How Can Teams Improve Attention Allocation: The Role of a Growth Mindset
Abstract
In the high uncertainty of the internal and external environment of the organization, the team growth mentality helps the team to achieve better survival. Research has shown that growth mindset affects information search. Therefore, from the perspective of cognitive implicit theory and "basic view of attention", this study explores the influence of team growth mentality on team attention span and depth through literature research. It is found that team growth mentality has a positive effect on attention span and depth. At the same time, combined with the case study, this study further shows that only when attention span and depth coexist, can the success of organizational goals be achieved. In conclusion, this study explores the influence of team growth mentality on attention allocation, enriches the research results of cognitive implicit theory, and reveals the complex relationship between attention span and depth as well as the balancing strategy.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bayer U., & Gollwitzer, PM. (2005). Mindset effects on information search in self-evaluation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 313–327.
Blackwell LS., Trzesniewski KH., & Dweck CS. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development, 78(1), 246-263.
Driver J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British journal of psychology, 92(1), 53-78.
Dweck CS., & Leggett EL. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.
Funk RJ. (2014). Making the Most of Where You Are: Geography, Networks, and Innovation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal.57(1):193-222.
Globocnik D. (2019). Taking or Avoiding Risk through Secret Innovation Activities — the Relationships among Employees’ Risk Propensity, Bootlegging, and Management Support. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3): N. PAG.
Hansen MT, Haas MR. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1):1-28.
Hong E. (1999). Studying the mind of the gifted. Roeper Review, 21(4):244-252.
James W. (1890). Sensation. In: The Principles of Psychology, Vol II. Henry Holt and Company, 1-43.
Katila R, & Ahuja G. (2002). Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6):1183-1194.
Kim B, Kim E, & Foss NJ. (2016). Balancing absorptive capacity and inbound open innovation for sustained innovative performance: An attention-based view. European Management Journal, 34(1), 80-90.
Leiponen A, & Helfat CE. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic management journal, 31(2), 224-236.
Nadkarni S, & Barr PS. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic management journal, 29(13), 1395-1427.
Ocasio W, 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm[J].Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1):187-206.
Ocasio W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization science, 22(5), 1286-1296.
Peng YP, Hwang SN, Wong JY. (2010). How to Inspire University Librarians to Become “Good Soldiers”? The Role of Job Autonomy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(4):287-295.
Simon HA. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations.New York: Free Press,1947.
Weick KE, & Sutcliffe KM. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization science, 17(4), 514-524.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/mmf.v6i8.8861
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
