Toward a Work Motivation Conceptualization of Grit in Organizations

Historical Components of Grit

Redefining Grit

Duckworth’s discussion of the four “psychological assets” that characterize people high in grit offers a promising approach to distinguishing the construct. These psychological assets include (a) purpose, (b) interest, (c) practice, and (d) hope. The “purpose” component argues that grittier people have a calling that encapsulates “who they are and what they are meant to do.” Although not traditionally synonymous with passion, Duckworth does describe “purpose” as an intrinsic emotional driver, or energizer, of individual behavior. Such a conceptualization overlaps with recent passion definitions (Perrewé et al., 2014; Zigarmi et al., 2018). The “interest” component maintains that gritty people intrinsically enjoy what they do when behavior is purpose-oriented. That is, grittier individuals show a genuine interest in pursuing their purpose. Gritty individuals engage in deliberate “practice” in that they continuously try to achieve mastery through the development of new skills. As part of practice, individuals learn to adapt lower level goals and goal-attainment strategies to develop more efficiently. Last, gritty individuals have “hope,” or the belief that positive change is forthcoming (Lopez, 2013), even when the situation appears less than supportive. In focusing on what Duckworth (2016) refers to as “psychological assets,” we offer a reconceptualization of grit and define it as

A primarily non-cognitive skill that influences one’s ability (a) to set and pursue purpose-driven long-term (higher-order) goals and (b) to effectivity readjust short-term (lower-order) goals and goal-attainment strategies in the face of perceived or anticipated adversity or negative feedback.

Grit is primarily noncognitive because its origin reflects cultivated patterns of thoughts and behaviors (West et al., 2016). With sustained practice, grit develops and is refined gradually over time. In utilizing the term “noncognitive” from the educational literature, we do not imply an absence of mental processing. Instead, grit encapsulates skills based not on intelligence but on socioemotional and behavioral competencies (E. Garcia, 2014) that include goal-setting capabilities and adaptations (Duckworth, 2016).

The distinction between cognitive and noncognitive skill is important for understanding the development of grit. Whereas cognitive skills reflect general mental ability, which becomes less malleable with time, noncognitive skills are ever-developing “patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior” (Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, & ter Weel, 2008, p. 3). Despite genetic influences (Rimfeld, Kovas, Dale, & Plomin, 2016), noncognitive skills evolve from interactions with environments (Kautz, Heckman, Diris, ter Weel, & Borghans, 2014). As such, noncognitive skills, like grit, are receptive to incentives and interventions throughout the life span (Kautz et al., 2014). We discuss the plasticity, or state-like nature, of grit in more detail later in this article.

Grit is purpose-driven, manifesting in the sense of meaningfulness. Gritty individuals optimistically develop plans, placing higher order (purpose-driven) goals at the top of a hierarchy and those considered short term (means-to-ends) below. When faced with either adversity (anticipated or perceived) or negative feedback, gritty individuals adjust their means-to-ends goals and attainment strategies accordingly. We discuss these goal-setting processes in subsequent sections.

Grit and Nomological Neighbors

Scholars argue that grit, simply put, is a repackaging of “old wine in a new bottle” (Credé et al., 2017). By redefining grit as a primarily noncognitive skill that influences purpose-driven goal setting and adjustment, we can begin to differentiate it from nomologically related constructs. For example, conscientiousness is a form of self-regulation that is goal-focused, strategic, and adheres to socially prescribed norms for impulse control (Roberts et al., 2005). Conscientiousness manifests as structure and orderliness in a “relatively enduring and consistent fashion across time in trait-affording situations” (Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009, p. 369). In contrast, grit’s benefits manifest in the pursuit of purpose-oriented goals focusing on long-term stamina rather than on short-term intensity (Duckworth et al., 2007). Furthermore, conscientiousness does not reflect goal content and self-concepts fundamental in newer grit conceptualizations (Fite, Lindeman, Rogers, Voyles, & Durik, 2017).

Individuals who are high in nAch seek out positive communication to consistently “maintain high standards” (D. N. Jackson, 1974, p. 6). Consequently, those high in nAch set realistic short-term goals prone to immediate and encouraging feedback (McClelland, 1961). Alternatively, grittier individuals set and maintain purposeful and conscious long-term goals, which are relatively resilient to setbacks or undesirable feedback (Disabato et al., 2018). Furthermore, the motivational drivers of nAch and grit differ. Whereas external indicators of success and feedback drive employees high in nAch, employees high in grit react according to their passion (Datu, Yuen, & Chen, 2017; Vainio & Daukantaitė, 2016).

