role of implicit personality theory in leadership research
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and
Teaching (2005-2012) Teaching (2005-2012)
Volume 2 Number 1 Journal of Business & Leadership Article 13
1-1-2006
Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research
Lawrence Silver Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Debbie Silver Debbie Silver Presents
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl
Part of the Business Commons, and the Education Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Silver, Lawrence and Silver, Debbie (2006) "Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research," Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012): Vol. 2 : No. 1 , Article 13. Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol2/iss1/13
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Peer-Reviewed Journals at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012) by an authorized editor of FHSU Scholars Repository.
Jo um3l o f Busmess 3nd Le3dcrshqJ Rc«e3rc h, J>r3 cti cc, 3nd Te3ch tn g 2006,
Vo l 2. No . I , I OR-115
ROLE OF IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORY IN LEADERSHIP RESEARCH
Lawrence S il ver, So uthcastem Oklahoma State U ni vers it y D ebbi e S il ver, D ebbi e Si lver Presents
Implicit personality theory explains how individuals interpret the world around them including the events they e.x:perience and observe. Research in social and educational psychology indicates that one 's implicit
personality the01 y influences the extent to whi ch one makes judgm ellls about ability regarding the self and others. While some researchers have begun to apply the concept to organizational studies, this paper explains the value of extending that research into thr ee areas important to leaders: (1) employee evaluation, (2) managerial f eedback, and (3) work motivation.
INTRODUCTIO N
Recent organ izationa l behavior researchers have evidenced an interest in the rol e of implic it theori es and their impac t on effective man agerial and leadership behaviors (B utton. Mathi eu & Zajac 1996; Kenney, Blascovich & Sha ve r 1994 ; Na than & Alexander 1985 : Werth , Markel & Forster 2006; Wrenn & Maurer 2004) . Although all ar based on the semin al work of Heider ( 1958) and Kell y (1955), the studi es differ in their concept of imp licit theory.
One model of implic it theory app lied to leadership theory is that of ''implicit leadership theory" (I LT) deve loped by Ca lder ( 1977). Th is theory contends that fol lowers fom1 role schemas or normative ex pectati ons of how a leader should behave in certain situati ons. Once a member of a ~:,•-ro u p evidences a di stincti ve, ex pected leadership behavior. other members o f the group attribut e leadership qua lit ies to him or her. For exa mpl e, if fol lower be li eve a member of the g-roup deserves to be ltstened to , they wi ll a ll ow themse lves to be innuenced by that person in most sce nari os without re-eva luat in g the speaker 's cred ibili ty 111 different circumstances (Sot-renti no & Field 1986).
Recent ly ano ther mode l o f impl icit theory deve loped by Caro l Dweck and her coll eagues (e.g. , Dweck 1999: D\\'eck, Ch iu & !long 1995 ; Dweck & Legge tt 1988: Le\'y & Dweck 1998 ) has emerged as the basis fo r most o f the appl ica ti n or the concept to orga ni zational beha io r (e .g., Button, Math ieu & Zajac 1996: Werth , Ma rkel & Forster :2006; Wrenn & Maurer 200-l) . Brien y. tht s mode l ,·ic,,·s tmpli cit theori es as personalt ty tra it s a lthough contex tual considera tions exert innuence. According to ]),,·eck ( 1999) people beli eve that certai n charac teri sti cs o f others and themselves (e.g .. intellige nce . abi lit y, morality) arc either fi xed or mall eable. For exam pl e. onc· s in telli ge nce is ei ther fixcJ
and cannot be changed or is mall eable and can be enhanced with proper effon and instruction.
Although based in soc ial psychology, Dweck 's area of research is important for the organi zational behavior and leadership li terature. Leaders who believe employees' ab il ity is fix ed will take a different approach to feedback and tn ining than will leaders who believe ab ili ty is something that can be developed. The purpose of this paper is to exa mine cutTent research on implicit theory and leader::. hip and to offer application in organi zational behavior for three important areas: empl oyee eva luation, manager ial feedback and work motivation.
Implicit Perso nality Theor y (IPT)
Impl icit theori es arc "na·t·v e ass umptions" people hold about themselves and the social worl d (Kelly 1955). As such, they innuencc the way indi viduals process and understand in fo rmati on. They ::tre impli cit in the sense that they are not eas il y arti cul ated nor fu ll y understood by the people who hold them. Th is inab ili ty to express imp li cit theori es presents a challenge to behavioral scienti sts in identifying and determinin g their effect
One stream of research in th is area contends that each person holds imp licit moti ves that prompt one to behave in ways that satisfy needs. (McClell and , Koestner & Wei nberger 1989) For exa mpl e, a person with a need for ach ievemen t wil l act in ways that fac ilitate learning and success whil e someone with a need fo r affi li ation will ac t in ways that elicit the approva l of others. Ex tensive resea rch h::.~ s been conducted using this method , but the results arc le ss than convinc ing. One criti cism is that McC lel land 's measures lack predicti ve va lidity Addition ally, McClell and argues that such implicit needs arc permanent. Thi s contrasts with many social psyc ho logists who view needs as temporary (Port er, Bi
gley & Steers 2003 )
108 1
Silver and Silver: Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2006
Si lver and Sil ve r
According to Dweck and Leggett ( 1988), an individual ' s implicit personality theory fall s along a continuum that measures the degree to which that person believes human traits are fixed. Anchoring the hi gher end of the continuum is the be lief that human tTaits are malleable and changeable while beli efs at the other extreme are that traits are fix ed and unchangeable. Thus, people hold predominately one of two impli cit personality theories: (!) incremental theory or (2) enti ty theory.
