The Role of Mindset in Leadership - Lewis Lau's Thesis

Running head: THE ROLE OF MINDSET IN LEADERSHIP 1
Do Growth Mindsets Benefit Leaders? The Role of Mindset in Leadership Self-Efficacy
Lewis Y.F. Lau
Brock University

THE ROLE OF MINDSET IN LEADERSHIP 2
Abstract
Leadership self-efficacy (LSE), an established predictor of leadership performance, has been
linked in the literature to a variety of characteristics, including leadership experience, sex, and
personality traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness. Recently, studies have
demonstrated that individuals’ mindsets (growth or fixed) can predict levels of self-efficacy in
areas such as academics and business. It is unknown, however, whether mindsets regarding
leadership can predict LSE. Using survey data collected from a sample of first-year
undergraduate students, this study tested whether leadership mindset can predict LSE over and
above other well-established predictors. Confirming previous findings, leadership experience,
conscientiousness, and extraversion significantly predicted LSE in the current study. However,
there was no significant relationship between leadership mindset and LSE. These findings
highlight the need for further research that examining the role of mindset in leadership.

Do Growth Mindsets Benefit Leaders? The Role of Mindset in Leadership Self-Efficacy
Leadership is one of the most sought-after transferable skills among employers in the 21st
century, and the development of students’ leadership abilities has been an enduring priority in
higher education (Caza & Rosch, 2014; Dugan & Komives, 2007). Ironically, according to
employers, leadership is one of the most common skill deficiencies among university graduates
(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006). Clearly, further research examining leadership
development among university students is urgently needed.
Though pedagogical research has suggested that taking into account students’ beliefs
regarding leadership can enhance its development, few studies have directly examined these
beliefs (Caza & Rosch, 2014). According to Dweck (2006), it is especially important to examine
individuals’ beliefs regarding the antecedents and malleability of attributes such as leadership
(i.e., whether they are innate or developed through experience). Known as mindset or implicit
theories in the literature, recent studies have identified strong positive relationships between
these beliefs regarding characteristics such as academics, problem solving, and mathematical
ability, and various outcomes, including performance, perseverance, effort, and self-efficacy
(Chase, 2010; Dweck, 2006; Pirrone & Commodari, 2013; Todor, 2014). However, missing from
the growing body of literature on mindsets are studies that examine these beliefs regarding
leadership ability among undergraduate students. The current study aims to address this gap in
the literature by asking whether undergraduate students’ mindsets about leadership can predict
leadership self-efficacy, which has been directly linked to various indicators of leadership ability
(e.g., ratings of leadership potential; Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000). Furthermore, the present
study examines whether students’ mindsets can predict leadership self-efficacy over and above
established predictors, including personality, leadership experience, and sex. Findings from this

study will provide valuable information that have the potential to enhance and advance current
undergraduate leadership development initiatives.
The Importance of Leadership Self-Efficacy
Social-cognitive theory describes the concept of self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s abilities
to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet situational
demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Bandura and Locke (2003) suggest that individuals’
self-efficacy regulates their thinking, effort, motivation, perseverance, emotional well-being, and
decision-making. Ultimately, self-efficacy contributes significantly to performance, and research
has revealed strong positive relationships between self-efficacy and various spheres of
functioning, from athletics to academics (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, &
Harms, 2008; Wood & Bandura, 1989). For example, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) conducted a
meta-analysis of 114 studies that looked at the relationship between self-efficacy and work-
related performance, and found a significant average weighted correlation of .38.
In the field of leadership, the concept of leadership self-efficacy (LSE) describes a
specific form of self-efficacy associated with individuals’ confidence in their own knowledge,
abilities, and skills to effectively lead others, and can be differentiated from self-efficacy
associated with other social roles, such as teaching (i.e., teacher efficacy). LSE has only recently
become a focus of empirical research; nonetheless, there has been a growing body of literature
that suggests that it is directly linked to various measures of leadership ability (Hannah et al.,
2008).
In support of this idea, Chemers et al. (2000) conducted a two-part study to examine the
role of LSE in predicting leadership outcomes among cadets enrolled at several American
universities. In the first part of their study, the cadets’ military science professors rated their