Industriousness, which is conceptually related to grit (Duckworth & Eskreis-Winkler, 2015), is the persistence of action despite interference (Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, & Hill, 2014). Similarly, individuals high in hardiness can withstand high degrees of pressure without harm or losing focus (Kobasa, 1979). However, neither industriousness nor hardiness requires passion in their conceptualization and measurement. Furthermore, unlike industriousness and hardiness, grit has a clear function and a process fueled by goal attainment. By definition, individuals high in industriousness (hardiness) show general persistence (resilience) across situations and stressors (Eisenberger & Shank, 1985), whereas grit pursues purpose-oriented aims. In support, research documents that hardiness has minimal overlap with either positive or negative emotion-driven behaviors (Erbes et al., 2011), whereas grittiness includes the meaningful pursuit of passion (Duckworth, 2016).

Grit’s discriminant validity from self-control also has been identified (Suzuki et al., 2015). Although both are correlated determinants of success (Duckworth et al., 2007), self-control does not contain a passion component. Instead, “some paragons of self-control lead undistinguished lives devoid of a focused life-long passion” (Duckworth & Gross, 2014, p. 320). Whereas self-control entails ignoring present temptations, grit involves the pursuit of a higher order goal “on a longer, more abstract time-scale” (Vainio & Daukantaitė, 2016, p. 2121). Furthermore, whereas self-control can affect goal attainment, definitions do not focus on goal attainment as drivers of behavior. Instead, discussions focus on self-regulation and regulatory mechanisms (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007).

As illustrated, grit occupies unique conceptual space given its purpose-specific, long-term goal orientation (Drnovsek, Cardon, & Patel, 2016). We believe that in grounding grit within expansive motivation and goal-setting literatures, its differentiation becomes clearer. Furthermore, by offering a conceptualization of grit as a noncognitive goal-setting competency, we improve measurement and provide preliminary guidance on its developmental potential.

Grounding Grit in Goal-Setting Theory

As noted, high-grit individuals share four psychological characteristics: Interest (i.e., genuinely really enjoying what you do), Practice (i.e., regularly persevering at trying to get better; achieve mastery), Purpose (i.e., holding the belief that your work matters or is important), and Hope (i.e., the perseverance of rising-to-the-occasion; to keep going when things are difficult). These four characteristics overlap with the fundamental processes found in recent goal-setting studies (Raphiphatthana et al., 2018; Schimschal & Lomas, 2018). For example, interest in long-term goal pursuit has grown in recent years, with particular reference to its integrations with self-regulation (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014; Muenks, Wigfield, Yang, & O’Neal, 2017). Bateman and Barry (2012) argued, “Goals themselves are important, but so is the quality of the subjective experience while engaged in the task over time” (p. 999). Sansone and Thoman (2005) referred to task interest as “the missing motivator in self-regulation” (p. 175). Given this theoretical intersection, we characterize grit in terms of work motivation theory, with specific reference to goal setting (Armstrong, van der Lingen, Lourens, & Chen, 2018).

Given that psychological, emotional, and physical resources are limited (Wright & Hobfoll, 2004), and accounting for the long-term orientation of the construct, grit does not manifest universally across all situations. Duckworth and Gross (2014) contend that “some gritty and exceptionally successful people are famously undisciplined in life domains other than their chosen passion” (p. 320). Ostensibly, context matters (Mutz, Clough, & Papageorgiou, 2017), but remains unexplored (see Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014, for an exception). Provided grittiness resides within a purpose-oriented context, we narrow our scope to a particular setting in which grit exists (i.e., the workplace). As such, we must redefine grit to capture its purpose-context correspondence. Next, we explicitly refer to employees who set, pursue, and adapt work-related goals related to their success in the workplace when discussing grit.

Work Grit and the Goal-Setting Process

Goal-setting theory argues that one’s most proximal determinant of motivation is an individual’s conscious goals, defined as “what the individual is trying to achieve” (Kanfer & Chen, 2016, p. 11). Higher order implicit goals depict individuals’ motivational strivings (Barrick et al., 2013). This theory maintains that work behavior triggers the attainment of hierarchically ordered goals from more abstract at higher levels (i.e., specifying the “why” of behavior) to less abstract at lower levels (i.e., specifying the “how” of actions). Furthermore, implicit, higher level goals reflect desired end states that span longer time frames (Bateman & Barry, 2012) and “behave” by guiding lower level goals (Powers, 2005).