In terms of intelligence, a person with an incremental theory believes that intelligence is a malleab le quality. This person believes that one's ability is not fi xed and can be changed with effort. In contrast, one who holds an entity theory of intelli gence beli eves that ab ili ty is a fixed and uncontrollable trait. Dweck and Leggett ( 1988) developed a scale to quantitatively measure impl icit personality theory. Their sca le, with some modifi cat ions by different researchers has proven to be psychometricall y sound (Butler 2000; Button. Mathieu & Zajac 1996; Dweck, Chiu & Hong 1995; Plaks, Grant & Dweck 2005 ; Werth , Markel & forster 2006). A representative item from Dwec k's instrumen t is ·'The kind of person someone is is something very bas ic about them and it can ' t be changed very much. " Subjects are asked to respond to each item on a six point Likert-type sca le anchored by I, '·Strongly Di sagree" and 6, "S
trongly Agree" (Chiu, Hong and Dweck 1997: 22) .
It is important to menti on that one 's impl icit personality theory is not a fix ed be li ef sys tem he ld across all situations (Dweck 1999). A person may bel ie\·e intelligence is fixed but that mora li ty can be changed and improved (Chiu, Hong & Dweck 1997). Therefore, people may conceive of themselves ac ross different situations as enti ty theori sts who are eager to be evaluated and at other times as dynami c "systems" wi lling to grow and lea rn . Wl1il e one genera ll y possesses a predisposition towa rd one theory or the other. situational factors interact and affect how strongly a particular theory is held (Dvveck & Leggett 1988).
Implicit theories of personal ity are widely held in the general population . Research by Dweck, Chiu & Hong ( 1995) indicates that approx imate ly 15% of people studied 111 vanous experiment s hold neither an incremental or entity impli ci t persona lity the01y. The other 85% are evenl y di vided between entity and incremental.
ln the present paper, it is proposed that a leader 's implicit personali ty theory influences hi s or her impression of empl oyee ab ility and. therefore. empl oyee perfom1ance eva luation Add it ionall y, bo th the leader's
Journa l or Bu>tllC» and Lead er> hlp: Research. PraclJCC, and Teachmg
and the emp loyee's impli cit personality theories detem1inc the effecti veness of managerial feedback. Finally, implicit personality theory detem1 in cs, in part, the work moti va ti on of leaders and employees. Each of these is deve loped as fo llows.
IPT and Employee Eval uation
Empl oyee eva luation accuracy IS a subject of considerable interest in the organizational behavior li terature (e.g., A li en 1992; Carmardella 2003 ; Maurer, Barbeite & Mitche ll 2002; Nathan & Alexander 1985 ; Roberts & Reed 1996; Wil son & Westem 2000). Wll il e the role of implicit theories in eva luation has been di scussed (Nathan & Alexander 1985), there appears to be more research interest in the educational and socia l psycho logy litera ture (cf Butler 2000). Below we show how the application of research in educational and social psychology can be appli ed to an organ izational setting and wh:1t the implications for effective empl oyee eva luations are.
Nathan and Alexander ( 1985) argue that certain ''cognitive ca tegorizat ion processes' ' cause managers to place emp loyees in an eva luative category ( 1985: 109). At the ti me of the emp loyee 's evaluation it is not the individual emp loyee who is recalled but the category to whi ch that emp loyee has been placed. For example, a manager may believe that trainees, as a category, are generall y incapable of superior performan ce. Thi s manager will eva luate trainees lower than they may deserYe because of the ca tegory to which they are ass igned. Thus, the employee 's eva luation is based on the stereotype of the group (as determined by the manager) rather than individual periom1ance . As stated above, the prohlem of perception tied to implicit theories ha , s in ce Na than and Alexander ( 1985 ). been extensively studi ed 111 the educational and soc ial psycho logy literatu re.
Dweck, Chiu and Hong (199 5) note that a person's implicit theory aiTects ho\\' he or she reac ts to human action s and outcomes. People \\ ith an en tity theory o r abili ty gcnera li Le all fa ilure ~llld ~ ucces~ in tem1s of fixed traits (" lie failed because he l::l cb abillt)' ." ). In contrast. those with an increme ntal theory look at fa ilure and success in terms of more speci li e beha\·ior ("I le fai led
because he didn ' t put i'nrth enough cl'fon ... ). MoreO\w. people with an entity th eory tend to make global tra1t judgments of others ba:-.ecl on initial 1nlormation about their beha\·ior. Interest ingly, entity theo ri sts abo tend to puni sh \\·hat they ~ec as 111appropriate bchav1or (with poor pcrlonnance reports. lor e.\ample) \\'hilc incremental
109 2
Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 2 [2006], No. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol2/iss1/13
Sil ver and Si lve r
theori sts are more likely to recommend actions that address the cause of the behavior.
