed by Carol Dweck, which gained popularity in the past decade as several studies suggest that cultivating a certain mindset can benefit both individuals and organizations (Heslin, 2010) (Dweck, 1996, 1999, 2006). The concept of mindset embodies the beliefs people hold about the plasticity of their abilities, and regards a continuum varying from fixed to growth mindset. A fixed mindset reflects the implicit belief that human attributes such as abilities, intelligence or talent are essentially fixed and stable entities, whereas a growth mindset reflects the opposite assumption that abilities are pliable and thus amenable to cultivation (Dweck, 2006). As Dweck (1996) concludes that a growth mindset allows each individual to embrace learning, to welcome challenges, mistakes, and feedback, and to understand the role of effort in creating talent, it seems rather beneficial for organizations to stimulate their employees to embrace a growth mindset. Despite extensive research of mindset on children and adolescents in educational settings focusing on effects such as academic
achievement, motivation and cognitive capacity (Dweck, 2006), little is known about mindset in relation to different organizational concepts. In this present study I aim to set the first step to further explore the concept of mindset in organizational context, maintaining focus in the educational sector. To do so, I will examine the relationship between mindset and various concepts that have the potential to greatly benefit organizations. In addition, I aim to underline the potential benefits of cultivating a growth mindset. To bridge the gap between educational and organizational setting, I will focus on teachers: employees of organizations in the educational sector. The question that I aim to answer is what organizations (i.e. high schools) actually can
expect when focusing on stimulating the growth mindset of their employees, and to what extent this focus could benefit the organization. The aim of this present study is to offer important insights in organizational science, and to advance the understanding of the concept of mindset in organizational setting. In the following theoretical framework I will elaborate on previous findings on the concepts that I aim to study, from which eight hypotheses are formulated.
Theoretical Framework Mindset
The concept of mindset was developed by American psychologist Carol Dweck. Dweck (1996) defined mindset as a continuum varying from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset. It is not the case that people either have a fixed or growth mindset per se, but this depends on situation, activity, and context. However, a ‘general’ mindset can be measured regarding intelligence, personality, talents and abilities. Dweck (2006) defined five dimensions on which individuals with a growth mindset differ from individuals with a fixed mindset, namely
challenges, obstacles, effort, criticism and success of others. Individuals that generally have a fixed mindset avoid challenges, get defensive or give up easily, see efforts as fruitless or worse, ignore useful negative feedback, and feel threatened by the success of others which eventually leads to the desire to look smart. A growth mindset on the other hand leads to a desire to learn and grow, and people with a growth mindset have the tendency to embrace challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, see efforts as the path to mastery, learn from criticism, and find lessons and inspiration in the success of others. As a result, they reach higher levels of achievement, whereas individuals adapting a fixed mindset may plateau early and achieve less than their full potential (Dweck, 2006). Most of Dweck’s research focused on children or adolescents, measuring their mindset before completing a task in educational setting. However, a growth mindset can also benefit people in organizational setting. Heslin (2010) argues that mindsets are related to employee engagement, specifically via their zeal for development (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999), view of effort (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007), psychological presence (Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good, & Dweck, 2006; Plaks, Dweck, Stroessner, & Sherman, 2001) and interpretation of setbacks (Taberno & Wood, 1999; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, &
Dweck, 2007). Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova (2006) argue that employee engagement regards the extent to which employees show dedication, vigor and absorption. In addition, engaged employees show an emotional connection to their work (Kahn, 1990). This emotional connection to work or organization corresponds with affective organizational commitment, as defined Allen & Meyer (1993). In addition, also Hallberg & Schaufeli (2006) imply that employee engagement and organizational commitment are closely related constructs. Therefore, it seems interesting to further examine organizational commitment in relationship to mindset.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is a widely studied concept in organizational sciences and psychology. Allen and Meyer (1990) were the first to develop a scale for measuring
organizational commitment, and proposed a three-component model that consists of affective, continuance and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to commitment based on the emotional attachment to the organization. Continuance commitment regards to the principle that employees primarily link to the organization as a result of the fear of loss. In addition, continuance commitment is based on the perceived costs of leaving the organization. People who experience continuance commitment, hold the belief that the costs of leaving the organization outweigh the benefits. The latter concept - normative commitment - reflects a sense of obligation to continue working for the organization in case. This normative commitment can for example stem from the fact that the organization invested money or time in employee training. Allen & Meyer (1990) view their model as a model consisting of three components of commitment, rather than three different types of commitment. They argue that individuals can experience all three forms of commitment to a varying degree. As Heslin (2010) states that mindsets can
