Success

Inculcate the following traits for success in changing mindset:

1. Do not compare

2. Always act based on facts

3. Don’t think of perfectionism

4. Clearly define what is a failure

5. Don’t worry about what others think

First of all don't force people to change. A leader never forces anyone to do anything. When you start demanding things, people start becoming demotivated and their productivity decreases. Employees should know the mission, objectives and vision of the company and "feel" it in order to increase their productivity levels. Also, like Nageswara said, comparing results or people is something you should never do. And I also think you have to stay positive even when failure comes, because most businesses will experience some sort of failure.

Dear Pedro, what you are saying sounds good from individual ad group diversity management point of view; people should be allowed to remain themselves.

Lijo and Nageswara make some wonderful points; but to some extent we all have to sacrifice our interests, that is what is suggested by negotiation theory. Every transformational leader, who is giving a direction to the organization, has to develop shared vision among her/his people.

Shared vision means creating a future vision of the organization that every one buys-in. If not, we will not be able to realize the goals. We need to balance and compromise. Some of us have misconceptions, and that is how we make our mindsets. So we need to understand fully the correct way. Otherwise, organizational change will never be possible and turnaround can not take place.

The Quality of Management (QoM) sets the internal work climate which determines the level of employees motivation along the motivation continuum. Ghoshal and Bartlett 1997 posits that competitive advantage, comes from those firms that have a superior internal environment, influenced by the managers and supervisors within an organization, “that allows people to individually and collectively create far more value that they could if they were employed elsewhere”.

The pioneering work by Deci & Ryan 1985 advises us that employee motivation should no longer be viewed as the dichotomous external (extrinsic) versus internal (intrinsic) motivation but rather as six-layered shades; from amotivation (indifference, helplessness, disinterest) at one end, to intrinsic motivation at the other.

In their Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Deci and Ryan 1985, argued that the individual’s evaluation of their social context, was a key determinant of their level of autonomous motivation; ie motivation that is self-endorsed and self-driven and not externally coerced. The highest form of autonomous motivation is regarded as intrinsic motivation. In a state of intrinsic motivation, the individual acts with full self-choice and volition, resulting in enjoyment and satisfaction, and is said to be fully self-determined. Workplace signals that are perceived as reinforcing of autonomy and competence strengthened intrinsic motivation.

Deci and Ryan further theorized in their Organismic Integration Theory that extrinsic motivation also consisted of a continuum with varying degrees of self-determinism. They argued that extrinsic motives could be internalised by an employee and that the more internalised the extrinsic motivation became then the more autonomous an individual would become in enacting the required workplace behaviours.

The acid test for management was to constantly and consistently create that work environment that optimizes the individual employee's level of motivation

I have been a middle manager of 15-20 professionals for 30 years and seem to be moderately successful at building a level of intrinsic motivation. What Silburn has said resonates strongly with my observations. Manage the 'climate' & 'environment' but lead the people. Treat people as professionals in the best sense of the word. Be interventionist but respectful. Train people to use feedback effectively and never ask others to do what you haven't tried yourself.

Great experience @Mark Gould!

Mark and Silburn, thanks for your post.

I very much like your observation on climate and environment. The following quote also supports what you are saying:

“Reform the environment, stop trying to reform people. They will reform themselves if the environment is right.” (Buckminster Fuller--[American designer & author)

This is perhaps the best way to make people accept the change. When people find the work environment to be supportive and facilitating, they enjoy their role and feel engaged towards the organization.

I agree with your opinion, Dr.Kamal!

Appreciate it Debi.

Now the question may then very well be asked "Point to the empirical evidence that when leaders create a facilitative work environment that employees become more motivated and the firm more competitive ?"

I point to the transformation of HCL India under Vineet Nayar's leadership. HCL was voted by Fortune magazine as having the world's most modern management system in 2008. Their mantra "Employees First Customers Second"

Three links on EFCS :

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/13/magazines/fortune/fastforward_fortune/

http://theultimaterenaissance.com/2008/01/19/hcl-the-worlds-most-modern-management/

http://www.slideshare.net/Al3xisB/hcl-employeefirstcustomersecond

By creating a facilitative and autonomy supportive environment that releases the autonomous motivation of employees, the innovativeness and productivity of HCL's employees, and of HCL the firm, soared.

Silburn, you are so very right. And, thanks for your posts and attachments, which provide a better clarity to the issues. If India has some 20 CEOs like Vineet Nair, it can reach commanding heights of development. I was with Vineet in the San Diego conference of the SHRM in June 2010, where he was invited to speak on his theory of 'employee first, customer second.' it was to be seen to be believed the kind of influence and awe he could create there. Some 5000 members of SHRM, mostly from America, were listening to him and their clapping would just not stop after he finished.