In a tudy of attitudes of teachers and early hi gh school students concerning math ability, Butler (2000) found that teachers with an entity theory based their eva luati on of student performance over time on an initi al observation of ab ili ty . On the other hand, teachers with an incremental theory tended to assign a heavier weight to the last observation of ab ili ty. Thus, entity theori sts dec ide early on a student 's ab ili ty and assign that student to a "cogn itive ca tegory" by which all subsequent behavior is judged. Further, this initi al behavior is beli eved to be temporall y consistent with little or no opportun it-y for improvement.
Because implicit theori es in volve interpretation and control of the environment , people tend to heavil y in vest " in believing the theory they are using is conect " (Piaks, Grant & Dweck 2005 : 245) . In fa ct, people wi ll adopt communicat ion strategic (e.g., selective atten ti on, se lec ti ve reten tion) in order to reinforce their parti cul ar theory in the face of evi dence to the contTaJ)'. ln a seri es of experiments using co ll ege undergraduates, Plaks, Grant and Dweck (2005) tested the extent to wh ich people wou ld discount in fo nnat ion that violated thei r partic ular impli cit theory. Their findings ind icate that peopl e with either of the impli ci t theo ri es evidence
Joumal of Business and Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching
increased anxiety when presented with theory-violating infonnat ion. Further, people were more likely to seek out theory-confirming information rather than theoryvio lating inforn1a ti on.
Si mil arl y, Butler (2000) found that when entity theori sts were provided with theory-violating infonnation , they tended to look for alternative sources of information to support their initi al conclusions. Add itionally, teachers with an entity theory would underor overestimate subsequent perfonnance to bring the total eva luation in line with earlier observations.
The predicti on of subsequent behavior based on initi al observa ti ons is simil ar to the concept of "self-fulfilling prophecy" previously studi ed 111 the organi zational behavior literature (e.g. , Georgesen & Bani s 2006) . The two concepts differ, however, in the context of employee eva luations. A self-fulfilling prophecy predicts outcomes . That is, in the case of employee eva luations, a manager's ex pecta tions wou ld lead to actual employee behavior (Ju sim & Harber 2005). ln contrast, a manager' s entity impli ci t theo1-y fu lfi ll s only the manager's perception of empl oyee perfor 1a nce.
Clea rl y, these findin gs tTansfeJTed to an organizational se tting have imp li ca ti ons for leaders and managers. Tab le 1 below summari zes the di ffercnce between enti ty and incrementa l theori sts in terms of empl oyee evaluation .
Table 1: Comparison of Entity and Incremental Leaders in Terms of the Employee Eva lu ation Process
~~ ntit\ ln crc rn l' lltal Ini
tial leve ls of performance are "anchor>" for >ub,cquent performance lnlllal pcrfom1ancc "111U ica tl\ e of current abil1ty on ly
13elieve ab ill!y to perfom1 1s temporall y con, ,stent 13 eJ,cv e abillly can be 1111pro,cd "1th appropnate e ffort and tra111111 g Will look for altcrna tl\e source, of 111fonnauonto ex pl a111 vanance" 111 performance l' x pla111 vanancc, 1 11 pcrfo m1an ce w1th acqui Slll On of abillly
Under· or O\CI"C,llmatcs chan ge" 111 pcrfom1ance to conf orm to llllllal Judgments (even when performance decline s) May not nouce changes 111 abillly 1f employee\ performance rcma1n s con,lant
rclauve to others Prov1des normative feedbacJ..
I PT and Feedback Effectiveness
u eful feedbac k has al so been or interest in the organizati ona l behavior literature. Areas of study incl ude sincerity and feedback (Paswan, Pelton & True 2005). content or feedback (ll inkin & Schrieshcim 2004) affec t and Ceedback (Gaddi s, Conn ell y & Mumfort 2004), the interaction of cogni tion and 3ITcct in feedback (Ca nn on & Witherspoon 2005), and goa l or ientati on and feedback (Va ndeWa ll e, Brown, Cron & Slocum 1999) In th is sec tion , we will desc ri be the e ffe ct or impli ci t personalit y theory on leader feedback.
In an achie vement se tt mg, one 's impli cit personalit y theory determines onc· s goa ls to r that s it uation (Dweck & Lcggctt 1988). An ent ity theorist is concerned ma inl y
As>umes later ou tcomes 111U icate 1111provement of abil1ty to perform ta ,J..
Notes 1ndl\ 1dual changes 111 abil1t y even when employee performan ce rcma1n > stable rc lati\'C 10 others Prov1d cs feedback that encourage> progress ove r ume
with demonstrating ab ility, especially in relati on to others. Conve rse ly, an in cremental theori st is more concern ed with acquirin g competence. These di fferent "theories of ab ility \.v iii also affec t the degree to which different kinds of feedback arc perce ived as di agnostic fo r self-a ppra isa l' ' (Bu tl er 2000: 976) . Because of their interest in demonstratin g abi lity, entity theorists are more interested in normati ve feedback. Incremental theori sts, intent on deve lopin g ab ility, find feedback directl y related to improv ing task performance more helpfu l.