influence employees’ engagement in several ways, and employee engagement is closely related to commitment (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), further examination of the relationship between mindset and commitment is necessary to increase knowledge on mindset as a predictor for organizational commitment. As Heslin (2010) noted a positive relationship between mindset and employee engagement, it may be expected that employee mindsets also influence the way they feel committed to the organization. Moreover, as Allen and Meyer (1990) proposed to divide organizational commitment into three separate constructs, organizational commitment will be treated as separate variables in the process of this present study. These separate variables are organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. This division is made visual in the conceptual model which will be presented after the theoretical framework. The aforementioned theory regarding mindset and organizational commitment leads to the first hypothesis, which is formulated as follows:
H1: A growth mindset has a positive influence on employees’ organizational commitment
Openness of the Communication Climate
Communication climate regards to a set of collective beliefs, expectations, and values representing a description of communication practices and procedures in an organization (Guzley, 1992). Dennis (1974) defines communication climate as “a subjectively experienced quality of the internal environment of an organization”. He further argues that the perception of communication climate follows from five factors, namely superior-subordinate communication, quality of information, superior openness/candor, opportunities for upward communication, and reliability of information. Moreover, communication climate consists mainly of the perceptions of the quality of communications by employees on individual level. A ‘good’ communication
climate is considered as supportive, participative, trusting, open and candid (Redding, 1972). Research conducted by Heslin (2010) has supported Dweck's (1999) notion that mindsets can be cultivated by actions of communication, focusing on stimulating employee behavior in the process rather than focusing on the results. Therefore, it seems intuitively logical to assume that mindset is somehow related to ones perception of the communication climate, specifically to the openness of the communication climate. Nordin et al. (2014) state that communication climate influences the atmosphere in which employees either are encouraged or hindered in
communicating with each other. A closed communication climate results in employees abstaining from communicating, and becoming very cautious in making statements causing lower
motivation. In addition Guzley (1992) concludes that employees that perceive the
communication climate as favorable, are more likely to be committed to the organization due to increased communication flow (i.e. employees are more likely to express their grievances and perspectives). One might argue that people that have a growth mindset, and thus have the
underlying desire to learn and grow and embrace the belief that they actually can learn and grow, are more likely to give and receive feedback in order to learn from different situations.
Therefore, it is expected that employees with a growth mindset that perceive the communication climate as more open, are more likely to be committed to the organization than employees with a fixed mindset. To summarize, the perception of openness of the communication climate
expectedly moderates the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. Based on this expectation, the second hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H2: Employees’ perception of the openness of the communication climate influences the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as the beliefs on one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005). Gist & Mitchell (1992) regard to self-efficacy as an individual’s estimate of his or her own capacity to perform on a specific task. They state that self-efficacy is associated with work-related performance such as productivity, career choice, learning and achievement and adaptability to a new technology. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005). Bandura (1977) found that people who believe in their own ability (high self-efficacy) are more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided, which corroborates with the concept of growth-mindset. In addition, high self-efficacy leads to making more efforts to complete a task, and to persist longer in those efforts (Schunk, 1990). The stronger self-efficacy expectations, the more active the efforts are (Bandura, 1977). As Gist & Mitchell (1992) state the importance of self-efficacy for improving employee performance in organizational context, it could be potentially beneficial for organizations to stimulate self-efficacy in addition to mindset. People with a growth mindset are less likely to regard to mistakes as something bad as a result of holding the underlying desire to learn and grow (Dweck, 2006). Therefore, they might regard to themselves as more capable of organizing and executing courses of action, as they view mistakes as something fruitful and something they can learn from. This resulted in the following hypothesis, which is formulated as follows:
H3a: Employee mindset is positively related to employee’s perceived self-efficacy In addition, Yukl (1998) found that once self-efficacy is established, this will result in increased trust to the leader and organization which in turn results in increased commitment to the organization. Also, Pillai & Williams (2004) found that there is a significant positive
relationship between self-efficacy and organizational commitment. These findings lead to the following hypothesis:
H3b: Employees’ perceived self-efficacy is positively related to organizational commitment
As a direct relationship between mindset and self-efficacy as well as a direct relationship between self-efficacy and organizational commitment is expected, it is assumed that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3c: The relationship between mindset and organizational commitment is mediated by self-efficacy
Resistance to Change
Resistance to change is the extent to which people are likely to resist any form of
(organizational) change. It is often regarded as a reason for difficulties in implementing change, even resulting in the failure of change initiatives (Erwin & Garman, 2009). Most studies on resistance to change are examining a specific change process within an organization. However, Oreg (2003) developed an individual measurement scale for resistance to organizational change in general. He defined four reliable factors that predict resistance to change, namely routine seeking, emotional reaction to imposed change, cognitive rigidity, and short term focus. In addition, these four factors can be conceptualized as three different aspects of resistance to change: behavioral, affective and cognitive. Seeking routines suits the behavioral dimension, whereas the emotional reaction – the amount of stress and unease someone experiences when confronted with change - and the extent to which people are distracted by short term
inconveniences of the change regard the affective dimension. The cognitive rigidity, which is defined as the ease and frequency of people changing their minds, represents the cognitive dimension. As mentioned before, the concept of mindsets embodies the beliefs people hold about the plasticity of their own abilities. In essence, mindset also regards a certain change process. People with a growth mindset have the implicit belief that human attributes such as abilities and intelligence are pliable and amenable to cultivation, and thus can change. As people with a growth mindset believe in their ability to change their own capabilities to a certain extent and hold the belief that change can result in a better version of yourself, people with a growth
mindset are essentially more flexible and may also expectedly be more acceptable and forbearing to change from outside. This results in the subsequent hypothesis, which is formulated as
follows:
H4a: Employees with a growth mindset have the tendency to be more acceptable and forbearing to change, showing less resistance to change
In addition, people who are really resistant to change in general, might feel less
committed to the organization. In turn, people who are less resistant to change, might feel more committed to the organization. This assumption is supported by research conducted by Peccei, Giangreco & Sebastiano (2011), who conclude that increased organizational commitment may lead to reduced levels of resistance to change. In addition, Lines (2004) also reported a strong relationship between organizational commitment and reduced resistance to change. In line with these findings, it is expected that a relationship between resistance to change and organizational commitment can be found. To further examine this relationship, our next hypothesis is
H4b: Employees that are less resistant to change are more likely to experience greater organizational commitment
As a direct relationship between mindset and resistance to change as well as a direct relationship between resistance to change and organizational commitment is expected, it is expected that resistance to change mediates the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. This leads to our final hypothesis:
H4c: The relationship between mindset and organizational commitment is mediated by resistance to change
All hypotheses are visualized in the conceptual model presented below.
Methods Respondents
In order to test the hypotheses, an online survey was created using Qualtrics survey software, and e-mailed to the directors of ten high-schools in the Netherlands. The initial dataset consisted of 106 entries. In total, nineteen participants did not complete the survey, and were therefore removed from the dataset. To conclude, the final dataset consisted of 87 entries, which were included in the actual analysis. The average age of the participants was 39 (SD = 13.75), varying from 19 to 64. In total, 39 participants were male, whereas 47 were female. One participant did not state his or her gender. In total, seven schools participated in the study, including one organization providing coaching on optimizing learning performance in high schools. Over sixty percent of the respondents were represented by two schools named Marnix College and Peelland College (N = 53).
Procedure
Participants were recruited via the directors of the schools. The survey was provided to them, which the director distributed amongst the employees via e-mail. This provided the employees with flexibility with regard to when and where they wanted to complete the survey. Before the start of the survey, participants were briefed about the aim of the study. Furthermore, a contact e-mail was provided for questions about the survey. The total survey took
approximately ten minutes to complete. Participants were recruited over a five-week timeframe from the 15th of November to the 20th of December, 2015.
Measures
Mindset. Carol Dweck (1999) developed a scale for measuring mindset. This scale was translated and used in the survey to measure employee’s mindsets. In the survey, participants
were to fill in a 5 point Likert-scale varying from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). The scale contained eight items. The translated scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .779 (M = 3.43, SD = 0.598). To check for the presence of different factors within the scale, a principal
components factor analysis with direct oblimin (oblique) rotation of all eight items of the
mindset variable was conducted. The results of the factor analysis and the items are presented in Table 1. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the sample was factorable (KMO = .711).
