Organizational Mind-Sets, Michael Jordan, and John McEnroe

In his excellent book, Little Bets: How Breakthrough Ideas Emerge from Small Discoveries, Peter Sims writes about psychology research performed by Dr. Carol Dweck of Stanford University. Among Dweck’s fascinating contributions, she has found that, at least at a high level, people can generally be broken into two categories. First, there are those with growth mind-sets. These folks embrace challenges, seeing them as opportunities to learn new skills and generally improve themselves.

Basketball legend Michael Jordan was perhaps the poster child for growth mind-sets. When faced with challenges, he would respond in a very constructive way. If necessary, he would retool. For example, early in his career, Jordan’s outside shooting was very mediocre, his three-point shooting lousy. Teams would routinely force Jordan to take outside shots and prevent him from getting to the rim at all costs.

It worked. Teams had at least temporarily figured out how to contain “MJ.”

So Jordan worked obsessively on his outside shooting, become a more than respectable threat from “behind the arc.”

Contrast Jordan with US tennis wunderkind John McEnroe, the embodiment of the fixed mind-set. Sims writes:



In other words, those with fixed mind-sets become frustrated when taken out of their comfort zones. (Note: I am a huge McEnroe fan. He was a magician at the net and can still bring it today.)

Which Mind-Set is Your Organization?

While I am no expert on Dweck’s work, she has clearly defined two extremes. That is, many people might have mind-sets more “fixed” than “growth” in orientation. Personally, I love improving, but have been known to have my McEnroe moments on and off the tennis court. Think in terms of a continuum, not a binary.

So, what does Dweck’s model have to teach us about the worlds of change and information management? It’s a little simplistic to view an organization as one monolithic entity. After all, any organization is comprised of many individuals, tribes, policies, politics, systems, and types of data. What’s more, different types of organizations employ different types of people in different roles. I’ve yet to come across a big company in which everyone had identical mind-sets.

Still, it’s instructive to look at organizations in this manner. Consider the following:

• How do key people within the organization respond when confronted with unforeseen issues? Are they more Jordan or McEnroe?
• Are certain departments more likely than others to see challenges as opportunities?
• Which problems legitimately require a McEnroesque response? How often do you want to play that card with your vendors, partners, suppliers, and customers?

Simon Says

I don’t have the answers to these lofty questions. I am asking them because the MIKE2.0 Framework should not be viewed in a vacuum–nor should any other. Taking into account the reactions, dispositions, and general attitudes of key players is essential in considering anything remotely resembling planning. Mapping out key dates, tasks, and persons responsible sans these critical considerations is a recipe for disaster.

Feedback

What say you?