In the previously menti oned study of teac hers and student s, But ler (2000) indi ca ted that enti ty theori sts ro und normati ve feedbac k to be more help fu l in se lfapprai al whil e incremen ta l theori sts found temp ora l fee
dback more use fu l. Further, when the feedback was in
11 0 3
Silver and Silver: Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2006
Si lver and Sil ver
conflict with their implicit theo ri es , s tudents di scounted the feedback and looked for a lterna tive sources of information to bolster the ir preconceptions .
Interestingly, entity theori sts did mod ify somewhat their perception s of their ability when given normati ve feedback they perce ived to be hi ghl y diagnostic (Butler 2000) . Pupil s who believed they were ··smart" in math modified the ir viewpoint when a ll owed to compare the ir grades with other students over time. Whi le it ma y seem contradic tory that entity theori s ts would modi fy the ir judgments of their abili ty, the findin gs are consistent with the evidence that enti ty theorists are very concerned about their leve l of inte lligence and tend to generali ze ability on one task to other a reas of ac hievement. That is, entity theori sts are more like ly than incrementa l theori s ts to believe that fa ilure on one task wi II lead to fa ilure on other tasks (Dweck & Leggett 1988).
There a lso appea rs to be a n interaction between feedback and intrinsic moti va ti on. According to Dec i and Ryan (1985) competence in a parti cular task is cruc ia l fo r intrinsic motiva tion . They a lso note that peopl e evidence greater intrins ic moti vation when given pos iti ve feed back and reduced moti vation wi th nega ti ve feedbac k. Yet, when IPT is taken into considerati on, the re levance of that feedback may be influenced (Bu tl er 2000). For examp le , a competiti ve environment tha t emphas izes normative feedbac k undermines the intrins ic moti va tion of the incrementa I theori s t.
[n tem1s of feedback, intrin sic moti va ti on shoul d increase for incrementa l theori s ts as they rece ive pos iti ve tempora l responses . Entity theori sts, on the o ther hand, wi ll inc rease intrins ic moti va tion in a case of ea rl y nom1ati ve success feedback. A lte rnati ve ly. nonnati ve fai lure feedback will undermine intrin s ic moti\·ation for entity theori sts to a grea ter ex tent than it w ill for incrementa l theo ri s ts (B utler 2000) .
These findin gs have strong implica ti ons for leade rs in an organiza tiona l setting. F irst, leaders need to be aware of the ir own as we ll as the ir emp loyees' implic it personality theori es . As with the teachers and students in Butler 's (2000) study, certai n typ es of feedback w ill be perceived as ineffect ive by entit y and incremental theori sts . For exa mp le , a leader w ith an en ti ty theory concerning abili ty who g ives nonnati ve feedback may undermine the des ire to lea m and w i II in gness to pers ist characteri sti c of an empl oyee w ith an inc rementa l theory. Ineffec ti ve feedback w ill lead to a search for a ltemativ e informa ti on sources to support preconce rved ass umpti on s leadi ng to a lac k of trust in manage ment. questions about organ iza ti onal j usti ce. and r..::du ced work moti va tion .
Jouma l of 11usmess and Leadership · Rc,ea rch. Pracucc, and Teaching
IPT and Work Motivation
As previous ly s tated, each of these tw o impli c it personality theori es ho lds a unique and different concept about the se lf (Dweck & Mo lden 1999). For the entity theori st, the se lf is made up of s tabl e tra its that can be measured . Altem ati ve ly. the incrementa l theo ri st be li eves the se lf is more dynamic and can be changed . Thus, the entity theorist's se lf-e steem is enhanced when hi s o r her tra its are measured and found favorable in compari son to others . Tn contrast, the incremental theori st' s se lf-esteem is increased if he or she is allowed to pursue tasks that allow for deve lopment o f skill s or ta lents.
I! I
D weck and Bempechat ( 1983 ) demonstrate how thi s concept of se lf is re lated to impl ic it persona li ty theory. Schoo l children who had been previously tested to determine the ir own implic it per ona li ty theory were as ked vvhen it was that they fel t ·'s mart" in schoo l. Enti tyo ri ented children reported feelings o f hi gh task selfesteem when the work was easy. when littl e effort was needed fo r success, when the work was compl eted without mistakes. and w hen they fini shed firs t. Incrementa l theo ri sts, on the o ther hand , reported fee lin g smart when they were exe11ing a grea t dea l of effo rt, when they m astered something they did no t understand , and when they mastered som ething new.
