The Case Against Dweck

A challenge to:
http://talentbites.blogspot.ch/2013/02/belief-in-learning.html

Dweck's theory on the relationship between intelligence theory and willingness to seek challenges and persevere (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 1999) has been studied for over 20 years. It has been of course challenged.

Achievement goals and behaviour patterns (O'Shea et al, following Dweck 1986)

The main challenges follow:

1. The model is only relevant to young children

Carmichael and Taylor (2005) worked with a group of 129 students (median age of 29) and found that the majority of them subscribed to an incremental theory of intelligence, suggesting that maybe it is only in early ages that Dweck's relationships work.

The study of 182 third level students by Breen, Cleary and O'Shea (2010) observed that only a minority reported a tendency towards performance goals (although caution should be taken since this was self-reported).

2. The model's relationships do not exist or are weak

Dupeyrat and Marine (2005) found that individuals with learning goals were more likely to persevere in their studies, having a positive impact on learning and achievement. However they could not find a connection between theory of intelligence and goal orientation.

A study by Breen, Cleary and O'Shea (2007) found that it was the individuals' level of confidence and not their theory of intelligence that influenced perseverance and performance against a task. The same authors, however later found (2010) a statistically significant correlation between theory of intelligence and goal orientation, however assessing it as weaker than what is implicit in Dweck's theory.


Conclusions

Research would suggest there is a connection between theories of intelligence, goal orientation, confidence and attitude and performance in the face of challenge. It also seems to indicate it might be: very complex, not as strong as originally thought, and age dependant.

The latest studies however remain reasonably positive about it. Breen, Cleary and O'Shea's 2010 study concludes that:

"... a student's theory of intelligence, goal orientation, and confidence in his mathematical ability influenced his persistence at difficult mathematical tasks."
"... theory of intelligence, learning goals, and confidence measures were significant predictors of the persistence measure for the group as a whole."

We will be looking forward to further research. It is in any case good to keep reflecting about it. If only for our own development.


References
 
Breen, S., Cleary, J. and O'Shea, A. (2007). A study of third level students' beliefs about mathematics. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Research in Mathematics Education, 202-215.
 
Breen, S., Cleary, J. and O'Shea, A. (2010). Exploring the role of confidence, theory of intelligence and goal orientation in determining a student's persistence on mathematical tasks. Proceedings of the British Congress for Mathematics Education.
 
Carmichael, C. and Taylor, J.A. (2005). Analysis of student beliefs in a tertiary preparatory mathematics course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 36(7), 713-719.

Dupeyrat, C. and Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck's model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology 30: 43-59.

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Blame It On The Boogie

The dangers of blaming underperformance on the crisis

Yes, but who ruined my year?

"Effective quota setting is a frustrating topic for organisations in all industries in the current economic environment" wrote Michael Herman Principal at Deloitte (a consulting firm) back in 2009. Hitting the challenging-achievable sweetspot while setting objectives is indeed difficult in turbulent times.

Yet year on year, targets remain on the rise. Despite this being the worst crisis since 1930, 42% of companies expect to raise the performance bar next year according to a recent survey by PMP. "This continues a three-year trend that saw 49% of participants set higher targets in 2011, and 41% raise standards in 2010.” It is worth noting the trend applies to companies that did well in 2011 as well as to those that didn't.

This may partly be driven by a desire to rally executives and associates against challenging goals. Locke and Latham claimed in their Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance that when it comes to setting goals for performance the harder a goal, the more it motivates. As Marc Effron explains in One Page Talent Management, "there is a linear relationship between a goal’s difficulty and the amount of effort and performance the goal produces. That relationship is true no matter how challenging the goal is.”

Something in the job

So what happens when at the end of a tough year objectives aren't met? You might have noticed, there is an irresistible temptation to blame the environment for at least part of our ills. A very quick web search delivers the Director General of the Association of British Insurers attributing the UK insurers' "poor reputation" (valued as their biggest weakness in a recent survey) to the banking crisis; or UK banks equally blaming weak lending figures on the confidence crisis.