Like Barrick et al. (2013), Duckworth and Gross (2014) conceptualized order, arguing that goals exist hierarchically from more abstract at higher levels to less abstract at lower levels. Higher level goals, according to Duckworth (2016), represent the “life purpose” that drives individual actions. Conversely, lower level goals reflect means-to-ends behavioral tactics that facilitate higher order goal attainment. In goal-setting terms, individuals develop specific plans for higher order attainment based on initial hierarchies (A. E. Wong & Vallacher, 2018). Not only do gritty employees develop complex purpose-oriented goal hierarchies, but also these goal hierarchies are more unified, coherent, and coordinated (Duckworth, 2016; Vainio & Daukantaitė, 2016) when compared with those of low-grit workers. As such, we formulate the first set of propositions:

Because lower level goals contribute to purpose-driven aims (Rasmussen, Wrosch, Scheier, & Carver, 2006), successful attempts at attainment occur when a goal hierarchy aligns with a common purpose (McKnight & Kashdan, 2009). However, even in the most coordinated goal hierarchies, goal conflicts arise because resources are limited and bounded rationality restricts consideration of all possible strategies (Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2006). Accordingly, short-term goal-attainment approaches (or task strategies in theory) evolve in response to preliminary goal setting.

Duckworth (2016) contends that “. . .goal conflict is a necessary function of human existence” (p. 65). Once goals permeate into the purpose-oriented hierarchy, individuals gauge the level of lower order goal conflict. Once established, workers identify strategies (e.g., lower order goals) that reflect the highest probability of higher order achievement. After initial goal setting occurs, individuals make motivated choices to allocate resources toward specific objectives (Oc, Bashshur, & Moore, 2015) while extricating those from goals deemed unattainable or costly.

According to Rasmussen et al. (2006), the process of adapting goals happens in two stages. First, an individual must “disengage” from the short-term goal in question. In doing so, they must withdraw effort and commitment (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003). Given that disengagement isolates the goal from its emotion-laden, purpose-driven origin, it serves as an adaptive strategy (Brandtstӓdter & Renner, 1990). Goal reengagement serves to “help a person maintain a sense of purpose . . . and buffer the negative emotions associated with the inability to make progress towards the desired goal” (Rasmussen et al., 2006, p. 1937). After disengagement, workers reengage by identifying, committing to, and pursuing alternative strategies (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, & Schultz, 2003). In light of the above, we develop our next proposition:

Impact of Feedback Information on the Goal-Setting Process

For effective goal setting, individuals rely on “summary feedback that reveals progress in relation to their goals” (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 708). Specifically, if individuals “do not know how they are doing, it is difficult or impossible for them to adjust the level or direction of their . . . strategies to match what the goal requires” (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 708). As a result, individuals develop expectations using multiple feedback sources to determine whether current strategies are succeeding (Matsui, Okada, & İnoshita, 1983). When feedback provides information of below-target performance, individuals adapt by modifying existing strategies. Such adjustments result in a reformation of the existing goal hierarchy (Locke & Latham, 2013).

Overall, studies document the moderating role of feedback on the goal-setting process, finding that communication increases the likelihood of achievement (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). High-grit people “hungrily seek feedback” (Duckworth, 2016, p. 122). As a result, they vigorously process information to adapt their lower level goals to ongoing contextual conditions (Jin & Kim, 2017). Such resilience, flexibility, and willingness to adapt and change keep high-grit people “on track” to achieve higher level goals (Datu et al., 2017).

Moreover, grit resides within theories of purposeful behavior (Barrick et al., 2013) and human agency (Bandura, 2006; Pryiomka, 2018). The nature of “agency” suggests intentionality, focusing on means and instrumentality (Haggard, 2018). Theories of human agency acknowledge that individuals are not simply passive reactors to their environment, but active creators;

People act on their environment. They create it, preserve it, transform it, and even destroy it, rather than merely react to it as a given. These changes involve a socially embedded interplay between the exercise of personal agency and environmental influences. (Bandura, 2006, p. 167)

Similarly, individuals use feedback from interactions with environments to adapt their behavior and cognitively reevaluate future objectives, strategies, and behaviors. As such, we formulate the following proposition:

Impact of Task Strategy on Proactive Adaptation

Goal pursuits are constrained because investment resources required for adaptation are often restricted or absent (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2019). Once invested, it is not possible to redirect limited and exhaustible resources toward other goal pursuits. Thus, individuals must “make decisions about how to invest their time and energy and which goals to pursue” (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, et al., 2003, p. 1495). In line with motivation and stress theories, “people strive for more resources, desire to maximize gains, and build up resistance factors . . . to grow and cultivate their capabilities” (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002, p. 24). Accordingly, ensuring resource gains becomes increasingly important to maintain continued goal pursuit when loss potential exists (Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018).

