Rethinking Mindset: Why Growth Mindset Alone Does Not Explain Peak Performance
- Dominique Giger
- 3 hours ago
- 14 min read
More Than a Question of Attitude
Hardly any concept has shaped management literature over the past twenty years as much as Growth Mindset. Executives, HR professionals, high performers and specialists encounter it in almost every leadership programme, every coaching education programme and countless posts on LinkedIn or YouTube. The message seems simple: Those who believe that abilities can be developed achieve better results in the long term than people who regard talent as unchangeable.
This insight goes back to the American psychologist Carol Dweck. Her research has sustainably changed the understanding of learning, motivation and performance. Studies show that beliefs about one's own capacity for change can indeed influence how people deal with setbacks, how long they persist in challenges and how willing they are to learn something new.
Nevertheless, an increasingly differentiated picture is emerging.
Despite the intensive dissemination of the Growth Mindset concept, one question often remains unanswered: Why do even highly competent executives, entrepreneurs or elite athletes not consistently demonstrate a Growth Mindset? Why do the same people react with curiosity and a solution-oriented approach on one day, but defensively, insecurely or avoidantly on the next?
The answer is surprisingly simple.
Because mindset is not a personality trait.
Rather, it is a dynamic psychological state that constantly changes – depending on biological, social and situational influences. Lack of sleep, chronic stress, social pressure or repeated criticism demonstrably change perception, decision-making behaviour and willingness to take risks. Neuroscientific research shows that emotional states significantly influence the prefrontal cortex – the area of the brain responsible for rational thinking, self-regulation and complex decisions.
The decisive consequence is therefore:
It is not personality that permanently determines peak performance, but the current mental state.
This insight fundamentally changes the perspective on leadership.
Growth Mindset Is Not a State
Many discussions about mindset begin with an implicit assumption: people either have a Growth Mindset or a Fixed Mindset.
Research, however, speaks a much more differentiated language.
Carol Dweck herself repeatedly emphasised that both ways of thinking do not represent fixed categories. Rather, people continuously move along a spectrum. Depending on the context, the same person can be open to learning and, a few hours later, experience any form of feedback as a personal attack.
This dynamic is particularly evident in everyday leadership.
On Monday, a department head confidently presents her strategy to the board of directors. Two days later, she receives critical feedback on a project. At the same time, poor sleep impairs emotional regulation, several operational problems arise simultaneously and suddenly doubts about her own competence emerge.
Objectively, hardly anything has changed.
Subjectively, however, the entire perception changes.
The world appears more uncertain.
Other people appear more critical.
One's own abilities are evaluated more pessimistically.
Psychologically, this is by no means a character weakness. Rather, the way in which the brain processes information changes.
The neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky describes this mechanism impressively: Under chronic stress, information processing shifts from long-term, analytical thinking towards short-term survival strategies. Decisions become more cautious, threats are detected more quickly and risks are weighted more heavily.
For executives, this leads to an important insight:
Even excellent leadership skills are no guarantee of permanently constructive behaviour. The ability to self-regulate must be continuously maintained.
Mindset is therefore less like a character trait and more like physical fitness.
No one trains once and remains permanently capable of performing.
The same applies to mental performance.
The Mental Lens Through Which Leadership Emerges
A helpful image is to regard mindset not as a characteristic, but as a lens.
This lens determines which information is perceived, which information remains excluded and what meaning is attributed to events.
Cognitive psychology refers to this process as Cognitive Appraisal – the subjective evaluation of a situation. Richard Lazarus already demonstrated in his stress research that it is not the event itself, but its evaluation, that determines which emotional reaction arises.
In other words:
Between reality and behaviour there is always interpretation.
This mental lens filters three areas in particular.
First: the self-image.
What story does one tell oneself about one's own abilities? Are mistakes interpreted as an opportunity to learn or as evidence of insufficient competence?
Second: the image of other people.
Are colleagues generally perceived as supporters or as potential competitors? Is feedback understood as an opportunity for development or as an attack?
Third: the worldview.
Does the environment fundamentally appear full of opportunities, or does a feeling of permanent uncertainty dominate?
These three perspectives influence hundreds of decisions every day – often completely unconsciously.
Modern neuroscience assumes that the brain does not perceive objective reality. Instead, it continuously constructs predictions about what is likely to happen. This principle is described as Predictive Processing and is today one of the most important models in brain research. According to this view, perception emerges from a permanent interaction between external information and existing expectations.
For organisations, this insight is of considerable importance.
Two executives can work with identical figures, the same market analysis and the same employees – and nevertheless make completely different decisions.
Not because of different intelligence.
But because of different mental filters.
This difference becomes particularly visible in transformation processes. While one executive interprets digitalisation as an opportunity, another experiences the same change process primarily as a loss of control. Both consider the same facts, but arrive at completely different conclusions.