Similarly, when confronted with a sales force where no individual has achieved target, an arguably sensible logic could work as follows: targets were set properly given the information available in January; circumstances changed dramatically throughout the year; it was impossible for anyone to hit target.

But resting all or part of the blame on external factors can have unwanted effects. In a series of experiments, McCrea (2008) argued that placing all or part of the blame on external factors made people feel better about themselves but saw a reduction in motivation in preparing properly for the future. Similar mechanisms have been widely explored in psychology, both in attribution and in locus of control theories (both related concepts). On a similar tone, a tendency for downwards counterfactual thinking (i.e. thinking "it could have been worse") has been associated in recent research by Fuschia Sirois with procrastination.

Setting, holding and evaluating target achievement through turbulent times is not without its challenges. But companies and managers should step up to the mark. Putting all or part of the blame on the crisis has the potential to set us up for future disappointments.

Perhaps we should temper the testosterone of our new year resolutions, be quicker in fine-tuning targets through the year and leave little room but to take ownership of the outcomes. In other words, do as we say we do in good years.

Hard Work

When it comes to appraising performance, praising effort seems to deliver

 

Much to praise

Nick Bollettieri established his Tennis Academy in Florida in 1978. Since then the school has trained a long list of very successful players (Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Björn Borg, Pete Sampras, Martina Hingis, Monica Seles and the Williams sisters among others). As Matthew Syed accounts, walking around its courts, one gets a clear sense that it is "not the quality of the coaching that sets this place apart; it is the quality of its attitude".

What is different, according to Syed, is that in Bollettieri's school there is a deliberate, obsesive celebration of effort. "Talent" is never praised. As Bollettieri writes in his handbook, development is anchored on “the effort you expend to achieve your goals”. If you praise "talent", it is thought, players will plateau faster.

A study conducted in 1998 by Claudia M. Mueller and Carol Dweck of Columbia University looked at the impact praise for intelligence has on motivation and performance in children. Through six studies Mueller and Dweck demonstrated that "praise for intelligence had more negative consequences for students' achievement motivation than praise for effort." Interestingly they would find that "children praised for hard work believed intelligence to be subject to improvement" (those praised for intelligence took it to be a fixed trait).

As accounted by Syed, the experiment involved taking 400 eleven-year-olds through a series of simple puzzles. After receving their score in puzzle resolution, half of the students were praised on intelligence "you must be smart at this!"; the other half on effort "you must have worked really hard!".

Breaking a sweat

After the first puzzle, students were given the choice of an easy or a hard second test. Only 40% of those praised for intelligence chose the hard test; 90% of those praised for effort did. Next, the students were given an impossible test: those praised for intelligence took their failures as "proof that they were no good in puzzles after all"; those praised for effort "persevered far longer, enjoyed it far more, and did not suffer any loss in confidence". A last puzzle of similar level to the first saw those praised for intelligence drop 20% in performance; those praised for effort delivered a surprising 30% improvement in performance.

The assimilation is very tempting: employees praised for hard work could be more prone to believe performance is subject to improvement; those praised for their 'talent' to believe it is a fixed trait (the earlier would have a much stronger drive to strive for improvement).

I have not found a similar study to prove or discredit the above, but it is a thought to ponder on, particularly as the time for the annual performance appraisals approaches. Effort without delivery doesn't rate these days. But delivery without praise of effort might hold a longer term unwanted consequence.

The Fine Art Of Recovery

Does social capital help organisations recover faster

Insightful asymmetries

Daniel P. Aldrich, an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Purdue University was employed by Tulane University in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans leaving 80% of the city underwater. Aldrich would spend the following five years observing the process of rebuilding in the city. Recovery was a long and painful, yet something kept him deeply intrigued: neighbourhoods with similar levels of damage and poverty bounced back from the disaster at very different rates.