Table 1
Obliquely rotated component loadings for eight items* regarding mindset
Component 1 2
Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much .928 You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic
intelligence
.910 No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite
a bit
.861 You can always substantially change how intelligent you are .813
You have a certain personality, and you can’t really do much to change this .816 No matter who you are, you can always change it quite a bit .774 Your personality is something about you that you can’t change very much .751 You can do things differently, but you can’t really change who you are .633 Note: Loadings => .40; * the actual items posed in the survey were translated in Dutch.
Therefore, the mindset scale was divided into two different components: one component that reflects people’s beliefs regarding the malleability of intelligence, and one component that reflects people’s beliefs regarding the malleability of personality. To include these separate factors in the following analyses, two new variables were computed by calculating the mean of both factors.
Openness of the communication climate. To measure the openness of the
and used in the survey. In total, six items regarding openness were included in the survey, and were all measured with a 5-point Likert response scale (1 being ‘strongly disagree’, to 5 being ‘strongly agree’). To improve reliability, one item was deleted. The item ‘I do not have to be afraid for the consequences if I voice my opinion to my superior’ caused a low Cronbach’s alpha score (α = .403). With the item deleted, the reliability of the scale increased to a Cronbach’s alpha of .818 (M = 3.86, SD = 0.62). Example items in the resulting scale were ‘employees in this organization are stimulated to be open and honest towards each other’ and ‘my superior is open and honest towards me’.
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured using the commitment scale which was originally developed by Allen and Meyer (1990), but was revised in 2007 by Jaros (2007). This revised edition of the scale was translated and contained 20 items over three dimensions (affective, continuance and normative commitment). The resulting scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .820 (M = 3.267, SD = 0,475). In addition, the three dimensions as defined by Allen and Meyer were also included into the analysis as separate scales. The affective commitment scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of had a Cronbach’s alpha of .782 (M = 3.537, SD = 0,641), and included items such as ‘I am very happy being a member of this organization’. The scale for the continuance commitment had a Cronbach’s alpha of .711 (M = 3.006, SD = 0,628) which included items such as ‘I worry about the loss of investments I have made in this
organization’, whereas the scale for the normative commitment had a Cronbach’s alpha of .709 (M = 3.253, SD = 0,635) and included items such as ‘I think that people these days move from company to company too often’.
Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy was measured using a translated version of the self-efficacy scale developed by Mosley et al. (2008). The developed scale contained eight items and were all
included in the survey (e.g. ‘even when things are tough, I perform quite well’). The resulting scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .870 (M = 3.905, SD = 0.512).
Resistance to Change. Oreg (2003) developed a scale measuring individual differences in resistance to change. He defined four dimensions (routine seeking, emotional reaction, short-term thinking and cognitive rigidity) in his scale, containing 18 items. All 18 items were
translated and included in the survey (e.g. ‘I generally consider changes to be a negative thing’). The resulting scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .829 (M = 2.50, SD = 0.486).
Results Mindset and organizational commitment
In this present study, eight hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis regarded the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. To test this hypothesis, a regression analysis was conducted with organizational commitment as the dependent variable, and mindset as the independent variable. This resulted in a significant model, F(1, 85) = 7.64, p = .007. Therefore, our first hypothesis can be accepted, and the regression model can be used to predict organizational commitment of employees. However, the predictive value of the model is fairly weak, as only 7.2% of the variation in organizational commitment can be predicted based on the independent variable mindset (R² = .072), b* = .29, t = 2.76, p = .007, 95% CI [0.06, 0.39].