leadership potential, and results indicated that cadets’ LSE significantly and positively predicted
their leadership potential ratings. Chan and Drasgow (2001) replicated these results, also
identifying a positive relationship between LSE and ratings of leadership potential. In the second
part of Chemers et al.’s study, LSE strongly predicted leadership effectiveness ratings from both
peers and superiors at a summer training camp, in addition to objective performance evaluations
in a leadership simulation task. Also examining the relationship between LSE and leadership
effectiveness, Anderson, Krajewski, Goffin, and Jackson (2008) used a multidimensional
measure of LSE (e.g., self-discipline LSE), and examined its relation to several different facets
of leadership effectiveness (e.g., relational leadership effectiveness). Their findings revealed that,
in general, LSE had significant positive relationships with raters’ judgments of participants’
effectiveness across different aspects of leadership.
A number of studies have also examined the relationship between LSE and leadership
effectiveness within a business context. In a study of LSE among managers, Robertson and
Sandri (1993) examined the relationship between self-reports of LSE from their sample of 89
managerial staff at a bank in the United Kingdom, and performance ratings from their
supervisors. Their results revealed a significant positive relationship between managers’ LSE and
their performance ratings. Luthans and Peterson (2002) further found that managers’ LSE
predicted leader effectiveness ratings from both peers and subordinates, and was positively
related to their employees’ cognitive and emotional engagement, suggesting that LSE may
influence more than just leaders’ abilities and performance.
In addition to employee engagement, LSE has also been associated with individuals’
motivation and attempts to take on leadership roles (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; McCormick et al.,
2002; Paglis & Green, 2002). When given the opportunity, those who are high in LSE are

significantly more likely to attempt to assume a leadership role than those who have low
leadership-self efficacy. Considering the active attempts to influence the actions of others as a
necessary task in the leadership process, these results further establish LSE as a critical factor in
effective leadership (McCormick et al., 2002).
In all, existing literature has clearly established self-efficacy as a key predictor of
individuals’ performance in various areas of functioning (e.g., athletics), and these results have
been extended to leadership. As Chemers et al. (2000) concludes, LSE may be “one of the most
active ingredients in successful leadership” (p. 276). Considering the direct links between LSE
and leadership performance, and potential difficulties with assessing leadership ability within a
sample of first-year university students (e.g., lack of experiences that will allow them to
accurately report their abilities), LSE was selected as the criterion variable of the present study.
Predictors of Leadership Self-Efficacy
Considering the established significance of self-efficacy in the realm of leadership, it
should be unsurprising that a number of researchers have chosen to examine the individual
characteristics that predict LSE. To date, credible empirical evidence has established three main
individual characteristics as key contributors to LSE: personality, experience, and sex.
Personality. Stable personality traits have been associated with LSE. More specifically,
while each of Costa and McCrae’s (1985) Big Five personality traits have been linked to LSE,
conscientiousness and extraversion have emerged as the strongest predictors among
undergraduates (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Hannah et al., 2008; Hendricks & Payne, 2007; Paglis,
2010; Wielkiewicz, Fischer, Stelzner, Overland, & Sinner, 2012). Using a more diverse sample,
Chan and Drasgow (2001) conducted a cross-cultural study that included military recruits and
junior college students (aged 16-19) from Singapore, as well as American undergraduate

students (aged 17-24). Extraversion had the strongest zero-order correlation with LSE among the
Singaporean samples, while conscientiousness emerged as the strongest LSE correlate in the
American sample.
To explain these relationships, Ng, Ang, and Chan (2008) suggest that the outgoing,
sociable, and assertive characteristics associated with extraverts are consistent with the
requirements of the leadership role (e.g., interacting, persuading, and motivating others).
Meanwhile, those with high conscientiousness, tend to be responsible, organized, and hard-
working, and are consequently more confident in their ability as leaders as a result of their will to
accomplish their goals (Ng et al., 2008).
Experience. Another key predictor of LSE that has emerged in the literature is the
number of leadership experiences that individuals have had. For example, McCormick et al.
(2002) found that previous leadership experiences were positively correlated with LSE. More
strikingly, in a large-scale national study examining leadership capacity in American college
students, Dugan and Komives (2007) found that pre-college leadership experiences accounted
for 13% of the variance in LSE among students from 52 different college campuses.
Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) cross-cultural study of Singaporean and American samples
also looked at past leadership experience (as assessed by self-report ratings) as a predictor of
LSE. Across all three samples, experience emerged as one of the strongest predictors of LSE.
Among the Singaporean sample, experience showed stronger positive zero-order correlations
with LSE than all of the Big Five personality traits. Finally, while the construct of LSE wasn’t
directly examined, Wielkiewicz et al. (2012) examined incoming first-year students’ self-ratings
of their own leadership ability, and found that it was predicted by the number of activities that
they were involved in throughout high school. Furthermore, their results suggested that having a