Silburn, thanks for taking his name. it reminds me of this very interesting video interview by Harvard Business School, which I am sure, researchers in this discussion here will like. Just see his love for and use of empowerment and transparency in organizational working.

This very interesting video reflects how a positive attitude to employee involvement and transparency could change the mindset of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJrBq-c5QYE

Silburn's points remind me of the attached continuum of motivation by Deci & Ryan.

2 necessary contributors to the development of (more) intrinsic motivation are:

1. Self efficacy and

2. Autonomy.

Reference: Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:Plenum Press.

Thanks Debi for sharing that youtube link. It was great to hear the principles of EFCS .being espoused so passionately.

Mark, Deci and Ryan's work on human motivation has certainly deepened our understanding on how workplaces can serve as inhibitors or facilitators for our employees

"Several organizations try changing the mindsets of their employees to improve performance but only a few succeed. What determines their success?"

I find the whole idea of organizations trying to change mindsets very suspicious. What mindset do they want to achieve? Most people's mindset concerning their work is a direct result of the working environment they have to work in. In most cases, I can't blame them for being demotivated, and you cannont address the demotivation whithout believably addressing the structures that produced demotivation.

I wouldn't go so far as to give it a name like Servant Leadership, like Mr. Saini does, because that may over-address the problem, but people will perform better if structures are better. And to get more productive structures, you will have to get rid of the two or three management hypes you followed before realizing you got a motvation problem. :-)

For the second time today I find myself in agreement with Andreas!

Which one of the participants to this conversation would volunteer to have their mindsets changed by anyone, and specifically by the organizations for which they work?! Notice that we are talking about doing this to others (who must need it; we don't)... I find it very useful to try out on myself what I propose to do to others ;-).

Perhaps we should define mindset carefully.

On the other hand, organizations do well when they carefully align incentives with what they want their employees to do. That is because people respond to incentives. Therefore, an organization that feels the need to change mindsets is an organization that is not willing to reward the behaviors it wants to encourage, or rewards other behaviors - and everyone gets the message. The example of university teaching illustrates this: universities claim they want excellent teaching, but when it comes to tenure and promotion they tend to count papers and grants. Guess how faculty spend their time, no matter how much anyone might want to change their mindsets!

I guess we will agree upon one thing: It is very important to understand the word incentive in its broadest possible meaning, because otherwise it may be reduced to stuff you can put a number on, especially salary systems. And the word incentives sounds to me (probably due to my inexact understanding of English) as if it was an instrument you can use.

I think we mean the same thing, I just would call it values. An organization should have values. But, stating those values won't be enough. You will have to prove that you value your own values. People will have to realize that you constantly follow those values - otherwise it is just window dressing.

So, your example of an university is just correct. The employees will realize if university management follows its self-defined value "teaching is the most important of our activities". If salary systems, promotion regulations or even the warmness of a welcoming greeting indicate that researching activities will earn you more (money, titles, praise, etc.), people will respond accordingly, and they will start taking your words less seriously (or more cynically).

Andreas, sure - incentives have a broad meaning. They don't have to be monetary, though frequently that is how organizations reward those who toe the line and deliver what the organizations say they seek. Discrepancies between what they say and what they do invariably lead people to respond to what they see the organization doing. I am guessing that when organizations say they need to change mindsets, they are saying in fact that there is a discrepancy between their words and deeds, and that they wish people responded more to what they say than what they do. Of course, any broad generalization runs the risk of missing specific cases.

Andreas

Further Commenting on your disapproval of changing the employees' mindset by organization, I feel that there is absolutely nothing wrong on the part of the management to attempt to change the mindset of the team members so as to be in consonance with the organizational goals. That is what creation of shared vision is all about.

I think humans keep changing all their life as and when they realize that they have committed mistakes in the past and how things could improve. Some people may call it brainwashing of the employees by the management, when they argue that HRM is human resource manipulations not management. To that, I would say YES, that is possible. But such positions do not survive in the long run. Such organizations are bound to have problems eventually. But the change of mindset agenda must have a buy-in interest of the employees in mind, so as to succeed.

I do believe in the attached quote on mindset change.

Andreas

I too have questioned the issue of changing people's mindsets. After years of deliberation on the ethics of this I have decided that it is ethical to do so as long as they are aware that I am trying to do so. After all isn't this what people do all the time when they argue or discuss anything. I have said recently in otter forums that I am an interventionist leader. My staff are well aware that if I disagree with their approach, which reflects their mindset, I will try to change it. I would prefer that they change their mindset so that the approach that I want is in sync with theirs. If I can't change their mindset then I will still require them to change their approach (if it is too far from what I think is appropriate) and they may not be able to adopt the new method effectively.