To further examine the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment as a core concept in this present study, mindset was divided into two separate dimensions taking the factor analysis into account. The factor analysis showed that mindset loads on two separate factors: one regarding intelligence, and one regarding personality. A second and third regression analysis were conducted to analyze these different factors as independent variables in the model. Firstly, the regression model with mindset regarding intelligence was not significant, F(1,85) = 3.04, p = .085. However, the model with mindset regarding personality as the independent
variable was significant, F(1, 85) = 6.52, p = .012. Moreover, the predictive value of the model is weak, as only 6% of the variation in organizational commitment can be predicted based on mindset regarding personality (R² = .06), b* = .26, t = 2.55, p = .012, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32]. In addition, as mindset and organizational commitment are two core concepts in this present study, the dependent variable organizational commitment was divided into three separate
variables. As proposed by Allen & Meyer (Allen & Meyer, 1990), organizational commitment was divided into affective, continuance and normative commitment. Regression analyses with the items regarding mindset as the independent variables and the three different components of commitment as the dependent variable were conducted. Firstly, with affective commitment as the dependent variable resulted in a significant model, F(1, 85) = 15.372, p < .001. The predictive value of the model is moderate, as 14.3% of the variance in affective commitment is predicted on the basis of mindset (R² = .14), b* = .39, t = 3.92, p < .001, 95% CI [0.21, 0.63].
The second analysis - with continuance commitment as the dependent variable – resulted in a non-significant model, F(1, 85) = .20, p = .654. Lastly, the regression analysis with
normative commitment as the dependent variable resulted in a significant model, F(1, 85) = 8.957, p = .004), with an adjusted R² of .116 (R² = .215), b* = .309, t = 2.993, p = .004, 95% CI [0.11, 0.55]
Openness of the communication climate as a moderating variable
The second hypothesis aimed to find whether openness of the communication climate acted as moderator in the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment.
Therefore, a moderation analysis was conducted. Standardized variables were computed for both mindset and communication climate. In addition, an interaction term was computed by
multiplying the standardized variables. Both the standardized variables and the interaction term were included as independent variables in a multiple regression analysis, with organizational commitment as the dependent variable. The regression analysis resulted in a significant model (p < 0.000). However, the interaction term effect was not significant (p = .268), and therefore we must reject our second hypothesis and may not conclude that the relationship between mindset
and organizational commitment is moderated by communication climate. The statistical values are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Multiple regression analysis: dependent variable Organizational Commitment
Variable B SE B β t p Constant 3,251 0,048 68,383 0,000 Mindset 0,063 0,049 0,132 1,270 0,207 Communication 0,200 0,050 0,420 4,023 0,000 Mindset * Communication 0,043 0,039 0,108 1,115 0,268 Note: R² = 0,234 (N = 87, p < .001)
To further examine openness of the communication climate as a moderator between mindset and organizational commitment, three additional moderation analyses were conducted for the
independent components of organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative commitment). For both affective and continuance commitment, the interaction effect was not significant. However, with normative commitment as the dependent variable, the interaction effect was significant (p = .033). The results of this regression analysis are presented in Table 3. We therefore may conclude that communication climate moderates the relationship between mindset and normative organizational commitment.
Table 3
Multiple regression analysis: dependent variable Normative Commitment
Variable B SE B β t p Constant 3,216 0,058 55,465 0,000 Mindset 0,067 0,060 0,106 1,123 0,265 Communication 0,348 0,061 0,548 5,754 0,000 Mindset * Communication 0,102 0,047 0,192 2,164 0,033 Note: R² = 0,363 (N = 87, p < .001)
Self-efficacy as a mediating variable
Hypothesis 3a aimed to find whether mindset was related with self-efficacy. To examine the relationship between these two variables, a regression analysis was conducted, with self-efficacy as the dependent variable and mindset as the independent variable. This analysis did not result in a significant model, F(1, 85) = 2.922, p = .091, and therefore we must reject the
hypothesis. However, as two components were found in the mindset variable using factor analysis, further analysis of the relationship between mindset and self-efficacy by using mindset regarding intelligence and mindset regarding personality in two separate additional regression analyses was conducted. These analyses provided interesting results, as the model with mindset regarding personality was significant, F(1, 85) = 4.320, p = .041. However, the model with mindset regarding intelligence was not significant, F(1, 85) = 0.544, p = .463. All regression models are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Multiple regression analysis: dependent variable Self-efficacy
Variable B SE B b* R² t p
Mindset 0,156 0,091 0,182 0,033 1,709 0,091
Mindset (Intelligence) 0,049 0,066 0,080 0,006 0,737 0,463 Mindset (Personality) 0,162 0,078 0,220 0,048 2,078 0,041 Note: N = 87
Hypothesis 3b aimed to test the relationship between self-efficacy and organizational commitment. This hypothesis consisted of four components: the relationship between self-efficacy and general organizational commitment, and the relationship between self-self-efficacy and the three separate components (affective, continuance, and normative) of commitment as defined by Allen & Meyer (1990). To study this relationship, four separate regression analyses were
conducted. All four regression analyses did not result in significant models. In addition, as no direct effect was found in hypothesis 3b, our mediation hypothesis 3c also had to be rejected.