T hus, peop le choose goa ls and tas ks consistent wi th the wa y they interpret thei r environment (But ler 2000; Button , Mathieu & Zajac 1996; D weck & Bempechat 1983: Dweck. C hiu, & Hong 1995; Dweck & Legge tt 1988; Werth, Marke l & Forster 2006). People \\·ith an entit y pe rsonn lit y theory will choose goa ls they know they w ill accomp li sh. C hoos in g ta sks that can be easi ly a ttained !lows en ti ty theorists to reinforce the ir selfesteem by appea r-ing competent in the eyes of other peop le. S ho uld the chosen tasks become too d iffi cu lt, the entit y theorist w i II find reasons to abandon the ta sk or dimini sh it s importance. In contrast. peopl e \\ith an incrementa l personality theory choose goals that offer the opportunity to leam somethin g ne\,. or improve skill. It rs the desi re to !cam and imprO\T s ki ll s tha t increases thi s per on 's se lf-e steem rat he r than a compn r ison \\·ith other
peop le. An ent ity imp li ci r persona lit y theory is innuenced by
one's se lf-effi cacy or be li ef in hr s or her ca pacity to s uccessfull y comp lete a particubr task (Bandura 19c6). As no ted above, an entity theoris t wi ll choose ta sks that lead to f:l\ 'Orab le nom1 ati vc compar i ~ons. HO\\ ·ever, the hi gher the pe rson·s self-effica cy. the mo re like !; he or
4
Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 2 [2006], No. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol2/iss1/13
Si lver and Si lver
she is to attempt the task . T hat is, an enti ty theori st w ill approach a d ifficult task if' he or she is confident of succe sf'ul completi on. Incremental theori sts, on the other hand, beli eve that renewed effort w ill lead to task completi on and increased se l f-c ffi cacy. T hus, in the case of the entity theori st, se l f-c ffi cacy is an antecedent to task engagement w hil e se l f-effi cacy is a result fo r the incremental theori st (Wood and Bandura 19889 ; Dweck and Leggett 1988).
A s noted above, while impli cit personali ty theory is considered a di spos iti onal trait , peopl e do consider contex tual fac tors. T o some ex tent, an environment ca n be crea ted that emphasizes one theory or the other (Dweck & Leggett 1988; Plak s, Grant & Dweck 2005).
Persuas ive evidence that contrad icts one 's impli cit personality theory ca n, at least tempora ril y, innuence one's belief sys tems. Hesli n, Latham and Va ndeWa lle (2005) provided subj ec ts w ho ev idenced an entity theory w ith ''sc ientific" ev idence and oth er situationa l facto rs that co untered their beliefs. The subjects developed a much more incremen tal view of abi l ity and held that view fo r six weeks.
Depending on the nature of' the ta sk, difli.:: rent impl icit theor ies can aiTec t moti va tion . 1:or exa mple , in a se tti ng w ith simple tasks with low lea rning and a compensa tion sys tem based on a pi ece ra te or competit ion , an entit y type environment may he the most benefi cial for motivat ion emp loyees. On the o th n hand, if. the ta sk is comp li cated wi th high lea rnin g and a mor e team ori ented approach , leaders m~1 y wan t lo emphas1z.c ~1n incrcmcnt: li cnviron mcnl .
CONCLl iSION
Imp l ic it pcrsona l 1ty theory has 1 mpon~1111 connot ~1 t io n s
ror leadership and orga ni/.Cl llonal hchavio1· resea rch. J\ s
demonstrated through research rcpo1 ·1cd in the soc i:il psychology l iterature cond ucted by Dwec k ::llld her co ll eagues and in educal lon:l l psycho logy (13ut lcr 2000 ; l) ~,vcc k & Leggett I l) SK ), imp l1c it thcon cs aiTc ct the wa y people llltcrprct the world around them and the event s they expcn cncc .
Firms
co nt1nue to stru gg le 1\ 'lth empl oy ee tum over and poor performance Ill Sj)l tC of' increas ing! sophistiCated SCI'CC illll' me~lS un.::s oi' :1p1itu dc <'ll d ~1bilit y
deve loped hy human re source pl·okss lonals. Yc l , the qucs t1on remains, w hy, w hen two peo ple ~1re h1rcd w1t h
the same ap l1tudc and ahilil y, one succeed s and th e othe r 1'~1ils·1 Tim; paper attempt s to an swe r !hat question by pointing oul that one 's be li el' :1hou t :1p l1Lud e ~lll d ab ilit y
m:1y be as 1 111port ~111t :1s I he qu~il i 11 es themselves .
.l ournal or 13usincss and I caclership: Research, Praelicc. and Teaching
T hree important areas for future research include the effec t o f impli cit per sonality theory on employee eva luati on, feedback given to employees, and work motivati on. In terms o f employee eva luation, several important impli ca tions are noted. First, leaders who beli eve ab ility is fi xed (entity theory) tend to stereotype as poor performers those employees who do not function well initi all y. I f the employee improve , the leader will attT ibute the improvement to factors outside the employee's contTo l in order to reinforce the stereotype. Thi s view of employee performance may negatively impact employee morale. I f employee beli eve that no amount or effort wi ll improve perfomlance in the eyes of their superv isor, the desire to perfom1 well wi ll diminish. Employees w ill take less pride in their work and the workpl ace may take on an " us" versus " them" environment. Low morale and an unpleasant work environment leads to hi gher turnover.
In contrast, leaders who believe ability is malleabl e ( incremental theory) w ill mentor and encourage emp loyees wh ose initial performance is not sati sfactory. Addi ti onall y , '1cse leaders w ill emphas ize training and tend to better distingui sh between those employee who make the effo rt to improve and those w ho do not. The incremental leader 's effort is co ll aborat ive and va lues the employee 's input. Ac r imonious di visions between labor and managemen t arc reduced and turnover is kept to a mini mum.