Mark

I fully endorse your views. I think the world would be poor if we do not become flexible and adapt ourselves to the new realities.

For example, enlightened employers are shedding their allegiance to command and control style of management. They know that they would be losers by sticking to it. So they are now in empowering mindset. Of course, this is on their pecuniary and survival interest. But they have learned to create a mutuality of interest. They have moved to the trust model. They are now attending to work-life balance needs of the employees.

But yes, Mark, you are absolutely right. It is the employer's duty to create conditions that the employee feels intrinsically motivated.

Cheers

Appreciate Andreas and Sanda taking us to the other side of the debate. One of the strongest counterpoint is argued by Willmotth1993 who viewed the idea of mindset change as an attempt at "colonizing the softer features of the organization". He observed that the prevailing command and control bureaucratic organisational form was failing and was producing deceleration in historic capital accumulation trajectories. That old form had treated employees as objects in the necessary economic transactions. The emergence of what he called back then as the fad of "corporate culturalism" was a cynical attempt by corporations to subvert employees' mindsets to corporate values and missions, by controlling their thoughts and emotions, and so create motivated corporate evangelists to help reverse the declining fortunes and reenergize the accumulation of capital. It was all viewed as a dark Orwellian conspiracy.

While cognizant of the Willmottian perspective, my own view, and managerial style, is similar to Mark's. Looking back, the 1990's was of a truth, the start of the emergence of a knowledge economy, driven by new and different factors of production including intellectual capital, knowledge assets, knowledge workers, ICT. There was in fact a seismic shift that was taking place from the previous industrial era and in the critical modalities of competition and production. These demanded appropriate adaptations in talent management and required treating employees as knowledge-workers and associates in order to assure the sustained competitive advantage of the firm.

Despite the ominous Willmottian warnings, the question becomes "how does the firm compete, particularly in this 21st Century global Knowledge Economy". Barney 1991 (RBV) posits that this may be done via the internal resources and capabilities of the firm which must offer up their highest and best use. The more these resources are heterogeneous and non-imitable, the better. These resources and capabilities include the human capital both at the employee level and at the leadership level; their motivations, their decisions etc. Ghoshal and Bartlett 1994 identified the main task of leadership as the creation of a facilitative environment for productive, innovative work by employees. High quality management result in high quality work environments which in turn result in motivated and productive employees. The creation of an internal environment that is able to retain and nurture the valuable knowledge assets is a source of competitive advantage. The Ghoshal & Bartlett framework for high quality management comprised the four dimensions of trust, support, stretch and discipline. The contribution of each to the building of supportive and facilitative work contexts were

1. Trust was argued to be an attribute of an organization’s context that induced its members to rely on the commitments of each other. Fairness and equity in the organization’s decision processes, involvement of individuals in decisions and activities affecting them, and staffing of positions with people who possess and are seen to possess the required capabilities contribute to the establishment of trust.

2. Support was a dimension that induced its members to lend assistance and countenance to others. Mechanisms that allow actors to access the resources available to other actors, freedom of initiative at lower levels and personal orientation of senior functionaries that gives priority to providing guidance and help over exercising authority contribute to the establishment of support.

3. The attribute of Stretch in the organization’s context induced its members to voluntarily strive for more, rather than less, ambitious objectives. Establishment of a shared ambition, the development of a collective identity, and the ability to give personal meaning to the way in which individuals contribute to the overall purpose of the organization contribute to the establishment of stretch.

4. Discipline was the attribute in an organization’s context that induced its members to voluntarily strive for meeting all expectations generated by their explicit or implicit commitments. Establishment of clear standards of performance and behavior, a system of open, candid and fast-cycle feedback, and consistency in the application of sanctions contribute to the establishment of discipline.

TRUST FACTOR (3 components)

Equity

Involvement

Competence

SUPPORT FACTOR (3 components)

Resource access

Autonomy

Guidance and help

STRETCH FACTOR (3 components)

Shared ambition

Collective identity

Personal meaning

DISCIPLINE FACTOR (3 components

Clear performance standards

Open fast-cycle feedback

Consistent sanctions

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to ask for precision in the way we use words. Of course we all try to persuade others to our viewpoints in almost any social interaction. That is the essence of deliberative processes, and it may well have the side effect of changing some people's mindsets. In fact, people change their own mindsets as they age and acquire various life experiences. However, that is quite different from believing that changing employees' mindsets is within the prerogative of managers in organizations.