Resistance to change as a mediating variable
Hypothesis 4a aimed to find a relationship between mindset and resistance to change. A regression analysis was conducted to find this relationship, which did not result in a significant model, F(1, 85) = 1.837, p = 0.179. Therefore, hypothesis 4a must be rejected. In addition, as multiple factors for mindset were found, two additional separate regression analyses with
mindset regarding intelligence and mindset regarding personality were conducted. However, this also did not provide significant results for both the regression analysis with mindset regarding intelligence, F(1, 85) = 0.854, p = 0.358, as well as the regression with mindset regarding personality, F(1, 85) = 1.526, p = 0.220).
Hypothesis 4b assumed that when employees are less resistant to change, they tend to be more committed to the organization. This relationship was tested using four separate regression analyses. The first regression analysis focused on the general concept of organizational
commitment as the dependent variable, and resistance to change as the independent variable. However, this analysis did not provide significant results, F(1, 85) = 0.038, p = .846. Therefore, the model could not be interpreted and the hypothesis was rejected. In further examination of the relationship between organizational commitment and resistance to change, the separate
components of organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative commitment) were set as the dependent variable in the regression model. The model with affective
commitment as the dependent variable was not significant, F(1, 85) = 0.038, p = .846, as well as the model with normative commitment, F(1, 85) = 1.276, p = .262. However, the model with
continuance commitment as the dependent variable was significant, F(1, 85) = 4.081, p = .047, with an adjusted R² of .035 (R² = .046), b* = .215, t = 2.020, 95% CI [0.004, 0.553]. However, as the b-value is positive (b = .278), the effect is in the opposite direction as expected: when people are more resistant to change, they are likely to experience more continuance commitment.
In addition, as no direct effect was found in hypothesis 4a, our mediation hypothesis 4c also has to be rejected.
Conclusion
The main aim of this present study was to examine the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. Firstly, the direct relationship between these two variables was analyzed. Results showed that a significant relationship between these two variables was apparent. Further analysis showed that the relationship between mindset and normative
commitment was significant, as well as the relationship between mindset regarding personality and general organizational commitment. Secondly, a moderation effect of openness of the communication climate on the aforementioned relationship was expected. However, the only significant relationship that was found was that communication climate moderates the relationship between mindset and normative commitment. Thirdly, it was expected that self-efficacy acted as a mediator in the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. However, this mediation was not significant, although a significant direct relationship between mindset regarding personality and self-efficacy was found. Lastly, it was expected that resistance to change acted as a mediator in the relationship between mindset and organizational
commitment. Also this mediation was not significant due to an insignificant relationship between mindset and resistance to change. However, a significant direct relationship between resistance to change and continuance commitment was actually apparent, although in the opposite
Discussion Mindset and organizational commitment
The core concept that was examined in this present study, the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment, was significant. However, the relationship between mindset and continuance commitment was not significant. This could possibly be explained by the fact that continuance commitment regards a certain extent of a cost-benefit analysis (an employee weighs off the pros and cons of leaving the organization). This has not much to do with the belief regarding the malleability of your intelligence or personality. In addition, previous research by Heslin (2010) examined the relationship between mindset and employee
engagement. The assumption of the relationship between mindset and organizational
commitment was supported by the findings of Heslin (2010), as he concludes that employee engagement is a closely related construct to organizational commitment. However, employee engagement regards the actual engagement of an employee (individual level), whereas
organizational commitment regards the extent to which an employee has the desire to stay with the organization (organizational level) (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Although the concepts seem connected at first glance, organizational commitment is more distant from the individual employee performance, and therefore might have a weaker correlation to mindset, resulting in insignificant findings when examining the separate components of mindset and organizational commitment.