leadership role in a meaningful activity (e.g., being club president or team captain) was
positively related to students’ confidence in their leadership abilities.
Sex. Several studies have also established sex as a significant predictor of LSE. The first
of these is Dugan and Komives’ (2007) national study, which examined a sample of more than
60,000 American college students. Results revealed that sex was a significant predictor for LSE,
with men reporting significantly higher LSE than women. These results were replicated by
Wielkiewicz et al. (2012), who found that among incoming first-year students, males’ self-rated
leadership ability was higher than that of females. Even among McCormick et al.’s (2002)
sample of undergraduate students, who were generally equivalent in their age and education
levels, women tended to report significantly lower LSE than men. Finally, sex differences in
LSE have also been observed among physician-scientists conducting clinical research, as female
physician-scientists were found to have significantly lower self-efficacy for their leadership and
management abilities in research than their male counterparts (Bakken, Sheridan, & Carnes,
2003). In all, these results suggest that there are significant sex differences in LSE, with women
demonstrating significantly lower levels than men.
Taken together, these findings have established clear connections between LSE and
individual characteristics including personality, leadership experience and sex. More specifically,
significant and positive connections have been confirmed between LSE and levels of
extraversion and conscientiousness, and individuals’ number of leadership experiences. Finally,
sex has emerged as a reliable predictor across multiple studies, as males tended to higher levels
of LSE than women. These results may have practical applications in both the realms of leader
selection and leadership development. For example, Paglis (2010) recommends the use of Big
Five measures for organizations to assess and select leaders in light of research identifying

personality traits as predictors of LSE (and ultimately, leadership effectiveness). Furthermore,
results suggesting sex differences in LSE bring to light the need for leadership development
programs specifically targeting women. Nevertheless, research examining other individual
difference variables as predictors of LSE is needed, such as internal locus of control, emotional
intelligence, and mindset.
The Role of Leadership Mindset
A topic that has recently received increased attention in the social-cognitive literature is
the role of individuals’ general beliefs and attitudes regarding different characteristics (e.g.,
intelligence, personality) in predicting various performance outcomes (Dweck, 2006). In the field
of leadership, researchers have recently begun to examine the importance of these personal
beliefs in predicting leadership ability. For example, Caza and Rosch (2014) conducted an
exploratory study on the subject, which revealed that undergraduates’ preexisting beliefs
regarding the general characteristics of a leader predicted multiple leadership outcomes,
including LSE.
In a review of literature examining this issue, Chase (2010) connected the leadership
literature to Carol Dweck’s research on the theory of mindset. Coining the term leadership
mindset, Chase suggested that individuals can either have a fixed mindset, believing that
leadership is an innate quality and that people are born leaders, or a growth mindset, believing
that leadership abilities can be learned and acquired through experience. Individuals who have a
fixed mindset will tend to believe they either have what it takes to succeed as a leader, or they do
not. When faced with failure, Dweck (2006) argues that they will tend to give up. On the other
hand, those with growth mindsets believe that their leadership ability is malleable, and that they
can develop their leadership abilities with experience and effort. Failure does not threaten those

who have growth mindsets, as these experiences are seen a valuable learning experience (Chase,
2010; Dweck, 2006). Dweck’s research on mindsets, also called implicit theories in the
literature, has demonstrated that people’s views regarding the malleability of human attributes
can significantly affect the way they think, feel, behave, and react (Dweck, 2006; Dweck, Chiu,
& Hong, 1995). Compared to those with fixed mindsets, those with growth mindsets are more
likely to perform better (Chase, 2010), persist in the face of obstacles and put forth more effort
(Dweck et al., 1995; Jourden, Bandura, & Banfield, 1991), self-regulate their learning
(Ommundsen, 2003), and have higher self-efficacy (Kanfer, 1990).
A number of studies have examined the relationship between mindset and self-efficacy,
confirming the increased likelihood of those with growth mindsets to have higher self-efficacy.
In a sample of Romanian high school students, Todor (2014) concluded that those who have a
growth mindset regarding math-oriented intelligence (i.e., believing that intelligence can be
developed through effort) were more likely to have a strong self-efficacy regarding mathematics
(i.e., believing they can do well in mathematics). In their sample of Italian high school students,
Pirrone and Commodari (2013) similarly observed that those with a growth mindset regarding
intelligence and personality tended to have more confidence in their those attributes, and higher
self-efficacy in problem solving. In addition to high school students, these results have also been
observed in other samples, including school-aged children (Abdullah, 2008) and entrepreneurs
(Pollack, Burnette, and Hoyt, 2012).
To explain the relationship between growth mindsets and self-efficacy, McCormick
(1999) suggests that when individuals with growth mindsets are faced with mistakes or failures,
they tend to view them constructively, rather than a sign of their lack of ability; therefore, their
self-efficacy is sustained. Indeed, Pollack et al.’s (2012) experimental study confirms this

