This post originally appeared on Forbes.
Most people consider calling someone a “genius” a tremendous compliment. If you asked the average person what that means, they might picture Albert Einstein and define “genius” as having some combination of intellect and creativity. But when it comes to organizational leaders, genius types—who often believe their abilities are both predetermined and unchanging and who operate with a fixed mindset—may not be the best bet.
In a recent conversation, Mary C. Murphy, award-winning social psychologist and author of Cultures of Growth: How the New Science of Mindset Can Transform Individuals, Teams, and Organizations, explains that “cultures of genius” operate out of the belief that “some people are inherently more capable due to their superior intelligence, talents and abilities.” Because these organizational cultures assume that such characteristics will ensure success, they deploy resources, rewards and status to support these “stars” who are perceived to have “innate and superior ability.” In many organizations, everything revolves around these genius types, says Murphy. “That’s the route for promotion, that’s the route for power and for status within the organization.”
The Dark Side of Star Power
Genius-focused organizational cultures can be very competitive internally, with individuals turning on each other, trying to protect scant resources and fighting—sometimes unfairly—for scarce rewards. “Even though we’re working together on a team,” explains Murphy, “I might still hold back some information. I might ‘accidentally’ leave you off the calendar invite because information and resources are power in cultures of genius. And to maintain my status and be seen as the top performer or the star of this team, I might engage in some of these kinds of behaviors.” Unfortunately, she says, “you can’t fully trust your team members because you’re competing against them.”
In contrast, in growth-focused cultures, everyone has the potential to grow, develop and contribute, given the right support and a willingness to seek help. Collaboration in these two cultures looks very different. “Any kind of holding back of information is seen as hugely unethical because it short-circuits learning,” says Murphy about growth-focused cultures.
Attitudes Towards Risk-Taking And Failure
There is often wild risk-taking in genius cultures, says Murphy, since the risks are “guided by whoever is deemed the genius on the team. And they’re using their gut and their hunch rather than data.” Plus, in genius cultures, failing fast is often promoted as exciting, but because there’s no requirement for learning, the outcome is more likely to be “disruption over discernment.”
Other team members are often afraid to take risks within genius cultures, since any failure could suggest that “maybe you don’t have the innate special abilities that are seen as necessary for success,” Murphy says. “Any mistake is held against you; you’re only as good as your last performance. That makes people very risk averse.”
But on the other hand, she says, “Cultures of growth see risk as required for learning. People think that cultures of growth are soft, like rainbow-and-unicorn, positive-affirmation places. But, in fact, they’re actually more rigorous than cultures of genius.” This is because cultures of growth use “data in order to identify what the right risks may be at the right period of time. They’re going to have structures and systems in place to be sure to be able to learn from the risks that fail.”
In cultures of growth, taking risk is normalized because when failures do occur, the normal data-tracking provides early warning signs that something isn’t working. “We’re going to have systems and structures to be able to wrest the learning from those early risks that don’t pay off so that we can pivot more quickly,” Murphy explains. Leaders routinely share the lessons learned from failure broadly throughout the organization, so when failures happen, the lessons benefit everyone.
Growth Cultures Are Still Demanding
Despite their attitude toward failure, growth cultures are not soft about performance. If someone isn’t working up to expectations, there are structures and systems in place to ensure that the lack of performance is understood and to identify opportunities to provide support. Such support may include pinpointing the underperformer’s strengths and weaknesses and seeing if there are other roles or assignments in the organization to which they are better suited. When the organization has exhausted all its support options, Murphy says, “the question is how do we counsel them out” with the hope that the badly performing employee can be successful elsewhere.
Organizations with cultures of growth recognize that although a poor performer may be able to return at another time once they’ve acquired additional skills or capabilities, if the relationship between that employee and the organization isn’t working now it cannot continue. Someone who is comfortable in a growth culture but unsuccessful at their job usually comes to understand that “the effort I’m putting in is not effective; this effort is not moving me toward my goal,” says Murphy. “It’s time to pivot and try a different strategy.” The organization can focus on helping that individual “figure out where they are and what their needs are and find the places where they can get those needs met, even if they’re outside the organization.” And, as Murphy notes, “That’s still growth. That’s the more humane thing to do. It helps keep their growth mindset in place rather than moving them to the fixed mindset of ‘I just couldn’t hack it here.’”
The way an organization deals with “struggling performers sends a signal to the rest of the team about what the values are and how other people are likely to be treated over time,” she explains. “If we have struggling performers who suddenly just disappear from the team because they’ve been eliminated, because they didn’t cut it, and we see that they weren’t really given opportunities, strategies or resources to help them develop, it creates a context where everybody’s vigilant to whether or not they’re next on the chopping block. It creates more anxiety, more fear—and it’s going to reduce risk-taking, creativity and innovation. Who can be creative in such an environment?”
Genius Cultures Aren’t Even Good For Geniuses
Most people would much rather be part of a team whose members believe that “if I end up struggling, I’m going to be given opportunity to grow in order to prove my potential,” says Murphy, “and I’m going to be given some time and some leeway to do that.”
It isn’t only non-genius people who fail to thrive in genius cultures. Even people who have genius status can feel ill at ease in genius cultures and not work up to potential. Genius cultures can “put straightjackets on those individuals so there’s very little room for them to learn, grow, develop, or make mistakes,” says Murphy. Since mistakes are where growth often happens, so-called geniuses are in jeopardy all the time. In a culture where you’re either the star or you’re not, the rigidity of success categorization means “you’re at real risk of being dethroned if someone new and exciting comes along,” she explains, rather than encouraging leaders to find ways to work together for everyone’s benefit.
Onward and upward—
LK