Openness of the communication climate as a moderating variable
The results regarding openness of the communication climate as a moderator in the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment resulted in insignificant findings,
except for the relationship between mindset and normative commitment. The explanation of finding no significant results aside from the normative commitment component, might be sought in the fact that our scale for communication climate focused on the employee-supervisor
relationship. Only one single item regarded to whether the employees were stimulated to communicate openly in the organizational setting. As the scale measured the openness of the communication between employee and supervisor rather than the openness of the
communication in the organization as a whole, this might be an explanation of the fact that this specific openness does not moderate the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. However, results showed that openness of the communication climate as a moderator in the relationship between mindset and normative commitment was significant. Normative commitment reflects the perceived obligation to remain in the organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), and as the relationship between mindset and normative commitment was significant, it seems intuitively logical to assume that when employees have a solid relationship with their superior and perceive this relationship as open, they might feel more desire to remain in the organization due to the fact that they feel morally obliged to do so, as a result of this relationship. Therefore, more openness in employee-superior relationship moderates the relationship between mindset and normative commitment.
Self-efficacy as a mediating variable
The third hypothesis assumed a mediating effect of self-efficacy in the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. However, this mediation was not significant, as no direct effect between self-efficacy and organizational commitment was found. The only significant relationship was the relationship between mindset regarding personality and
self-efficacy. This could possibly be explained by the fact that self-efficacy regards the belief in ones capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in managing prospective
situations (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005), and therefore really connects to the employee’s self, rather than to the employee’s intelligence. As the scale for general mindset consisted for fifty percent of items regarding mindset on intelligence, this is also a possible explanation for the fact that the relationship between mindset in general and self-efficacy was insignificant. In addition, the analysis showed that relationship between self-efficacy and organizational commitment was insignificant as well. This assumption was partly based on the findings by Pillai & Williams (2004), who actually did find a significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and organizational commitment. However, Pillai & Williams did not measure
organizational commitment on separate components, and used a different scale that was
developed by O’Reilly & Chatman (1986). This scale focuses on other aspects of commitment, such as items regarding actual work-performance (e.g. “I volunteer for tasks that are not required” and “I make suggestions to improve the organization”). In addition, Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Ponz (1992) state that self-efficacy influences motivation and career choice, which may reduce the feeling of a moral obligations (normative commitment) to remain with an organization as a result of continuously seeking for new challenges.
Resistance to change as mediating variable
The final hypothesis that was examined was the mediating role of resistance to change in the relationship between mindset and organizational commitment. However, due to the absence of a significant relationship between mindset and resistance to change, this mediation was not significant. In addition, the only significant relationship was the relationship between resistance
to change and continuance commitment. When posing the final hypothesis in the theoretical framework, the separate components were not taken into account. The concept of organizational commitment was regarded as a single whole rather than the sum of three separate components. As organizations change rapidly and frequently, being resistant to change may result in employee discontent (Peccei, Giangreco, & Sebastiano, 2011). Therefore, it seemed intuitively logical to assume that people who are more resistant to change are more likely to feel less commitment. However, when discussing commitment as the three-component variable, continuance
commitment can be regarded as a total different concept. Discontent might result in less affection for the organization and a decrease in the perception of an apparent moral obligation to remain with the organization, and therefore increase the possibility of employees looking for other job opportunities. However, as the relationship between resistance to change and normative or affective commitment was insignificant, no conclusions can be drawn, and further research is necessary to examine the role of discontent in the relationship between resistance to change and organizational commitment. On the other hand, continuance commitment regards the ‘fear of loss’: a cost-benefit analysis of what leaving the organization could mean for the individual. When experiencing resistance to change, employees might actually feel more committed to the organization on the continuance commitment component, as they are anxious about the potential consequences of leaving. The results support this conclusion, as a relationship between resistance to change and continuance commitment is significant. Although this conclusion provides an interesting insight in the field of organizational commitment and organizational change, the hypothesis was rejected as it was previously expected that less resistance to change would correlate with higher organizational commitment.
Limitations and implications for further research
As this present study does not engage with causality, firstly no conclusions can be drawn in the light of mindset as a predictor for organizational commitment. To examine causality within the different concepts that were included in this study, further research needs to be done.