suggestion. When their sample of business owners were faced with threats to their
entrepreneurial success (e.g., poor business performance), those who had growth mindsets
reported greater self-efficacy than participants who had fixed mindsets. Indeed, Pollack et al.
suggest that believing in the malleability of personal attributes (in this case, entrepreneurship
ability) can serve as a buffer against the potentially damaging effects of failures on individuals’
self-efficacy.
Further evidence connecting self-efficacy with mindset can be found in studies that have
linked self-efficacy with goal-orientation (Hendricks and Payne, 2007; McCormick, 1999).
Dweck and Leggett (1988) describe two different goal orientations - performance and learning
goal orientations. Those with strong performance goal orientations are concerned with their
peers’ and superiors’ judgments, and engage in tasks to demonstrate their ability relative to
others, aspiring to achieve their goals to prove their superiority. Those with learning goal
orientations, on the other hand, aim to learn new material and master their performance on a task
strictly for the sake of learning and improvement, without being concerned with their
performance relative to others. Performance goal orientations have been linked to fixed mindsets,
while learning goal orientations have been linked to growth mindsets (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong,
1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Kanfer, 1990). In the realm of leadership, Hendricks and Payne
(2007) conducted a study of a large sample of undergraduate students examining learning goal
orientations as a predictor of LSE. Their results revealed significant positive relationships
between participants’ learning goal orientations and LSE, and confirmed McCormick’s (1999)
earlier findings. Considering the direct relationship between learning goal orientations and
growth mindsets, these results provide further evidence that individuals’ attitudes and beliefs are
closely related to their self-efficacy.

Despite the body of literature that has confirmed the positive relationship between growth
mindsets (along with other mindset-related constructs, such as goal orientation) and self-efficacy
in areas such as mathematics (e.g., Todor, 2014), academics (e.g., Abdullah, 2008), and
entrepreneurship (e.g., Pollack et al., 2012), few have examined the relationship between
leadership mindset and LSE. In an early study by Wood and Bandura (1989), an experimental
design was used to examine the role of mindset in predicting management and decision-making
ability and self-efficacy, an important aspect of leadership. Dividing their sample of graduate
business students into two experimental groups, Wood and Bandura led one group to believe that
management and decision-making was an innate ability (i.e., fixed mindset), and the other to
believe that it was an acquired ability (i.e., growth mindset). When placed in a scenario where
they were asked to make complex decisions regarding the placement, organization, and
motivation of employees, participants in the growth mindset condition showed higher decision-
making self-efficacy, in addition to better performance, and greater improvement over time.
More recently, Burnette, Pollack and Hoyt (2010) conducted a study examining the influence of
leadership mindset on their participants’ self-evaluations of ability after being faced with a
stressful situation that could threaten their self-image. While they found no significant
relationship between leadership mindset and LSE (potentially as a result of their small and
limited sample; N = 51 and all participants were female), their results suggest that the self-
evaluations of participants with growth mindsets were more resilient than those with fixed
mindsets, providing further evidence for McCormick’s (1999) explanation of the relationship
between self-efficacy and mindset.
In all, there is indirect evidence from existing research that connects leadership mindset
and LSE, and studies in other contexts that directly link mindset with self-efficacy. Nonetheless,

there have been no studies to date that have directly examined leadership mindset as a predictor
of LSE among undergraduate students.
The Present Study
Based on the previously reviewed studies, existing evidence suggests that LSE is a direct
predictor of leadership effectiveness (Anderson et al., 2000; Chemers et al., 2000; Luthans &
Peterson, 2002; Robertson and Sandri, 1993). Furthermore, it appears that personality,
experience, and sex are positive predictors of LSE (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; McCormick et al.,
2002; Wielkiewicz et al., 2012). Nonetheless, no study to date has been conducted to examine
the relationship between mindset, a construct that has recently gained prominence within the
social-cognitive literature, and LSE. The present study sought to address this limitation by
utilizing a correlational design to evaluate whether leadership mindset (i.e., growth, fixed) could
predict LSE. More specifically, the current study examined whether or not a growth mindset
could predict LSE, over and above established predictors including personality (i.e.,
conscientiousness, extraversion), experience in leadership roles, and sex. Based on the work of
researchers who have identified a positive relationship between mindset and self-efficacy in
domains such as mathematics (e.g., Todor, 2014), academics (Abdullah, 2008), and business
(Pollack et al., 2012), leadership mindset was expected to positively predict LSE. However,
considering the lack of research investigating whether mindset can predict self-efficacy over and
above established factors, no hypotheses were made regarding the present study’s second
research question.

Method
Participants
A total of 131 first-year Brock University undergraduate students enrolled in an
introductory psychology course (Mage = 18.9 years, SD = 2.72, range = 18-35) signed up to take
part in the study, advertised as “Leadership and Resilience.” The vast majority of the participants
(87.3%; a total of 117) were female, and all participants had completed five or fewer credits,
though only a minority (22.1%) were majoring in psychology. All participants were compensated
with either 1 hour of research participation credit, or a payment of $10.
Procedure
Participants signed up for the study through the Psychology Department’s Research Pool
website (SONA). Participation occurred in person in Brock University’s Workplace Skills Lab,
with an investigator present. Up to five participants took part at a time, and each used their own
secure computer. After providing consent and relevant demographic information, participants
completed a series of questionnaires using an online survey tool. Participation took up to one
hour of participants’ time.
Measures
Four of the five target variables (i.e., LSE, leadership mindsets, leadership experience,
and personality) were assessed in the current study using various psychometrically sound
measures from the literature. All variables were assessed using self-reports. Participants reported
their sex – the fifth target variable of the present study – in the demographics section of the
questionnaire.