Successful long-term goal attainment is a function of not only modifying task strategies (or short-term goals) in the presence of feedback but also developing preparatory reserves. Such adaptation, within the self-regulation literature, reflects proactive coping (Aspinwall, 2005; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997). The aim of proactive coping is “to build up general resources that facilitate promotion toward challenging goals and personal growth” in the expectation of future challenges (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002, p. 27).

Although proactive coping occurs in anticipation of stress, the motivational driver is not the experience of threat or future harm. Instead, employees construct action paths taking potential obstacles into consideration (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). As such, proactive action, which takes on developmental properties over time, is particularly useful for pursuing goals that are both ambitious and lasting (Strauss, Griffin, & Parker, 2012). Given our focus on goal setting as a mechanism for gritty behavior, we move away from using the stress-related term “proactive coping.” Instead, we define the same anticipatory behavior as “proactive adaptation.” As such, we formulate the following proposition:

Mediating Role of Restorative Resources

Because physical and psychological resources are limited, disbursement in one goal area implies the decision to withhold or withdraw effort from others (Trougakos, Beal, Cheng, Hideg, & Zweig, 2015). For this reason, the internal decision process associated with resource allocation to one goal over another represents a unique source of tension (DeCremer, 2003). Moreover, because all goal setting involves diminishing resources initially, anticipatory resource allocation does not immediately predict positive outcomes (Hobfoll, 2002). Initial work on post-goal failure energization found that individuals make three assessments under conditions of stress: (a) resource loss potential, (b) resources required to cope, and (c) the likelihood of succeeding or offsetting losses when choosing to cope (Ford & Brehm, 1987). Consequently, successful energizing occurs when the allocation of resources to cope with negative feedback gives rise to the development of others used for goal attainment.

Following Ford and Brehm (1987), we develop the concept of restorative resources, defined as internal competencies that generate more substantial resource reserves. Such restorative resources might include such concepts as self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, self-control, and resourcefulness (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009). Prior research offers support for the importance of proactivity for developing new skills and abilities (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). By engaging in preemptive adaptation, individuals establish resistance resources that accentuate their strengths and foster the attainment of long-term goals (Gan, Yang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2007). Although the process mechanisms are different, both general resistance resources and restorative resources reduce stressor–strain relationships by either (a) minimizing stressor severity upon impact or (b) reducing the likelihood of an initial stressor occurrence. For this reason, we propose that proactive adaptation has similar effects on work outcomes through restorative resources (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997).

Moreover, individuals who successfully adapt to feedback develop new capabilities that strengthen future adaptability (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Thus, we posit that proactive adaptation encourages the growth of restorative resources (Niessen, Müller, Hommelhoff, & Westman, 2018), which, in turn, results in more positive organizational outcomes. In support, Baum and Locke (2004) argue that passion-driven goal setting leads to more ambitious and challenging undertakings, which positively impact work performance. Furthermore, they posit that individuals who passionately love their work are more likely to acquire the necessary skills, like self-efficacy, to meet passion-oriented goals. Prior research also documents the role of restorative resources on work outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors, promotability, and job performance (Chan, Mai, Kuok, & Kong, 2016; Cohen & Abedallah, 2015; Judge & Bono, 2001; Keles, 2015; McCann, Selsky, & Lee, 2009). In light of the above, we formulate the following proposition:

Developing Work Grit

Despite evidence of genetic origins when comparing thousands of twins from the United Kingdom (Rimfeld et al., 2016), “there is no single gene for grit” (Duckworth, 2016, p. 82). As such, “nature matters, and so does nurture” for determining grittiness (Duckworth, 2016, p. 80). Kautz et al. (2014) argue that skill development is a dynamic process. Preliminary support for malleability emerges when examining the receptiveness of other noncognitive skills to reinforcement and intervention. For example, Durlak, Weissberg, and Pachan (2010) document the responsiveness of social and personal (noncognitive) skills to after-school programs targeted at increasing such competencies. Furthermore, Eisenberger (1992) argues that industriousness is the result of active and sequenced reinforcement of effort that manifests as sustained engagement over time.