Secondly, the participants that completed the survey in this study (N = 87), were all selected from Dutch high schools. In total, over 60 percent of the participants (N = 53) came from two schools. This may have influenced the external validity of the study, and requires additional research to strengthen the solidity of the results. Lastly, measuring employee mindsets is a relatively
complex task, as the concept is prone to internal validity errors. As mindset embodies the beliefs one has about the plasticity of their intelligence or personality, the aim of measuring mindset was measuring the actual beliefs of the employees. However, one might argue that when posing items such as “you can always substantially change your intelligence”, there is a thin line between knowledge and beliefs. An employee might agree to this item as a result of reading an article or overhearing a conversation on the topic of malleability of intelligence, but not really embracing this as a fundamental belief. To really analyze employee mindsets, additional – perhaps
qualitative – research is necessary.
Practical implications
To summarize, the results of this present study imply that there is an apparent relationship between employee mindsets and organizational commitment. In addition, significant
relationships between mindset regarding personality and self-efficacy, resistance to change and continuance commitment and openness of the communication climate as a moderator in the relationship between employee mindset and normative commitment were found. This present
study is a first step in the direction of a more diverse and solid understanding of the concept of mindset, to which other psychological and organizational constructs mindset is related, and to how organizations can benefit from cultivating a growth mindset. As several studies focus on the positive implications of organizational commitment such as work motivation, productivity, and lower absenteeism, many practitioners describe organizational commitment as a powerful tool to bind employees to the organization and enhance organizational productivity and effectiveness (Genevičiūtė-Janonienė & Endriulaitienė, 2014). Cultivating growth mindsets may therefore potentially be beneficial for organizations, aside from the benefits for individual employees when adapting a growth mindset. Moreover, the relationship between these two concepts is seemingly interesting for further exploration in organizational and psychological science.
To conclude, we might even surprise ourselves with the possibilities that could emerge when holding the belief that skills, intelligence, talents and personality are pliable and amenable to cultivation. Embracing challenge, seeing effort as the path to mastery, learning from criticism, finding inspiration in the success of others, persisting in the face of setbacks and above all: being eager to learn, could potentially help both individuals and organizations grow in many ways.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Organizational commitment: Evidence of career stage effects? Journal of Business Research, 26(1), 49-61.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.
Dennis, H. (1974). A Theoretical and Empirical study of Managerial Communication Climate in Complex Organizations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation . West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Dweck, C. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In P. Gollwitzer, & J. Bargh, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 69-90). New York: The Guilford Press.
Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: the new Psychology of Success. New York: Random House. Erwin, D., & Garman, A. (2009). Resistance to organizational change: linking research and
Genevičiūtė-Janonienė, G., & Endriulaitienė, A. (2014). Employees' Organizational
Commitment: Its Negative Aspects For Organizations. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 558-564.
Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. (1992). Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability . The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Guzley, R. (1992). Organizational Climate and Communication Climate: Predictors of
Commitment to the Organization. Management communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379-402. Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). "Same Same" but different? Can work Engagement
be Discriminated from Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.
Heslin, P. (2010). 18 Mindsets and employee engagement: theoretical linkages and practical interventions. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599.
Jaros, S. (2007). Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment: Measurement Issues. The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6(4), 1-20.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment, and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215.
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Social cognitive theory. In P. Norman, & M. Conner, Prediciting health behaviour (pp. 127-169). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Mangels, J., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75-86.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Mosley, D. C., Boyar, S. L., Carson, C. M., & Pearson, A. W. (2008). A production self-efficacy scale: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(2), 272-285.
Nordin, S. M., Sivapalan, S., Bhattacharyya, E., Ahmad, H. H., & Abdullah, A. (2014). Organizational Communication Climate and Conflict Management: Communications Management in an Oil and Gas Company. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1046-1058.
Peccei, R., Giangreco, A., & Sebastiano, A. (2011). The role of organisational commitment in the analysis of resistance to change. Personnel Review, 40(2), 185 - 204.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 144-159.
Plaks, J., Dweck, C., Stroessner, S., & Sherman, J. (2001). Person Theories and attention
allocation: preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 876-893.
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist(25), 71-86.
Tabernero, C., & Wood, R. (1999). Implicit theories versus the social construal of ability in self-regulation and performance on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 104-127.
Walker, C., Greene, B., & Mansell, R. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1-12.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Ponz, M. (1992). self-motivation for academic
attainment the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.