Leadership self-efficacy (LSE). Participants’ LSE was assessed using Kane and Baltes’
(2008) measure, as cited by McCormick et al. (2002). The 8-item questionnaire asked
participants to self-report their level of confidence about performing the following leadership
tasks: (1) perform well as a leader across different group settings, (2) motivate group members,
(3) build group members’ confidence, (4) develop teamwork, (5) “take charge” when necessary,
(6) communicate effectively, (7) develop effective task strategies, and (8) assess the strengths
and weaknesses of the group. Participants provided their responses on a 10-point Likert scale,
with higher scores indicating greater confidence (1 = no confidence and 10 = 100% confident).
The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) across the 8 items was .87.
Leadership mindset. Participants’ leadership mindsets (growth; fixed) were assessed
using Dweck et al.’s (1995) 3-item measure, which included: (1) “You have a certain amount of
leadership ability and you can’t do much to change it, (2) “Your leadership ability is something
about you that you can’t change very much”, and (3) “You can learn new things, but you can’t
really change your basic leadership ability.” Respondents indicated their agreement with each
statement using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree), with higher
scores indicating a stronger growth mindset. The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) across
the 3 items was .84.
Leadership experiences. A single item was used to assess respondents’ leadership
experience item (specifically, participants reported on the number of times that they had acted as
a leader in various settings) on a 10-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating more
experience (1 = no leadership experiences and 10 = 10 or more leadership experiences).
Personality. Ten items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg,
1998) were selected to assess participants’ relevant personality traits. Five items assessed

conscientiousness (i.e., I am always prepared; I pay attention to details; I get my chores done
right away; I like order; I follow a schedule), and five items assessed extraversion (i.e., I am the
life of the party; I feel comfortable around people; I start conversations; I talk to a lot of different
people at parties; I don’t mind being the center of attention). Participants reported their level of
agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater
agreement (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha) was .71 for the IPIP subscale assessing conscientiousness, and .83 for the subscale
measuring extraversion.
Results
Prior to conducting a hierarchical regression to answer the main question of interest in
this study, an examination of correlations (see Table 1) revealed that all independent variables,
with the exception of leadership mindset and sex, were significantly correlated with LSE.
Mindset showed no significant correlations with any other variables assessed in the present
study.
The hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate whether participants’
leadership mindset scores could predict their LSE, after controlling for leadership experience,
extraversion, conscientiousness, and sex. In the first step of the hierarchical regression,
participants’ leadership experience, sex, and conscientiousness and extraversion scores were
entered. This model explained a significant 39% of the variance in LSE, F(4, 126) = 20.16, p <
.001 (see Table 2). Participants’ leadership mindset scores were entered in step two. The total
variance in LSE explained by the model after the entrance of leadership mindset was 39.1%, F(5,
125) = 16.07, p < .001. The introduction of leadership mindset explained an additional 0.1% of
the variance in scores assessing LSE, but this change in R2 was not statistically significant, FΔ

(1, 125) = .27, p = .64. In the final model, all predictors were statistically significant, p < .05,
with the exception of sex and leadership mindset. Participants’ leadership mindset scores did not
significantly predict their LSE, after controlling for other established predictors, as shown in
Table 2. Results suggest that leadership mindset does not make a unique and significant
contribution to predicting LSE, and our hypotheses were not supported.
Discussion
Consistent with previous literature, three of the four variables that have been established
as predictors of LSE (leadership experience, extraversion, and conscientiousness) also emerged
as significant predictors in the present study. However, contrary to expectations, the results of
this study indicated that students’ mindsets regarding leadership did not predict their LSE.
Mindset, in fact, did not predict any of the variables that were assessed in this study. Each of
these findings will be discussed in turn.
Experience, Personality and Sex as Predictors of LSE
Though mindset was not a significant predictor of LSE, results of the present research
largely confirmed findings from previous studies that have examined other predictors of this
construct. For example, consistent with findings from a number of previous studies (e.g., Chan &
Drasgow, 2001), conscientiousness and extraversion emerged as significant positive predictors of
leadership self-efficacy. Our results confirmed Ng et al.’s (2008) suggestion that those with more
outgoing, sociable, responsible, and organized personalities are more likely to be confident in
their own leadership abilities. Furthermore, we found that leadership experience was also a
significant predictor of LSE, confirming the results from past studies that found positive
relationships between LSE and previous experiences in leadership roles (Chan & Drasgow,
2001; Dugan & Komives, 2007; McCormick et al., 2002; Wielkiewicz et al., 2012).