Emp loyee feedback prov ides another chall enge for leaders because the leader needs to understand the impli cit thco1·y Of the employee rece iving the feedback. J\n enti ty theory employee allributcs fa ilure or difficulty w ith ::1 task to ::1 lack o r abi lit y. T hus, the entity employee d iscou nts and/or ignores incrementa l fee dback such as '' keep try ing" or ' 'practi ce until you get the hang or it.' ' In thi s siluati on, incremental supervisors need to incorporate some normati ve encourage ment into their feedback in order to reinf o rce th e employee 's perce ived se l f-abi lity. 1:or exa mple, th e leader mi ght purposely say somethin g li ke, "Eve ryone has trouble with thi s in the beginning, hut I sec yo u arc doing better than many at
this stage ." In con t r~1 s t , an emphasis on normati ve feedback will
d isc ourage the incremental emp loyee. lf' an empl oyee w ho believe ~ ability ca n be enhanced through skill improve ment ::;cn:scs that a supervisor beli eves ' 'yo u ei th
er h ~1 vc it or you don ' t, ' ' an entity environment is
induced, and he or she w ill nol put fo rth ihc c f'f o rt lo impr ove. On th e ot her h:lll d, properl y encouraged, thi s emp loyee w ill rcdouhk crt o rt in the Llce or fai lure at a
parti cul ar ta sk.
11
2
5
Silver and Silver: Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2006
Silver and Silver
The final implication addressed he re is the issue of work motivation. As previously noted, a person ' s implic il personality theory determines how he or she responds in the face of failure or challenge. Peopl e with an entity theory who initially fai l at a task dimini sh the importance of that task and chose other work that is eas ier for them to accomplish. Less challenging work a llows them to demonstrate ability in relation to others and maintain s their self-esteem. In the worst cases, enti ty theori sts w i II resort to activities that avo id looki ng bad . In th is situation, the employee avoids a ll meaning ful ta sks and works to protect rather than mainta in se lf-esteem. An example is a sa lesperson who is a lways preparing to make calls but never actua ll y approaches a prospect.
On the other hand , empl oyees '.Vith incrementa l theories see fai lure as a tempora ry s ituation not indicative of g lobal ability. They will increase effo rt and practice in order to leam what is necessary to be successful. \Vhi le considered a di spositiona l trait , impli c it persona li ty theory IS somewhat dependent on contexrua l cons iderations. An entity or incremental envi ronmen t can be induced as the situation di c tates . Obviously qualit y improvement programs such as Tota l Qua li ty Management and Six Sigma wi ll not be effec ti ve in an environment where leaders be lieve empl oyee 's ab ility is fixed and change for the better is unlike ly . Thus, fi rms wishing to improve quali ty of produc t or serv ice wil l need to encourage an incrementa l environment. O ne wa y to create the des ired environment is to crea te a cul tmc that re lates knowl edge, e ffort , and perfom1ance. As employees are socia li zed into the cultur e , they \\'i ll adopt the appropriate implic it theory fo r that wo rk sett ing.
Future research in thi s area shou ld be benc licial to academics and practit ioners a I ike. Academ ics wi II better understand how trait s and s ituational fac tors interact to determine behavior. Mood and other a ffect ive sta tes a lso need to be considered. Resea rch method s used in soc ia l and educational psychology can eas il y be adap ted for organizational studi es. Measures of impli c it personality theory are se l [-reported and ev idence strong va I icl it y and re li ab ili ty in a va ri ety of s ituations and across a ll age groups. While there is no " s il ver bull e t" fo r motivating employees and susta inin g tha t motivation. imp li c~ personali ty theory offe rs one mo re too l \\'i th whi ch to work. Hopefull y, academi cs w ill soon trans la te their research findings and psyc holog ica l unde rstanding into action plans business leaders can easi I y i mplcment.
REFERE NCES
Allen , P . 1992. Avoiding common p it fall s in performance
113
Joumal of 13 uoine;s and Leadership: Resea rch, Prac t1 ce . and Teachi ng
appraisal. Industrial Management. 34: 30-33.
Bandura , A. 1986. Social foundations of thoug ht and action: A social-cog niti ve th eo r y . Englewood C li ffs, NJ: Prentice-Ha ll.
Butle r, R. 2000. Making j udgments abo ut abi lity : The role of imp lic it theo1ies of abil ity in moderating inferences from temporal and social compari son informat io n. Journ a l of Personality and Social Psyc hology, 78 : 965-97 .
Button , S. , Mathieu J ., & Zajac, D. 1996. Goa l or ientation in organ iza ti ona l re earch: A conceptua l and e mpiri ca l foundation. Orga nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67: 26-48.
Ca lder, B. 1977. An attributi on theory of leadership . ln B . Staw & G . Sa lanick. (Eds .), New Directions in
Orga nizatio nal behavior. C hi cago: St. C lair Press .
Camarde ll a, M. 2003. Effective manage ment of the performance-appra isa l process. Emp loyment Relations Today, 30 : I 03-107.
