In the 1970s, Carol Dweck introduced a concept, called goal orientation, that revolutionised the research on motivation. Goal orientation refers to whether individuals primarily strive to enhance their knowledge, skills, and competence, referred to as a learning orientation, or generally attempt to demonstrate their abilities and expertise, referred to as a performance orientation. Several threads of research indicate that a learning orientation should foster humility or diminish the deleterious effects of narcissism. To illustrate
- as Owens et al. (2013) revealed, people who adopt a learning orientation are more likely to exhibit humility, in which they acknowledge their limitations and respect diverse perspectives,
- a growth mindset, in which individuals assume that competence and character are modifiable (Dweck, 2006), tends to foster humility (Porter & Schumann, 2018) as well as promote a learning orientation (e.g., Wibowo & Sumiati, 2022),
- as Braun et al. (2025) revealed, when the culture or climate of an organisation prioritise learning and development over competition and rivalry, narcissistic leaders are not as inclined to harm their organisation merely to pursue their personal interests.
Indeed, a learning orientation seems to foster an openness of individuals towards diverse perspectives and novel ideas. That is, when individuals adopt a learning orientation, they perform better in diverse teams (Pieterse et al., 2013). This finding implies that a learning orientation encourages individuals to respect and to embrace diverse perspectives: one of the cornerstones of humility, as defined by Tangney et al. (2000). Accordingly, initiatives that promote a learning orientation should foster humility or at least diminish the deleterious impact of narcissism.
Definitions of a learning orientation
Originally, the notion of a goal orientation emanated from the research that Carol Dweck published, in collaboration with colleagues, primarily on primary school children, in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Diener & Dweck, 1978; Diener & Dweck, 1980; Dweck, 1986). In these studies, children received problems to complete. As these problems became increasingly challenging, some children continued to enjoy the challenge, remaining confident and engaged as well adapting their strategies to solve these problems. Their principal goal was, seemingly, to develop and master knowledge, skills, and expertise, referred to as a learning orientation, as defined by Dweck and Elliott (1983). Other authors have applied different terms to delineate the same, or similar, behaviours—such a task-involved (Nicholls, 1984) or mastery-focused (Ames, 1984).
In contrast, other children become especially upset, disengaged, disinterested, and unconfident as these problems became more challenging, demonstrating a helpless response rather than adaptive response. Their principal goal was to demonstrate and validate, rather than develop and refine, their competence. This inclination is referred to as a performance orientation (Dweck & Elliott, 1983) and overlaps with the concept of ego-involved (Nicholls, 1984) and ability focused (Ames, 1984). Soon afterwards, these goals orientations were later established in adults as well (Farr et al., 1993).
Initially, researchers assumed that individuals adopt either a learning orientation or a performance orientation. Over the next couple of decades, this approach gradually evolved:
- During the 1990s, researchers argued that a learning orientation and performance orientation should be conceptualised as two distinct dimensions because, in principle, individuals could demonstrate a strong motivation both to develop and to demonstrate their competence (Button et al, 1996).
- During the late 1990s, researchers subdivided the notion of a performance orientation into two facets: a prove or approach dimension, in which individuals strive to demonstrate favourable attributes, and an avoid or avoidance dimension, in which individuals attempt to minimise or to conceal unfavourable characteristics (Elliott & Harackiewicz, 1996; VandeWalle, 1997).
- Over a decade later, researchers also subdivided the notion of a learning or mastery orientation into two facets: mastery approach, in which individuals strive to improve their capabilities, and mastery avoid, in which individuals strive to minimise the deterioration of their capabilities (Baranik et al., 2013; Van Yperen et al., 2009).
In short, both learning orientation and performance orientation can be divided into two facets: an approach version and an avoidance version. Measures of goal orientation thus assign individuals a score on four dimensions: performance-approach, performance-avoid, learning-approach, and learning-avoid. All four dimensions can be useful in particular circumstances. Nevertheless, a strong learning orientation in general, or a learning-approach orientation in particular, is often especially useful. For example,
- when individuals adopt a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, increases in their workload are not as likely to damage their satisfaction at work (Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002),
- when individuals embrace a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, they are more likely to share their resources and behave cooperatively—perhaps because they perceive colleagues as sources of knowledge and not as potential rivals (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012),
- when people are encouraged to adopt a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, they are more inclined to cheat on tasks (Van Yperen et al., 2011),
- when people adopt a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, their working memory tends to improve; that is, they can retain, transform, integrate, and consider many facets or issues simultaneously (Linnenbrink et al., 2000).
Arguably, when individuals adopt a learning orientation, their goal—to develop capabilities rather than to achieve some outcome—tends to be close rather than remote, generally boosting motivation. In addition, these individuals perceive challenges and criticisms as opportunities to improve, promoting resilience and flexibility.
Limited time pressure
To foster humility as well as many other benefits, leaders, practitioners, and other individuals need to encourage people to adopt a learning or mastery orientation in many settings. Fortunately, researchers have shown that various interventions, instructions, or initiatives can indeed promote a learning orientation.
To illustrate, the extent to which people feel rushed, in the workplace or in other settings, may affect goal orientation. Specifically, as Beck and Schmidt (2013), when people feel rushed, they tend to demonstrate the hallmarks of an avoidant performance orientation. In contrast, when people feel they are granted the luxury of time, they tend to exhibit a learning or mastery orientation.