The nonsignificant relationship that was observed between sex and LSE in this study
differs from the findings of Dugan and Komives (2007), Bakken et al. (2003), McCormick et al.
(2002), and Wielkiewicz et al. (2012). The discrepancy in the results may be a result of the fact
that the majority of the participants in the present study were female (87.3%). Considering the
use of a relatively sex-balanced sample in prior studies, findings from the present research
regarding sex should be interpreted with caution.
Mindset as a Predictor of LSE
The present study’s main hypothesis – that leadership mindset would predict LSE over
and above established variables – was not supported by the results. The nonsignificant
correlation between LSE and mindset that was observed in this study may be partially explained
by the use of only three items to assess leadership mindset. This mindset measure was based on
one that was used by Dweck et al. (1995), who argued that only three items were necessary
because mindset is a construct with a simple, unitary theme, and rephrasing the same idea
repeatedly may lead to participants’ boredom or confusion. However, considering the complex
and multifaceted nature of leadership, more items may be necessary to fully capture participants’
mindsets regarding the different aspects of leadership (e.g., motivating group members,
developing teamwork). Furthermore, leadership is a concept with varying definitions, so the
inclusion of a clear definition of leadership in future measures may lead to responses that capture
participants’ leadership mindsets more accurately.
Our findings were inconsistent with results from past studies that found significant
relationships between mindset and self-efficacy in areas outside of leadership. Todor (2014)
found a significant correlation between mindsets regarding intelligence and self-efficacy in
mathematics, while Pirrone and Commodari (2013) found significant correlations between

mindsets regarding intelligence and personality, and self-efficacy in problem solving. Similarly,
Abdullah (2008) found that children’s mindsets regarding intelligence significantly predicted
their overall self-efficacy. Comparable to the present study, the first two investigations used
samples of just over 100 participants with a mean age of approximately 17-18 years, so
dissimilar results are unlikely to be a result of differences in the sample. However, unlike the
present study, all three of these studies used more than three items to measure participants’
mindsets. This supports the speculation that null results may have been obtained in this study due
to the lack of comprehensiveness in the mindset measure.
Two other studies that were reviewed used a comparable three-item measure based on
Dweck et al.’s (1995) work. Pollack et al. (2012) similarly adopted the three-item measure in
assessing entrepreneurship mindsets. While they found significant results when considering
mindset as a moderator in the relationship between threatening conditions and entrepreneurship
self-efficacy, they were unable to find a significant direct relationship between entrepreneurship
mindset and entrepreneurship self-efficacy. Similarly, Burnette et al. (2010) used the same three-
item measure of leadership mindset that was used in the current study. Interestingly, their results
also mirrored that of the present study – mindset was unable to significantly predict LSE, both
before and after a threatening scenario. The lack of significant results in Burnette et al.’s study
could also be attributed to limitations in their sample, as they used a restricted sample of 51
female undergraduates students in an introductory psychology class. However, the present study
used a larger sample of students of both sexes, and nonetheless found null results. Thus, it is
more likely that nonsignificant results are due to limitations in the measures than in the sample.
The null results that were obtained in the present study may also be an indication that a
more sophisticated model is needed to capture the relationship between mindset and leadership.

For example, it is possible that the relationship may be moderated by a third variable, such as
threats to self-efficacy (e.g., failure). This suggestion aligns with McCormick’s (1999) theory
that mindset serves as a buffer against the loss of self-efficacy after experiencing threatening
events, such as failure. Put another way, the relation between mindset and LSE may only be
significant after failure, and these conditions were not tested in the present study. Several studies
have confirmed the role of threats to self-efficacy as a potential moderator in the mindset - self-
efficacy relationship. Wood and Bandura’s (1989) classic study found that those with growth
mindsets showed greater self-efficacy in decision making in a scenario where they had to make
highly challenging decisions. Similarly, results in Pollack et al.’s (2012) study revealed that after
being exposed to various conditions that threatened their self-efficacy (e.g., poor business
performance), participants who had a growth mindset regarding entrepreneurship ability reported
greater self-efficacy. In the context of leadership, Burnette et al. (2010) found that growth
mindsets regarding leadership ability predicted greater overall self-esteem after a stereotype
threat (i.e., female participants being told that leadership is a primarily male characteristic).
However, mindset did not predict LSE, even after the threatening scenario, though their
nonsignificant results may be a result of their small and limited sample size. Despite Burnette et
al.’s contradictory findings, these results nonetheless collectively seem to suggest that mindset
may be a buffer against loss in self-efficacy after threatening situations. Therefore, the lack of
threat to participants’ self-efficacy may be a reason that a relationship between leadership
mindset and self-efficacy was not found in the present study.
Limitations and Future Directions
In addition to the previously discussed limitations of this study, several additional factors
need to be considered when interpreting our null results. First, despite the large sample that gave