So I ask: 1. why do you assume that the manager necessarily has it right; 2. why should people have their mindsets tinkered with as part of their employment; and 3. how many of you think it would be good if someone else (your supervisor) changed your mindset - or are you all high-level managerial material and therefore in possession of the correct mindset?!

I can see organizational peril from getting to consensus by changing mindsets: then precious critical views are suppressed and we all run the risk of acting like sheep and following some manager into serious errors (isn't this similar to the Abilene syndrome?). It already takes courage to voice dissenting views in organizations. Every now and then the dissenters have it right so we should not change their mindsets. ;-)

Good points Sandra, but I didn't see it as one sided. I am willing to engage in discussion at the risk of having my mindset changed. Similarly, I accept as part of the process of discussion that I may discover that their mindset is actually similar (enough) to mine but that they had a different approach to enacting it. Ethical considerations do not stop me trying but do stop me being covert and arrogant (or at least fixed) . Your point about dissent is excellent. For me it is a process issue ie as I said above, while attempting to change their mindset, I must be opn to the possibility that they are right and I am wrong. To demonstrate what I mean, one of my teachers (very capable) had what I believed was a dysfuntional mindset concerning student acceptance of his decisions (obedience). We discussed this over several years and I was uncertain enough to initiate several experiments in my own teaching to test his ideas. He likewise was convinced to experiment with different approaches. I eventually came back to my original mindset (after 2 years). Then, a couple of years ago, he said to me 'alright. You've convinced me. I'm going to change the way I do things'. We still dont see eye to eye on everything but he has adopted that aspevt of my mindset and incorporated it. His teaching, already good, has improved more. He has also started experimenting more and becoming more self critical. All in all, I feel that it was a successful intervention.

The discussion on this thread has been very interesting. It is amazing the many possibilities that the original question has generated. The range of the discussions have covered employee mindset but also their feelings, motivation, engagement, orientations, autonomy, perceptions, self-efficacy, self-regulation, affect and behaviours. A fairly common definition of “mindset” comes from the area of self-theories.

From the lens of self-theories “mindset” can be taken to mean the individual’s implicit person theories (IPT) of intelligence or their implicit intelligence beliefs as defined and specified by Carol Dweck . Historically, the theory appears to be largely applied and tested in the education domain with students. It has had limited conceptualisation, application and empirical testing in the workplace. Dweck identified and defined two types of mindsets in persons (ie children originally): a fixed mindest and a malleable mindset (also termed entity and incremental mindsets respectively) . Persons with a fixed mindset are ego-centred (highly regard praise and success in competition) and believe that knowledge and intelligence are self-endowed and self-controlled while persons with a malleable mindset believe that intelligence is learned and can be improved over time with their own effort and learning. Limited work has been done on these “self-theories” in the organisational domain and so “employee mindset” can be taken to mean the employees’ implicit person theories (IPT) on intelligence or their implicit intelligence beliefs as specified by Dweck 2006. It is generally theorised in achievement goal theory (AGT) (and hence the relevance to organisational domain) that persons with entity mindsets tend to be oriented to performance goals while persons with incremental mindsets tend to be oriented to learning or mastery goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988)

No one is thought to be have mindsets that are 100% entity or malleable, but that we have gradations in between. However, these mindsets predisposes us to certain orientations and behaviours.

From the Dweck mindset perspective; firms would be encouraged, through psychometrics pre-selection, to channel and align particular types of employee mindsets into particular types of work positions

Lovely description Silburn.

I agree: this was a lively discussion! Mark, I would still argue that what you are describing is pure persuasion, something we all do whether we simply discuss an issue with friends or try to convince co-workers that our way is good. Silburn is onto the meaning of "mindset" to which I was referring (a mental model of how various things/processes work, and therefore how to intervene to change their course). I contend that while persuasion is fair game, changing mindsets presumes we know for sure that ours is better (I am not talking about believing ours is better - we all do! ;-) ) and therefore that it is necessary for others to come around to our view for the good of an organization. I am open to persuasion - let my colleagues put up a good argument, and I can change my mind. But I would prefer to hang on to my mindsets, without interference from my highers-up! Let no one think they have cornered the market on truth.

I get your point now, I still think that not only am I trying to change my colleagues mindset but also that I have a responsibility to do so. The discussion could aIso be about what we do when we try to persuade others of anything. I feel, but am willing to be corrected, that I am nearly always trying to change the paradigm on which people base their actions (Mindset) because what I want is for them to make different decisions in the future, not just for this one time. Maybe also there is an issue of which mindsets I am trying to change. I will not impose on belief systems that do not impact on their job but try to restrict my interventions to this arena.