Leadership therefore does not begin with strategies.
Leadership begins with perception.
Why Classical Mindset Models Are No Longer Sufficient Today
The great strength of the Growth Mindset concept lies in its simplicity. And at the same time, this is also its greatest weakness.
People do not make decisions exclusively on the basis of their belief about whether abilities can be developed. Modern research from psychology, neuroscience and organisational development shows rather that several mental dimensions interact simultaneously.
For example, an executive can firmly believe that she can learn new things – and nevertheless feel unable to act in a specific situation.
A CEO can be exceptionally intelligent, but at the same time have difficulty building sustainable relationships. A project manager can possess the highest level of professional competence and nevertheless believe that she has no influence over the framework conditions of her project.
These examples illustrate that mindset encompasses far more than the question of growth or stagnation.
It consists of several interconnected psychological filters.
A more differentiated understanding therefore provides a multidimensional model that describes six central dimensions of mindset. This framework expands the classical Growth Mindset perspective with additional psychological influencing factors.
The three dimensions Intent, Intelligence and Interaction describe how people perceive others, assess their own competencies and experience relationships.
The three dimensions Control, Capability and Changeability, on the other hand, explain how self-efficacy emerges, why some people take responsibility while others remain passive – and why some experience change as an opportunity while others perceive it as a threat.
Together, these six dimensions provide a significantly more complete picture of human behaviour.
They explain not only individual performance, but also provide valuable insights for modern leadership, people development and successful transformation.
The next section makes clear why the first dimension – Intent – already determines whether collaboration creates trust or generates resistance. Building on this, it explains how Intelligence and Interaction sustainably influence the quality of decisions, relationships and organisational performance.
Intent – The Underestimated Power of Intention
The first dimension of the mindset model is Intent – the inner intention that people attribute to other people and situations.
This dimension often operates in the background, but influences almost every interpersonal interaction. The human brain is constantly searching for answers to a central question:
Is this situation safe or threatening?
Within just a few milliseconds, the brain evaluates social signals. A look, a tone of voice or a short message can be sufficient to trigger positive or negative interpretations. This automatic evaluation was evolutionarily essential for survival. In modern organisations, however, it can lead to misinterpretations.
For example, an executive receives a short message from a member of the board of directors:
“We need to talk about the project.”
Objectively, this message contains very little information. Nevertheless, the interpretation can vary greatly.
One person thinks:
“The board is interested in the topic and wants to develop solutions together.”
Another thinks:
“There is a problem. My performance is being questioned.”
The external reality is identical. The mental lens, however, changes the meaning.
This mechanism is particularly relevant for executives because assumed intentions directly influence behaviour. Someone who assumes that others are generally critical, rejecting or self-interested communicates differently from someone who initially assumes a constructive intention.
The organisational psychologist Amy Edmondson shows through her research on psychological safety that teams are significantly more effective when employees can assume that mistakes, questions and different perspectives will not automatically be sanctioned.
Psychological safety does not mean harmony or conflict avoidance. On the contrary: high-performing teams are characterised by the fact that difficult issues can be addressed openly.
However, the decisive prerequisite is the basic assumption:
“The other person fundamentally wants to contribute something positive.”
This attitude fundamentally changes collaboration.
A practical tool is conscious intention checking. Before a difficult interaction, it is worth reflecting:
What facts are actually available?
What interpretation does one's own mind add?
What other, more benevolent explanation would also be possible?
This method reduces automatic threat reactions and creates space for more differentiated thinking.
For CEOs and executives, this ability is particularly relevant because leadership also always means creating meaning. Employees orient themselves not only towards decisions, but also towards the intention they perceive behind these decisions.
Intelligence – Why Classical Intelligence Models Are No Longer Sufficient
The second dimension of the model is Intelligence.
It is not only about the classical concept of intelligence, which is often associated with analytical abilities, academic performance or specialist knowledge. Modern organisations require a much broader understanding of human competence.
Howard Gardner already developed, with the theory of multiple intelligences, an approach that describes different forms of human abilities – including linguistic, social, emotional, physical and creative intelligence.
The leadership context makes it particularly clear: Professional expertise alone is not sufficient. A highly qualified expert may, for example, be able to carry out complex data analyses, but have difficulty convincing other people. A brilliant strategist can develop an excellent vision, but fail to build trust within the team. A successful entrepreneur can possess extraordinary innovative power, but not sufficiently reflect on her own emotional patterns. Performance emerges from the interaction of different competencies.
One frequently underestimated factor is the individual's own perception of their abilities.
People do not only overestimate themselves occasionally. They also frequently underestimate themselves.