Cannon, M. , & W itherspoon, R. 2005. Ac tionabl e feedback: Unl ocking the power of learning and pcrfon11ance improve ment . Academ y of Management Executive, 19 : 120-134
C hiLL C. , Hong, Y ., & Dvveck, C. 1997. Lay di s pos it ioni sm and implicit theor ies or persona li ty. Journal of Personalit~· a nd Social Psycholog y. 73: 19-30.
Dec i, I· . & Ryan , R. 1985. Intrin sic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York : Pl enum Press.
Dweck, C. 1999. Self-theories: moti va tion , personality, and Philadelphia: Psycho logy Press.
Their ro le in development .
Deck, C , & Bempcc hat . .J . 1983. Child ren ·~ th eories or intell igence. In S. Pari s. G. O lsen. & II. Skve nson . (Eds .), Learning and i\ loti n1tion in the Classroom . ll ill sclalc . NJ : Erlbaum .
Dweck
, C.,
C hiLl. C .. & Hong. Y. 1995 _ Implic it theon e~
and the ir ro le in judgments :111 d reac tions: J\ \\ Or-l d from t\\'O pcr ·pectivc s . Psyc holog ical Inquiry, 6 : 267-285.
6
Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 2 [2006], No. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol2/iss1/13
D we <.: k , C., & L e • 'C ll 1 ~. I 9 ~1\. A soc i ~il -<.: o •niti vc
<.1 ppro
:1c h
to IIIO tl v ~l ti o n :md pc rson ~ilit y.
Psyclwlngi(·al Re view , 95: 25 (J-27J.
Dweck , C. , ~ M o lden D . 1999 . Sc i !' - theori es: Th eir
imp
:1ct
on comp c tcnc<.: moti vati on and ~l <.: qui s ition . In
1\
. E
ll iot & C. D we d , ( l ~d s. ) . llandhook nf co mpete nce and nw1i val'ion . Ne w Yo rk : Th e Ci u i I f(nd Press.
( ; ~lddi s . 1 ~ .• Connell y , S. & Mumlort, M . 200 4 . 1 :~1ilu re
fl.:edb:.1
·k as an
:ill ec ti ve ev ·nt: Influ ences of' leader
afle<.: t on subordin :ll ed ~1ttitud es ~llld pcrrorm :m<.:e .
I ,caders hip Qna•·1cd y , 15: 66. -(J~(l .
( ;eo rgcsen, .1 . & llarri s, M . 200(J . lloldin g on t(l powe r :
UT
ce ts
or powe rh o lders' pos ition ~il Ins ta bi l it y and
ex pec tat ions on intcra<.: ti ons w ith subordinat es.
J( nropca n .lonn1:tl of Social Ps ycholog y , J (J : 45 1-
4(l
0
I Ie id
er , F. I 950 . The psyc hology of in1crp crsonal rcla1ions
. New York : W 1lc y.
llc
s
lin , P., l,a th:1 m , ( ; ., & V~111 deW~IIIc , 1> . 200 5. Th e
e iTccl o r i mpli t: it person theory on pcrronn :ln t: c
:1ppra 1s:il s . .Journal of A pplied l'syc holog~· - <JO: 04 2-05 () .
ll1n k1n . T. , & Selm es he1111 ( ·. 2()0,L If' you don ' t hc:1r
rmm lll l' , you ' rL' tloi n )C. li ll L' . ( 'orudl llofcJ :IIIII
Rcsfauranf A
dmini sfrafion Qu:ll·fl'd~' · 45: .\ (> 2-:172.
.I II SS
I
Ill , I,. , & lla rhL·r, K . 200 5. T c:1chcr cx pc<.: t: ltl ons :11 1d
sc ll '- rull
-
1111ng prop 11L·clcs : kno w ns :1nd unkno w11 :-.,
rL·vo l , ·n l :111d um cso lved contr ove rsieS . l'crsonalif y and
S cH: ial l' sydwlog y Re view, <J : 1.1 1- 155 .
Ke
l l
y, (i . 11) 55. The psych olog y of pnsonal ro nsfrncf s .
Nevv Yo 1-k : Nor ton.
1\.L· nncy, IC , l \ l:l sc o v1eh, .1 ., & Sh:1vcr , 1). 11)94 . 1111pl1c 11
lc:Hlcr
s
l11p th eon cs : l'm tnt y pes l\1r 11 cw k :1 lcrs. Basic and Ap pliccl Sociall' .-,ycho log v. 15: LI()'J--1.\ 7.
I L'\ ' '· S .. & I ) wc<.: k, ( ·. I 1) 1JS. Tr: 11t - ve 1 · :-. u .~ pro ecss
rocu:-.u l SOCI: II illtl )C. IllL' Il l . So(·ial ( 'ognifion , l (l : 15 1-
172.
1\b uu , I ', lbr llL' II C. 1:., & l\11t ehc ll . I) _ 200 2. l'r ul1 elo1 :-.
o r :illillltl CS tm\ :lrd :1 \(l0 -dq; ,I·L·c kn lh:lck S)':-. ICill :111d
111\'0 I ,·c lllCI II 111 post- fl:nlh :1<.:k ll l :l ll :lgc mc lll
tl l·,e lop lll l' l l l :leii Vll ' · .Journal of On·upafional and Oq.:aniJ:afional l' s~ · dwlogy . 75: 07 - 107.