In their study, undergraduate students first indicated the degree to which they agree with statements about time pressure, such as “I am working under excessive time pressure”. In addition, these participants completed questions that assess goal orientation and exam performance. Time pressure was negatively associated with learning orientation but positively associated with a performance-avoid orientation. Learning orientation also improved exam performance. Accordingly, to evoke a learning orientation, and thus potentially to foster humility, individuals should be granted enough time, or control over how to allocate their time, to complete their tasks.
Presumably, when time is limited, people are concerned they may not fulfill their goals. Accordingly, they orient their attention towards more immediate needs rather than future goals, such as professional development.
A supportive interpersonal environment
When individuals feel their interpersonal environment is supportive, they tend to exhibit all the hallmarks of a learning orientation, such as embrace challenging tasks. In these settings, individuals are not as worried or vigilant about their relationships and can instead shift their attention to their own learning and development.
To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Kiuru et al. (2014), the participants were children, between kindergarten and grade 4. Teachers rated how they feel about each child as well as the extent to which the children were accepted by peers. Parents rated their parenting style. Children evaluated the extent to which they enjoy or avoid challenging tasks. When teachers, parents, and peers were supportive at one, the children were more inclined to embrace challenging tasks at subsequent times, epitomising a learning orientation.
This finding can be ascribed to the tenets of attachment theory. That is, cues that signal a sense of support prime memories of the past, especially during childhood, in which individuals felt protected by a supportive and accessible caregiver. While individuals experience this sense of protection, called a secure base, they feel safe enough to explore unfamiliar features of their environment and to develop their repertoire of capabilities, epitomising a learning orientation. As Mikulincer et al. (2001) revealed, even subliminal exposure to the names of supportive caregivers enhances creativity—a mindset that facilitates growth and development.
Whether an environment is deemed as supportive may partly depend on the degree to which individuals tend to be trusting. Consistent with this possibility, trust propensity, measured by questions like “I generally trust other people unless they give me a reason not to”, is positively associated with a learning orientation (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011).
Leadership style
Presumably, the approach that leaders adopt may affect the degree to which individuals feel rushed or supported. Consequently, the leadership style of managers and supervisors may affect the goal orientation of staff. Indeed, studies confirm that leadership style shapes learning orientation. Coad and Berry (1998), for example, revealed that a learning orientation prevailed when managers demonstrated a transformational style—a style in which leaders promulgate an inspiring vision of the future as well as grant staff the tools and opportunities to pursue this vision.
Other research has also clarified how the leadership style of managers could affect the learning orientation of staff. To illustrate, Özsahin et al. (2011) conducted a study to explore this relationship in more detail. In this study, 127 participating firms completed a questionnaire that assessed
- the degree to which leaders facilitate change, such as “empower peoples to implement new strategies”,
- the extent to which leaders coordinate and plan tasks carefully, such as “assigns work to groups or individuals” and “clarifies role expectations and task objectives”,
- the degree to which leaders establish trusting relationships with staff,
- feel that learning is valued.
All three leadership styles encouraged the pursuit of learning. Presumably, when leaders inspire staff to embrace innovative practices, individuals feel motivated to develop novel strategies rather than merely achieve excellence, epitomising a learning orientation. When leaders plan tasks carefully and establish trusting relationships, staff are confident they can fulfill the expectations of these leaders. Therefore, these staff may feel protected and, consistent with attachment theory, thus able to explore unfamiliar tasks and possibilities.
Leadership exploration
Rather than overarching leadership styles, some researchers have explored more specific behaviours that may foster a learning orientation. Specifically, some managers often adopt an approach called exploitation in which they apply, extend, and refine the existing knowledge or skills of the organisation to improve performance. In practice, these organisations tend to modify their extant products and services to accommodate potential customers. In contrast, other managers often adopt an approach called exploration in which they experiment with novel practices or perspectives to improve performance. In practice, these organisations tend to develop novel products and services to attract potential customers (March, 1991). Because exploitation tends to attract more immediate returns, organisations do not often prioritise exploration sufficiently (Fang et al., 2010).
As Matsuo (2020) proposed, if managers prioritise exploration, they inspire staff to explore unfamiliar sources of knowledge and insight, fostering a learning orientation. Second, these managers also role model some of the practices that epitomise a learning orientation, such as attempting unfamiliar tasks. To confirm this premise, a sample of 147 employees of a Japanese pharmaceutical company completed a survey that Matsuo (2020) assembled. These employees completed questions that assess
- the degree to which their managers undertake exploration activities, such as “(My supervisor searches) for new possibilities with respect to products, services, processes, or markets” (Mom et al., 2007),
- the extent to which they adopt a learning orientation, such as “I look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge” (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003),
- their willingness to reflect upon their work, such as “I often reflect upon whether I am working effectively” and “I often review the methods I use to get the job done” (West, 2000).
As the data revealed, leadership exploration was positively associated with both a learning orientation and reflection. Indeed, learning orientation mediated the association between leadership exploration and reflection. Similar to a learning orientation, reflection may also foster humility.