Particularly performance-oriented people sometimes develop a narrow definition of competence. They evaluate themselves based on those areas in which they are not yet perfect and overlook those abilities that are already well developed.
The consequence: One's own potential is systematically perceived as smaller than it actually is.
This is where a connection to self-efficacy emerges – a central concept of the psychologist Albert Bandura. His research shows that people with high self-efficacy expectations are more likely to accept challenges, persist longer and interpret setbacks more constructively.
Interestingly, self-efficacy does not arise primarily through positive thinking.
It arises through experience.
Every successfully overcome challenge provides the brain with evidence: “I can master difficult situations.”
An effective development tool is therefore a regular strengths inventory. The question: “What do I need to improve?” is not the focus. Rather: “Which abilities have I successfully applied in recent weeks?” This perspective changes the internal evaluation of one's own competence and creates a more realistic basis for further development.
Particularly in a working world increasingly characterised by uncertainty, artificial intelligence and permanent change, this ability becomes decisive.
In the long term, those people who already know everything will not be the ones who succeed. Rather, it will be those who are convinced that they can develop new abilities.
Interaction – Why Relationships Are a Strategic Success Factor
The third dimension is Interaction.
It describes the question:
How does a person experience their relationship with others?
This dimension is frequently underestimated in management. Organisations talk extensively about strategies, processes and technologies – yet the quality of social relationships determines to a significant extent whether these elements actually have an impact.
A central psychological concept here is Relatedness – the feeling of belonging and connectedness.
The Self-Determination Theory of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan shows that social connectedness, alongside autonomy and competence, is one of the three fundamental human psychological needs.
People need not only goals and challenges. They need relationships.
Organisations frequently underestimate this factor. The focus is on speed, efficiency and results. At the same time, numerous studies show that trust and social safety are central factors for innovation, engagement and long-term performance.
Google's research on team performance as part of Project Aristotle also concluded that psychological safety was one of the most important factors in successful teams.
It is not about having as many contacts as possible. The quality is decisive. A short conversation in the office does not replace genuine connection. A team meeting does not automatically replace trust.
The decisive reflection question is therefore: Which relationships give energy – and which relationships reduce it?
A simple practice is to consciously build connection habits. Not only to maintain professional contacts, but to regularly have genuine conversations: about challenges, uncertainties, ideas and personal development.
For executives, this leads to a central insight: Relationships are not an optional extra. They are a strategic performance factor.
The ability to build trust and create psychological safety is increasingly becoming one of the most important leadership competencies in complex organisations.
Control – Between Self-Responsibility and the Illusion of Control
The fourth dimension of the model is Control.
It describes the central question:
To what extent do people experience themselves as shapers of their situation?
This question touches on a fundamental psychological concept: the Locus of Control. The psychologist Julian B. Rotter developed the distinction between internal and external control beliefs as early as the 1960s.
People with a rather internal Locus of Control assume that they can influence things through their own behaviour. They ask:
“What can I contribute in this situation?”
People with a rather external Locus of Control experience events more frequently as something that happens to them. They focus more strongly on external factors:
“The market is to blame.”
“Management prevents change.”
“The framework conditions do not allow a solution.”
For executives, this dimension is particularly relevant because it is directly connected to responsibility and the ability to act. Organisations need people who do not want to control every challenge, but who are willing to actively shape their sphere of influence.
There is an important differentiation here:
A strong sense of control does not mean having to control everything.
Particularly performance-oriented people often fall into a control trap. They try to completely control outcomes, other people or external developments. This expectation is unrealistic, however, and creates stress in the long term.
The decisive competence lies not in maximum control.
It lies in conscious Intention.
The difference is significant:
Control focuses on the outcome.
Intention focuses on one's own contribution.
For example, a CEO cannot control how the market reacts to a new strategy. She can, however, influence how clearly the vision is communicated, which decisions are made and how the team is guided through uncertainty.
This perspective also corresponds to the well-known concept of the Circle of Influence by Stephen R. Covey. Successful people concentrate their energy on those areas in which they actually have influence.
A practical tool is daily intention setting:
What is my most important contribution today?
Which attitude do I consciously want to adopt?
Which sphere of influence can I actively shape?
This simple reflection shifts the mental focus from powerlessness to agency.
Particularly in times of high uncertainty – geopolitical changes, technological disruption through artificial intelligence or economic transformation – this ability becomes a decisive competitive advantage.
Capability – Between Potential and Actual Implementation
The fifth dimension is Capability.
It describes the question:
Do people believe they are capable of actually overcoming a challenge?
This dimension is frequently confused with intelligence. Yet there is a crucial difference between knowledge and implementation. Intelligence describes the existing potential.
Capability describes the ability to translate this potential into concrete behaviour.
