What Growth Mindset Leadership Development Looks Like When It Actually Works

Skip Bowman
2 days ago
6 min read

Most leadership programs produce nodding heads in workshops and nothing in the workplace. This one was different. Here's why.

I've worked with over 500 leadership teams. Most leadership development doesn't work. Not because the content is wrong, but because the design is wrong.

So when a Danish global manufacturer — a leader in climate solutions, heating, and industrial drives — asked me to help transform their Scandinavia and UK sales division, I insisted on doing it differently. Twelve months later, we have data showing what happened — and it challenges much of what the industry assumes about how leaders change.

The Measurement Architecture

We used two linked instruments, measured at baseline and again 12 months later:

1. Growth Mindset Leadership 360 (Individual Level)

A 360-degree feedback assessment measuring six Growth Mindset dimensions and ten Protective operating modes. Each leader was rated by their manager, peers, and direct reports on 160+ behavioral items.

Growth Mindset Dimensions:

Transform, Aim High, Explore, Go High, Lift Others Up, Team Up

Protective Operating Modes (clustered into three mindsets):

Controlling-Competitive (Hippo patterns):

Controlling, Dominating, Demanding

Complying-Complacent (Snail patterns):

Pleasing, Conforming, Reactive

Critical-Skeptical (Clam patterns):

Disconnected, Passive, Doubting, Critical

The 360 captures how leaders actually behave under pressure — not what they believe about themselves, but what others observe. It's normed against a database of 3,000+ leaders, so scores are expressed as percentiles.

2. Culture for Growth Survey (Team Level)

A separate pulse survey completed by 174 employees across the division, measuring how people experience the culture — psychological safety, risk-taking, collaboration, accountability, and conformity. This wasn't a repackaged engagement survey; it was designed to measure the cultural conditions that Growth Mindset leadership either creates or destroys.

The Link

The two instruments measure different levels of the same system:

The 360 measures what leaders do
The Culture survey measures what teams experience

By measuring both at T1 and T2, we could see whether individual behavior change was translating to collective culture shift — or whether leaders were "performing" development without actually changing their impact.

Twenty-five leaders completed both assessments at both time points. The culture survey captured 174 employee responses at each wave.

The Intervention

The program ran over 12 months and combined four elements:

1. Three One-Day Workshops (Intact Team)

All 25 leaders attended together — not as individuals from different divisions, but as the actual leadership team they'd return to on Monday. The workshops introduced the Safe to Great framework, debriefed 360 results collectively, and created shared language for what "Growth Mindset leadership" looks like in practice.

Key design choice: we didn't isolate high-potentials. We worked with the whole system.

2. Three Individual Coaching Sessions

Each leader received three 90-minute coaching sessions spread across the 12 months, focused on their specific 360 profile. A Hippo got different coaching than a Snail. The sessions translated group learning into individual application — and created accountability between workshops.

3. Culture Goal-Setting

Before the first workshop, the senior team defined what they wanted the culture to become — using the Culture for Growth dimensions as the target. This wasn't vague aspiration; it was specific: "We want to move from the 43rd to the 55th percentile on 'supported to take risks and learn.'"

The culture goals made the collective stakes visible. Individual development served organisational transformation, not just personal growth.

4. Leader Involvement

The division head wasn't a sponsor who kicked off day one and disappeared. He participated in every workshop, completed his own 360, received coaching, and visibly worked on his own development in front of his team. His Growth Mindset profile — verified by his 360 data — gave the program permission to succeed.

The Design: Four Principles

1. Work with intact teams, not individuals

The 25 leaders weren't high-potentials plucked from different divisions. They were the actual leadership team of an actual business unit. They workshopped together. They'd face each other on Monday.

2. Start with the right leader

The division head had a strong Growth Mindset profile himself — verified by his own 360 data. He wasn't just the sponsor — he modeled what we were teaching.

3. Focus on culture, not just capability

This wasn't "leadership development." It was cultural transformation — part of a broader initiative with explicit organisational goals. The Culture for Growth survey made the collective goal visible and measurable.

4. Measure at both levels

Individual 360 change without culture shift would have signaled performance, not transformation. We needed both to move.