As Aldrich writes of his many observations, "the Vietnamese community centred around Mary Queen of Viet Nam (MQVN) Church in Village de L’Est brought back a tremendous number of residents and businesses. This was despite high levels of poverty, flood waters, and low levels of formal education. Within a year of the disaster, for example, observers estimated that 9 in 10 businesses and households had returned to the area. Residents set up their own charter school, built an urban farm, and set up new medical clinics to avoid the 25 minute wait for ambulances. On the other hand, similar neighbourhoods seem untouched since the day the levees broke." Interestingly, "government officials did not send more funds to survivors in the MQVN area; if anything (they told Aldrich in interviews) they often ignored the neighbourhood."

So what was the difference? Aldrich – who will soon publish “Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery”, a full review of the 1923 Tokyo earthquake; the 1995 Kobe earthquake; the 2005 Katrina disaster; and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami – concludes the phenomenon behind these differences is Social Capital.

In short, Aldrich’s findings suggest that “places with low social capital tend to wait for the state to repair devastation while places with high social capital take more immediate self-action to repair”. Harvard professor Robert D Putnam had already observed this when looking at earthquake recovery in Italy: “in places with high social capital one was unaware there had been an earthquake there several years later, whereas in low social capital places, the results of an earthquake were apparent 30-40 years later and residents were still blaming government for not adequately responding.”

The definition of Social Capital (a concept first appeared in a 1916 article by L. J. Hanifan) significantly varies by discipline. Putnam defines it as "the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other”, in other words, who knows whom and what would they do for each other (see other definitions here and here).

No bunch of strangers

In the last 25 years, significant research has positively associated social capital with improved health (Kawachi, Kennedy, & Lochner, 1997), better educational outcomes (Coleman, 1988), reduced crime (Putnam, 1995), the creation and maintenance of economic prosperity (Fukuyama, 1995), regional development (Grootaert & Bastelaer, 2002), collective action (Burt, 1992) and democratic governance (Putnam, 1993; 2000) among others.

Given its merits, it has surprisingly had little attention in the realm of business. Cohen & Prusak make perhaps the only published case for nurturing and monitoring social capital in organisations.

But as organisations attempt to rally their employees with one hand while executing severe budget cuts with the other, Aldrich's insights should make us reconsider what is it that brings organisations back to their feet in the aftermath of a major crisis. It wouldn't be wild to assume that organisations with high social capital (those where employees know each other and would do things for each other) would be quicker to recover than those with low social capital.

Though anecdotally and intuitively we might nod in mild agreement, more targeted research is needed. It might be in any case advisable to keep some of the Christmas celebrations' budget in place and hope that associates mingle and bond - they might be the safety net next time numbers fall off a cliff.

Practice Makes Talent

The 10,000-hours view of talent challenges its centuries-old charm

Fading admiration

More than 500 years ago, artist Michelangelo Buonarroti provided an insight that is now making its way to books and articles on talent. He rather plainly stated: “if people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful after all”.

As if exposing an illusionist’s trick, much is being written on how what we take to be innate talent is really a direct outcome of volume and quality of practice hours.

Malcolm Gladwell (who coined the 10,000 hour rule) takes us through the endless hours of practice The Beatles clocked while playing in Hamburg in their early years. Matthew Syed describes in his book Bounce how child prodigies manage to get thousands of hours of practice by a very early age. Mozart, trained by his father Leopold - a composer and notorious pedagogue - had endured 3,500 hours of practice before the age of six (according to Michael Howe of the University of Exeter). His first work to be now considered a masterpiece was composed at age 21, after 18 years of intensive training. The number of examples available is endless.

