Mindsets are assumptions about the malleability of personal attributes that guide human behavior. Over the last two decades, there has been an emerging theoretical and empirical literature on how holding a growth mindset (i.e., presuming that one’s abilities and personal attributes can be readily developed) tends to almost universally serve individuals better in their career than a fixed mindset (i.e., presuming that one’s abilities and personal attributes are relatively stable and unchangeable). Not surprisingly, contributions to this literature on the role of mindsets in career interests, actions, and outcomes, typically culminate in assertions and advice about how individuals with a fixed mindset should be strongly encouraged and supported to adopt a growth mindset. In this paper, we draw upon recent developments in the broader mindsets literature to highlight three areas of problematic oversimplification with how mindsets are typically addressed within the careers literature. These areas pertain to (a) the unwarranted dichotomization of mindsets, (b) inconsistency about the trait vs state nature of mindsets, and (c) the potential adverse impact of recommending adoption of a growth mindset. We discuss the advent and utility of mixed mindsets, the dual process model of mindsets, and the strategies for averting harm from resulting from a growth mindset. We conclude with theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for a more nuanced and useful application of the mindsets construct within the careers literature.