For example, an executive may possess excellent analytical skills. Nevertheless, she may have difficulty making a difficult decision, leading a team through uncertainty or addressing a conflict openly. Why? Because competence does not arise from knowledge alone. It arises from self-confidence, experience and experience in taking action.
Here, the concept of self-efficacy comes into play again. Albert Bandura demonstrated in his research that people with high self-efficacy expectations are more likely to accept challenges, persist longer and process setbacks more productively.
Self-efficacy does not mean: “I can do everything.”
It means: “I can learn to overcome challenges.”
This difference is crucial.
High performers in particular frequently face a paradoxical problem: The higher their own performance capability, the more frequently they encounter situations in which previous experience is no longer sufficient. The next career level requires new abilities. An expert becomes an executive. A specialist takes on overall responsibility for the first time. A manager becomes a strategic decision-maker. Uncertainty often arises during these transitions.
The decisive question then is: Is this a knowledge problem or a confidence problem? Is a skill actually missing? Or is only the internal evidence missing that this ability can be developed?
An effective tool is the capability proof.
The process deliberately breaks down a major challenge into smaller steps:
What is the smallest next step?
Which ability can be practised through it?
What concrete experience can prove that development is possible?
The brain does not learn only through information. It learns through experiences.
Every successfully completed step changes one's own perception: “I am someone who can overcome challenges.”
For companies, this means: Development does not primarily arise through training programmes alone. What is decisive is enabling employees to have real learning opportunities in which new competencies can be experienced in practice.
Changeability – The Belief That Change Is Possible
The sixth and final dimension is Changeability.
It describes the fundamental belief:
Can people change themselves?
This question influences every form of leadership.
Those who believe that people are fundamentally unchangeable interpret behaviour as a fixed characteristic:
“He is simply not capable of working in a team.”
“She will never think strategically.”
“This organisation cannot change.”
Such a perspective limits development opportunities.
Those who, by contrast, regard changeability as fundamentally possible ask different questions:
“What experiences is this person still missing?”
“Which framework conditions support development?”
“Which abilities can be built?”
This attitude does not mean having unrealistic expectations. Not every person fits every role. Not every organisation can solve every challenge. Yet the basic assumption determines whether development becomes possible at all.
Carol Dweck's research shows that beliefs about changeability influence how people interpret challenges, feedback and learning. Executives in particular shape these beliefs within organisations.
An executive who interprets mistakes as final failure creates a different culture from an executive who regards mistakes as data for learning.
A practical tool is the Changeability Check:
Which area do I want to change?
Which obstacles could arise?
Which if-then plans help me deal with these obstacles?
This approach combines psychological research with concrete behaviour. Change therefore does not become an abstract hope. It becomes a trainable process.
Summary: Mindset Is Not a Character Trait, but a Leadership Tool
The central insight is: Mindset is not simply a positive or negative attitude.
It is the mental lens through which people perceive themselves, others and the world. This lens is influenced by six dimensions:
Intent – What intentions do we attribute to others?
Intelligence – Which competencies do we recognise in ourselves?
Interaction – How do we experience our relationships?
Control – Where do we seek influence and responsibility?
Capability – Do we believe we are capable of overcoming challenges?
Changeability – Do we believe in development and change?
For executives, CEOs and HR professionals, this leads to an important consequence:
The most important transformation does not begin with new processes. It begins with a change in perception.
Organisations can develop strategies, implement technologies and change structures. Yet actual implementation depends on the mental lens through which people view these changes.
In an increasingly complex working world, it will therefore not only be decisive what people know. What will be decisive is how they think, learn and act. The ability to consciously shape one's own mindset is therefore evolving from a personal development task into a strategic leadership competency.
About the Author
Dominique Giger is a leadership expert, speaker and coach with more than 18 years of international experience in transformation management, change management and strategic corporate development.
She holds a Master's degree in Computer Science from ETH Zurich and combines scientific insights from neuroscience, psychology and leadership with practical management experience from international corporations.
Her focus is on sustainable high performance: the connection between mental strength, healthy performance capability and modern leadership.
As a speaker and author, she focuses on the topics of mindset, transformation, resilience and leadership in an increasingly complex working world.
In her podcast, “Y-SHIFT: The Next-Level Mindset & Transformation Podcast,” she regularly shares insights into the world of modern psychology, neuroscience, and leadership development.
Learn more about this topic in Episode 38 of her podcast: What Is Mindset, Really? More Than Just a Growth Mindset—6 Dimensions of Behavior & Success
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/y-shift-next-level-mindset-and-transformation/id1801021329
References
Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 410–422.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Clark, A. (2016). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind.Oxford University Press.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A View From Two Eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–496.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.Basic Books.
Google re:Work. Understand team effectiveness. Project Aristotle.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping.Springer.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Henry Holt and Company.
Comments