Perhaps the most telling story provided by Syed is that of the Polgar sisters Susan, Sofia and Judit. Their father Laszlo - an educational psychologist - set himself to prove “children with world-class abilities” can be created. He publicised his project and enticed a young Ukrainian named Klara to join him in the experiment. Having chosen chess as a competitive sport in which success can be objectively measured, they had three daughters and conscientiously trained their from a very early age. All three developed into world champions and have been described by many as child prodigies and as having a natural talent for the sport.

Road to success (the Polgar sisters)

There is devil in the detail. As Syed writes, much depends on the purpose that is put into the practice (think of taxi drivers that spend endless hours behind the wheel and yet plateau at an average level of driving skill). However it still makes a compelling case for the perhaps stimulating idea that everyone can be talented.

It is a simple, yet difficult concept to take in. For some reason the notion that people can be special is difficult to give up. Romantics beware: sport, as previously discussed, is becoming a home to statisticians set on the idea that success can be broken down into measurable items that can be modelled and predicted.

But beyond sport (and other specialists activities), the arguably more diverse and complex worlds that surround us (including that of organisations) still give some refuge to the unfashionable notion of natural gift. That is, at least for a few more years.

"Credibility" (With An Accent)

When it comes to talent reviews, having a native-speaking boss pays off

Just not convincing enough

Through the talent review process, managers are expected to make a case to back-up their views on employees’ performance and potential. As discussions progress, the group challenges the presenting managers to ensure a consistent standard is upheld.

If the case is good and the manager is convincing, the initial assessment is endorsed by the group. But what if the case is good but the manager is not convincing?

Recent research looked at the impact of accent on credibility. In a set of experiments, “American participants were asked to judge the truthfulness of trivia statements by native or non-native speakers of English, such as, ‘A giraffe can go without water longer than a camel can.’” Prejudice was controlled for by telling participants the statements had been prepared for the participants (i.e. they were “not based on the speaker’s own knowledge”).

“On a truthfulness scale prepared for the experiment, the participants gave native speakers a score of 7.5, people with mild accents a score of 6.95 and people with heavy accents a score of 6.84.” (see also here).

As discussed in a previous post, it seems that in processes where one’s merits are presented by others, it pays off for that person to be a native speaker. That is, of course, provided the person has a positive view of our abilities.

Big Potential, No Cattle

Is steam coming off one of the talent reviews' few tangible outcomes?

High-flyers on a budget

The purpose of talent reviews, according to consulting company DDI is to:
- Assess leaders and the health of the talent pipeline
- Take inventory of individual talent and agree succession
- Align individuals with opportunities for growth or development
- Identify high potentials for accelerated development

The first two could be summarised as calibration: the process through which data and opinions about individuals and positions are discussed and objectivity and common standards are sought and recorded. The second two could be summarised as investment: agreeing, monitoring and evaluating the deployment of development resources. If calibration ensures process quality and alignment with strategy, investment is what gives talent reviews teeth.

And these are bad times for investment: Back in 2009, 42% of companies in Asia Pacific, 39% in the Americas, and 31% of European companies were decreasing their expatriate staff according to ORC. 59% of all companies said they were strongly challenging the need for each assignment. On training, the UK saw a 52% cut in skill training spend in 2010, with more cuts expected in 2011.

Meeting effectiveness - long a subject of mockery - has developed in the past years a fetish reliance on action generation: Effectivemeetings.com suggests not to finish any discussion without deciding how to act on it. As organisations walk into talent reviews with emptier pockets, many will struggle to budget a development action for every discussion held.

Time for some good ol' coaching

The immediate solution could be to focus on development actions that don't carry a spend, e.g. assignment to a project or provision of management coaching and mentoring (a solution some suggest and celebrate). However these also have their challenges: associates are already working longer hours, and managers are not only similarly challenged for time, but also in need for costly training if they are to deliver coaching effectively. Better thinking is needed for the talent reviews to keep passing the "so what?" test.
Associates as well need to see development is not just additional workload or before-ready promotions. As Cranfield School of Management Dr Parry says, investment-cutting organisations are "in danger of losing good staff to organisations that will invest in them."