M cC icll :!nd . 1) ., Koestner. R.., & Weinberge r, J. 1989 .
ll ow do ~e l kiltrihut cd and implic it motives difTcr? Psychological Hcvicw. W>: (><J0-702.
N ~1tklll , 1 ~ . & 1\lcxand t: r , R. 1<.>85. The ro le uf' inkr ential a<.:e ura<.: y in p<.:rl (mllan cc ratin g. Academy of
Managcmenl Review, 19: I O<J- 11 5.
l'a
w son.
/\ ., Pel ton , L., & Tru <.: , S. 2005. Pcrcc ivt:d
m~lll a gc ri ~d since
rity, l'cedback seekin g, and
motivat ion ~llllOn g rront - line emplo yees or a servi ce
opn~1t ion . .Journal of Services Markc1ing, 19: 3- 12.
Pla ks , .1 ., Cir:lllt , II .. & Dweck , C. 200 5. Vio lati ons o r
impli c i t theori es and th e se nse or predic tion and
<.:Oillr o l : lmpli e~1Lion s f(lr moti va ted person
perception s. .Journal of Pc rsonalif y ancl Soc ial l's ydwlog y. 0~ : 245-2(J2.
l'ortcr , L., 13i g lcy , c;., & Steers, R. 2003. Molivalion and work hl'havior. 1\
os
lon : Mt: Cira w llill - lrw in .
Robe r ts , ( i ., & l{e ed. '1'. I<)()(> . Pnf' orlll :Jn <.:e ~1 ppr~1i sa l
p : lrti t: i p ~lt l u ll , g o~1l se
ttin g ~llld f \.:edh:1 ck . Hc vicw of l'uhli
r Personnel Allminisfrafion, I (>: 29- (> 1.
SO
I
TL' lllin o , 1 ~ .. & 1: ic ld N . 19X(l. l ~ m e rge nt lea dership
O VCI' ll lllC : Th e f'un t: li on:il v ~due or positi vt:
l llO ti vallo n . .Journal of Pcrsonalif y and Sorial Psychology , 52: I 0(>1 - 1 OX(J .
11
4
V ~! ndcW:d k .
1)
., 1\mwn , S., ( 'ro11, W ., & Slocum .1. I 'N9.
Th
e
lllll ucncc or go ~d ()I'IL' Ill :lll (lll :llld sclr -regul :!lion
t:!c ll CS 01 1 s:dcs pnronn :lll cc : 1\ lon g itud1n :d stud y .
.Journal of A ppli1.·1l l's vr hology. (>4.: 249 -25' J.
Wer
th , I .. ,
M ~1rk e l , 1' ., & l :or stcr , .1 . 200() . Th e role or
s ub jec ti ve theon e:-. f'or lc ~1de rs hq) c\'alu :11ion .
l( nrop ea n .Journal of \ Vork ._1\: Organizafional
l's ydwlogy , I . : I 02 - 1 27.
W il son, .1., ,\:. Wc stnr1 , S. 2000 . l' erf (mmnce appr~1i s ~11 : /\ 11
ohsi:1
L· Ic to tr:1111in g : 111d d c, ·e loplll l' llt' l .Journal of l( nropl.':ln lncln sfr ial Training , 24 : .\ X-1-.\'J 1.
Wood , ~ ~ - - & 1\:illtlllr :l, /\ . I' JX'J . li11p ;!CI ur conccpllllll S or
:1hil 1t y 011 sc ll '- l·cgul ;llur y lll cc h a n i .~ nl s :1nd <.:Olll)lk .\
d ce i .~ lllll nl:il
\1 11 • . . Journal of 1'~...-sonalif~· ancl Social
l' s~·dwlogy, . (> : ..J07-4 I . .
Wrc1111, 1\. ., & 1\ I:ILII ·cr . 1·. 2004 . l k ii L· I ~~ :dJnul o ldn
\\ 'lll ·ker:-. ' Jc :ll'lllll g :111d tlC \'C IO)l lll CIII hch:!Vlllr Ill
r L· I:i ii Oil S Ill h · l1 c l ~~- .Journal of A pplil'll Social
l' s~ ' dwlogy. J4: 22 1-24 .7 .
7
Silver and Silver: Role of Implicit Personality Theory In Leadership Research
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2006
Si lver and Sil ver Journa l of Busi ness and Leadership : Research. Pra ctice, and Teaching
Lawrence Silver is an assistant professor of marketing and management at Southeastem Oklahoma State Uni versity. He received his D.B.A. in business admi ni stTation from Lo uis iana Tech Uni vers ity. Hi s cunent research interests include sales and sa les management, work motiva ti on, and leadership . He has publi shed in Joumal o f Product and Brand Management, Journal of Personal Selling & Sa les Management, among others.
Debbie Silver is an educational consultant. She recei ved her Ed.D . from Loui siana Tech University. Her cunent research interests include differentiated instruction, implicit theori es and multiple intelli gences. She has published in Science Scope, Principal, Learn ing and Jouma l of the European League for M iddle Leve l Educa ti on.
II 5 8
Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 2 [2006], No. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol2/iss1/13