Provided its motivational origins and overlap with other noncognitive skills, grit levels are arguably responsive to persuasion and incentives, training, behavioral modeling, modification, and reinforcement (Duckworth, 2016; Jordan, Wihler, Hochwarter, & Ferris, in press; Von Culin, Tsukayama, & Duckworth, 2014). Although a detailed description of training interventions is beyond the scope of this article, we now focus on grit’s development as part of, and in response to, the goal-setting and adaptation process.

All the Gritters Isn’t Always Gold . . . Discontinuing Grit and Possible Detrimental Effects

A myriad of situational factors influence grit (Jordan et al., in press). For example, even the grittiest individual would likely extinguish effort when environmental cues offer little hope for success. In these situations, individuals may choose to place grit resources in reserve while establishing a greater stockpile for use when goals appear attainable (Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). Workers also may opt for disengagement, which represents a particularly adaptive strategy when cultivating the pursuit of more meaningful goals (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, et al., 2003). Accordingly, it is improbable that the exercise of grit is uniformly consistent and linear (Credé et al., 2017)—especially when viewed in the absence of environmental determinants.

This perspective argues that grit is potentially aversive when exceedingly high or when poorly regulated. In advocating for a balanced view, Howard and Crayne (2019) labeled efforts toward unrewarding or meaningless goals as “inappropriate persistence.” Furthermore, Duckworth and Eskreis-Winkler (2013) questioned whether grittier individuals are vulnerable to the sunk cost fallacy, which contends that previous investments encourage continued effort because discontinuing acknowledges wasting resources (Peterson, 2015). Moreover, grittier employees may miss favorable opportunities for reward or development because of resoluteness to their original goal. Finally, Credé et al. (2017) argued that excessive levels of grit are detrimental if it reduces the help-seeking behavior linked to increased performance (Karabenick, 2003).

Regarding the influence of individual difference and contextual factors on grit, research affirms the positive role of psychological capital (K. W. Luthans, Luthans, & Chaffin, 2019), purpose commitment (Hill, Burrow, & Bronk, 2016), work involvement (Kabat-Farr et al., 2017), and motivational feedback (Moles, Auerbach, & Petrie, 2017). However, a lack of control (Smallets, Townsend, & Stephens, 2017) and a lower sense of coherence (Vainio & Daukantaitė, 2016) largely negated assumed effects. Recently, Jachimowicz, Wihler, Bailey, and Galinsky (2018) found that grit predicted job performance only when coupled with passion, arguing, “that perseverance without passion isn’t grit, but merely a grind” (p. 9980). Based on these findings, we argue that heightened levels of grit will have a positive effect on work outcomes when coupled with supportive personal and contextual factors. In the absence of such factors, however, grit’s influence will be nonlinear or nonsignificant at excessive levels.

Contributions to Theory and Research

The contributions of our motivational conceptualization of grit and our organizing framework are fivefold. First, we differentiate grit from other arguably related constructs by redefining its content domain and distinctiveness (Luthans et al., 2019). Although grit reflects a targeted goal orientation, we suggest that current construct definitions and measurement fail to address the importance of this correspondence. Without such conceptualization, grit resembles many other constructs, and this proliferation of historically related constructs may explain current skepticism regarding its discriminant validity. To address such conceptual and definitional lack of clarity, we define grit and embed it within the more substantial goal-setting literature.

Second, research to date has failed to explain how grit materializes and the processes by which it impacts motivation, coping, and workplace outcomes (Ceschi, Sartori, Dickert, & Costantini, 2016). In response, we develop a framework examining grit’s role in goal setting and motivation in work contexts. In acknowledging areas of concern and potential remedies, this organizing framework gives rise to directions for future research. Third, we document the importance of adaptation, finding that an absence can result in erroneous conclusions (Sun & Chen, 2017). These inaccuracies arise because resource-protective and consumptive outcomes offset, concealing moderating effects of adaptation. We address this concern by examining mediating and moderating adaptation-related effects as part of a more extensive grit model.