What Actually Changed: Leaders

After 12 months, we retested everyone — same 360 raters, same culture survey population.

Table showing significant improvements in Growth Mindset dimensions from T1 to T2, with percentile shifts across various areas such as Transform, Go High, Explore, Aim High, and GM Composite, indicating positive changes and statistical significance.

Table displaying reductions in protective mindsets shows significant decreases in 'Conforming' and 'Doubting' patterns from T1 to T2, with changes of -7.3 and -5.7 points, respectively.

Behaviors that increased significantly:

Accepts negative feedback (p<.001)
Stays calm under pressure (p=.002)
Looking for ways to improve (p=.002)
Looks for root causes of problems (p=.005)
Listens attentively to others (p=.007)
Challenges others to grow (p=.008)
Treats people fairly when they fail (p=.013)
Admits mistakes and apologizes quickly (p=.026)

Behaviors that decreased significantly:

Works long hours and expects others to (p=.001)
Feels unfairly treated by others (p=.013)
Values tradition more than change (p=.027)
Punishes people who aren't loyal (p=.036)

Culture shifts (174 employees):

What Actually Changed: The Culture

This is where it gets interesting. The Culture for Growth survey — completed by 174 employees, not the leaders rating themselves — showed parallel shifts.

Effectiveness outcomes (year-on-year change):

Table illustrating percentage improvements in various aspects of organisational effectiveness, with the highest increase in customer service excellence at 11%, followed by product and service quality and innovation, each at 9%.

Psychological safety gains:

Positive trends in organizational culture: a 14% increase in trust in colleagues’ commitments, a 12% rise in perceived psychological safety, and an 11% boost in risk-taking and development support.

Biggest changes in culture

The table illustrates positive shifts in growth mindset behaviors within the organization, highlighting increases in pursuing challenging goals, risk-taking, and cross-silo collaboration, while a decrease in unquestioned rule-following suggests a more critical, adaptive culture.

Two Data Streams, One Story

The leadership 360 data and the culture survey data are independent — different instruments, different respondents, measured at the same two time points.

They tell the same story.

Leaders became calmer under pressure. So did the culture. Leaders became more open to feedback. So did the culture. Leaders reduced Conforming and Doubting. So did the culture.

This is the evidence that individual development translated to collective transformation. The leaders didn't just change their 360 scores — they changed how 174 people experience work.

The Uncomfortable Findings

Not everyone changed equally. When we analysed by archetype — patterns in the 360 data that cluster leaders into types — we found:

Hippos responded well. Leaders with high Dominating, Critical, and Controlling scores at T1 showed dramatic improvement. Their armor was visible, which made it confrontable.

Snails didn't transform. Leaders high on Pleasing and Conforming attended every session, completed every assignment, and showed minimal change on retest. They did what was asked — which is exactly the problem. Development requires doing things that might not please.

The biggest predictor of growth wasn't motivation. It was the absence of Pleasing. The correlation between T1 Pleasing and GM growth was negative. Leaders who habitually defer and accommodate couldn't access the discomfort required for genuine transformation.

What This Means

If you're designing or buying a leadership program:

Design for systems, not individuals. Work with intact teams. Include the leader.
Check who's at the top. If the group leader is a Hippo, you'll hit a ceiling. We verified our division head's profile before starting.
Measure at both levels. The 360 tells you what leaders do. The culture survey tells you whether it matters. You need both.
Watch for Snails. High Pleasing at baseline predicts low growth. These leaders may need different interventions.

Leadership development works when it's designed to work — and when you measure what actually matters.

Get the design right, and you can move a leadership team 7 percentile points on Growth Mindset in 12 months, with measurable shifts in how 174 employees experience their culture.

Get it wrong, and you get what most organisations get: workshops that feel good and change nothing.

The choice is a design choice. Make it deliberately.

Skip Bowman is the author of "Safe to Great: The New Psychology of Leadership" and creator of the Growth Mindset Leadership 360.

Technical note: Effect sizes for the GM composite change were in the medium range (Cohen's d = 0.57), consistent with well-designed leadership interventions. The Conforming reduction (d = -0.47) was also meaningful. Full methodology available on request.