this study sufficient statistical power, the sample strictly consisted of first-year university
students from a single undergraduate institution, the majority of whom were female. It is unclear
whether these results are representative of all North American undergraduate students; results
may differ if the sample was older, more sex-balanced, and drawn from multiple institutions.
Furthermore, unlike Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) cross-cultural study of Singaporean and
American students, this study provides no basis for generalizing the results to undergraduate
students in other cultural contexts.
Another significant limitation of the present study is its correlational design. While LSE
and mindset may not be directly related when examined using a correlational analysis, effects
may emerge when the relationship is tested using an experimental design. In support of this idea,
Pollack et al.’s (2012) two-part study found no significant direct relationships between mindset
and entrepreneurial self-efficacy when utilizing a correlational design; however, when an
experimental design was employed (participants’ mindsets were manipulated) they found that
those in the growth mindset condition had greater self-efficacy compared to participants in the
fixed mindset condition. Similarly, Wood and Bandura (1989) manipulated participants’
mindsets regarding decision making and found that growth mindset significantly buffered losses
in self-efficacy in a context of challenges and failures. Therefore, though a correlational design
may be insufficient in identifying a significant relationship between leadership mindset and self-
efficacy, studies using experimental designs may tell a different story.
The use of self-reports in this study should also be considered as a limitation when
interpreting the results of this study. LSE is a cognitive phenomenon that can fluctuate based on
context, and students’ self-reports of their levels of self-efficacy in a context where cognitive
demands and stress are minimal may not be an accurate assessment of their levels of self-

efficacy in an actual leadership context. Leadership mindset is also vulnerable to changes in
context and social situation, as the opinions and beliefs of individuals can differ based on the
perceived opinion of others. Thus, social desirability bias may also have influenced the results
that were obtained in this study.
To further investigate the role of mindset in leadership, future research will need to take
different approaches to theory and design. The use of a sample that is more representative, an
experimental design, and alternatives to self-reports (e.g., reports from observers, colleagues,
supervisors, etc.) may benefit future studies. Furthermore, our study highlights the importance of
comprehensive measures of mindset. As discussed earlier, previous studies that have used three-
item measures of mindset have also found insignificant results; thus, future studies in the field
should consider using a better elaborated measure of mindset. A more sophisticated model that
explains the relationship between leadership mindset and self-efficacy should also be explored.
In addition to considering contexts of threats to self-efficacy as a moderator between the
leadership mindset and LSE relationship, leadership mindset can also be examined as a
moderator variable between threats to self-efficacy and actual LSE. When examining mindset as
a moderator, Pollack et al. (2012) found that it significantly moderated the relationship between
threats to success and self-efficacy in the context of entrepreneurship. An examination of
whether Pollack et al.’s model will be also supported in the context of leadership will be
beneficial to the field. Finally, another possible direction for future studies is an examination of
whether mindset is related to actual leadership ability instead of self-efficacy.
Our results also support the possibility that mindset has no relation to self-efficacy in the
context of leadership. If future studies continue to find no effects of mindset in leadership,
perhaps the role of other cognitive variables, such as self-esteem, locus of control, or optimism,

should be explored instead. For example, self-esteem (a more global concept than self-efficacy)
significantly predicted LSE in Burnette et al.’s (2010) analysis, and further research can build on
these preliminary findings.
Conclusions
Our study contributes valuable insight to the new and emerging body of literature on both
mindset and self-efficacy in the context of leadership, in addition to confirming some of the
findings from past studies. These results may have practical implications for leadership
development among undergraduate students. As a result of the null results that were obtained in
the present study and Burnette et al.’s (2010) study (to our knowledge, the only other study that
examines mindset in the context of leadership), the incorporation of mindset into leadership
development should be delayed until further research is conducted. Nonetheless, confirming
previous findings, our results suggest that leadership experience, extraversion, and
conscientiousness significantly predicted LSE. Thus, providing undergraduate students with
more opportunities to engage in leadership roles, and contexts that cultivate extraversion and
conscientiousness, will significantly benefit students’ self-efficacy in leadership.
In summary, our results suggest that a model that directly links leadership mindset and
LSE may be insufficient, and that a more sophisticated one needs to be examined in future
studies. Additional research exploring models that include cognitive correlates (including
mindset) may assist undergraduate institutions in cultivating leadership, an important goal given
the importance of this skill in today’s workplace.

References
Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, Goffin, & Jackson. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and
its relation to effective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 595–608.
Bakken, L., Sheridan, J., & Carnes, M. (2003). Gender differences among physician-scientists in
self-assessed abilities to perform clinical research. Academic Medicine, 78(12), 1281–1286.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.
Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., & Hoyt, C. L. (2010). Individual differences in implicit theories of
leadership ability and self-efficacy: Predicting responses to stereotype threat. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 3(4), 46–56. http://doi.org/10.1002/jls.20138
Caza, A., & Rosch, D. M. (2014). An exploratory examination of students’ pre-existing beliefs
about leadership. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1586–1598.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801434
Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership:
Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481
Chase, M. A. (2010). Should coaches believe in innate ability? The importance of leadership
mindset. Quest, 62(3), 296–307.
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership
effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–277.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory: Manual, form S and form
R. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students:
Findings from a national study. Retrieved from http://173.236.126.226/leadersh/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/mslreport-final.pdf
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House Publishing Group.
Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from 2 perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. The American
Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007
Hendricks, J. W., & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the big five: Leader goal orientation as a
predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20(4), 317–343.
Jourden, F. J., Bandura, A., & Banfield, J. T. (1991). The impact of conceptions of ability on self-
regulatory factors and motor skill acquisition. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
13(3), 213–226.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation and individual differences in learning: An integration of
developmental, differential and cognitive perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences,
2, 221–239. http://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(90)90023-A

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy:
implications for managerial effectiveness and development. Journal of Management
Development, (5-6), 376.
McCormick, M. J. (1999). The influence of goal-orientation and sex-role identity on the
development of leadership self-efficacy during a training intervention. Texas A & M
University, College Station, TX.
McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & López-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory
to leadership: A review and empirical test. Retrieved from
http://www.journalofleadershiped.org/attachments/article/23/JOLE_1_2_McCormick_Tangu
ma_Lopez-Forment.pdf
Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated
mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733–743. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.733
Ommundsen, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in physical
education classes, 23(2), 141–157.
Paglis, L. L. (2010). Leadership self-efficacy: Research findings and practical applications.
Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 771–782.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for
leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (2), 215.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Are They Really Ready to Work? Employers’
Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century
U.S. Workforce. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519465

Pirrone, C., & Commodari, E. (2013). Implicit theories of intelligence and personality, self-
efficacy in problem solving, and the perception of skills and competences in high school
students in Sicily, Italy. Book Review, 39.
Pollack, J. M., Burnette, J. L., & Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Self-efficacy in the face of threats to
entrepreneurial success: Mind-sets matter. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 287–
294. http://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.674452
Robertson, I. T., & Sadri, G. (1993). Managerial self-efficacy and managerial performance.
British Journal of Management, 4(1), 37.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240.
Todor, I. (2014). Investigating “the old stereotype” about boys/girls and mathematics: Gender
differences in implicit theory of intelligence and mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 319–323. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.380
Wielkiewicz, R. M., Fischer, D. V., Stelzner, S. P., Overland, M. & Sinner, A. M. (2012).
Leadership attitudes and beliefs of incoming first-year college students: A multi-institutional
study of gender differences. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(2), 1–25.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms
and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407–
415. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407

Table 1
Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Sex, Leadership Experience,
Leadership Self-Efficacy, Mindset, Extraversion and Conscientiousness
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Sex  -.05 -.09 -.11 -.14 -.01
2. Experience  .37* .00 .27* .26*
3. LSE  -.05 .51* .33*
4. Mindset  .01 -.10
5. Extraversion  .04
6. Conscientiousness 
M 1.89 7.56 7.04 2.97 5.52 4.59
SD .31 2.61 1.37 1.31 .87 1.25
Note. For sex, 1 = male, 2 = female; Leadership Experience assessed on a 10-point scale, with higher
scores indicating more experience; Leadership Self-Efficacy (LSE) assessed with 8 items on a 10-point
scale with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy; Leadership Mindset assessed with 3 items on a 7-
point scale,with lower scores indicating a stronger growth mindset; Extraversion and Conscientiousness
assessed with 10 items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1998), with higher
scores indicating greater extraversion and conscientiousness.
* p < .01.

Table 2
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Leadership Self-Efficacy From
Leadership Mindset
Predictor ΔR2 β
Step 1 .39***
Sex
– .03
Conscientiousness
.27***
Extraversion
.45***
Leadership Experience
.18*
Step 2 .00
Leadership Mindset
– .03
Total R2 .39***
n 131
Note. Conscientiousness and extraversion was assessed using ten items from the International Personality
Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1998). Leadership mindset was assessed using a modified version of Dweck et
al.’s (1995) three-item scale.
*p < .05. *** p < .001.

The Role of Mindset in Leadership - Lewis Lau's Thesis

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to The Role of Mindset in Leadership - Lewis Lau's Thesis

The Role of Mindset in Leadership - Lewis Lau's Thesis