Fourth, although identified as a higher order personality trait, Duckworth (2016) has argued that grittiness can increase through repetition and deliberate practice. Due to its proposed developmental properties, recent research has questioned the classification of grit as a trait. Indeed, the position by grit scholars (particularly Duckworth and her colleagues) is that grit is reflective of a dispositional attribute to some degree, but in conjunction with developmental capacity. That is, although individuals may possess a natural tendency to be gritty, they also can become grittier with age and experience. Coupled with the assumption that individuals hold higher order organizational goals, our organizing framework includes feedback mechanisms that promote research examining the stability (vs. malleability) of grit over time (Credé et al., 2017).

Finally, our framework offers a general explanation for how grit assists in the large goal-setting and adaptation arena. Accordingly, most (if not all) aspects of this framework are generalizable to studies found in the more extensive literature. Moreover, we identify the mechanisms by which grit becomes a restorative resource that allows individuals to adapt and cope when faced with current and future threat.

Directions for Future Research

Although speculative, it is plausible that grit may represent a meta-concept that unites other well-established constructs, competencies, and factors. For example, building upon recent research by Wright et al. (2017), grit may reflect the five “master” or “cardinal” strengths of character (Wright, 2015). These elevated strengths include valor, industry, self-regulation, integrity, and critical thinking. Alone with persistence or industry, we suggest that to best demonstrate grit in a wide range of circumstances may require the ability to think critically, be true to one’s convictions under duress, persist in the face of adversity, and, perhaps most importantly, be a good self-regulator. To that end, Wright et al. (2017) conducted an exploratory factor analysis for these five strengths, producing one large and four small (<1) eigenvalues, providing preliminary support for the possibility of a one-factor model of grit.

Research outside of work contexts has found grit to moderate hopelessness–suicide ideation (Pennings, Law, Green, & Anestis, 2015) and feedback seeking–sports performance (Moles et al., 2017) associations. In employment domains, studies document grit’s intervening role in exhaustion–counterproductive work behavior (Ceschi et al., 2016) and supervisor incivility–perceived work ability (Kabat-Farr et al., 2017) relationships. Recently, Jordan, Hochwarter, Ferris, and Ejaz (2018) documented a neutralizing role of grit on political perceptions—employee outcome relationships. We see value in examining grit’s moderating role when coupled with stressors currently facing individuals and groups, including conflict (Maltarich, Kukenberger, Reilly, & Mathieu, 2018), harassment/abuse (Cheung, Goldberg, King, & Magley, 2018), and failure (Amankwah-Amoah, Boso, & Antwi-Agyei, 2018).

Future research should focus on possible aversive effects of work grit. For example, the tenacity and stubbornness associated with grittiness can result in an individual’s unwillingness to “let go and accept failure, even if it means deviating from their initial plan of action” (Alaoui & Fons-Rosen, 2016, p. 12). Moreover, studies report relationships between tenacious aspects of grittiness and risk-taking behavior. Because gritty individuals have complex personal goal hierarchies about which they are passionate, they may be less receptive to the needs and desires of employers and coworkers.

There have been increased appeals to reconsider the implicit assumption of linearity in the organizational sciences (e.g., Ferris et al., 2006). However, relationships are often more complicated than linearity would convey. Grant and Schwartz (2011) described a situation where “positive phenomena reach inflection points at which their effects turn negative” (p. 61). Drawing on Aristotelian virtues, they explain that unendingly positive phenomena can sabotage well-being at extreme levels. Scholars also advocate for examining grit within a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” framework (Credé et al., 2017; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013).

Following the “more-is-not-always-better” perspective, grit may trigger negative manifestations at work under specific conditions. Much like the confirmed nonlinear relationships between engagement and turnover intentions (Caesens, Stinglhamber, & Marmier, 2016), it is plausible that grit reaches an optimal point and then declines as a function of person–situation dynamics (Credé et al., 2017). Such deterioration of positive outcomes may stem from a lack of flexibility and spontaneity, as well as heightened intractability characteristic of individuals possessing excessive grit (Morton, 2014).

Despite support for development through incentives, training, and behavioral intervention (Alan et al., 2016; Duckworth, 2016), the potential for aversive reactions exits (Karabenick, 2003; Lucas, Gratch, Cheng, & Marsella, 2015). Thus, grittiness may not be equally beneficial for all employees (Credé et al., 2017). Recent meta-analytic studies examining the impact of resilience interventions in both student (Paunesku et al., 2015) and employee samples (Vanhove, Herian, Perez, Harms, & Lester, 2016) found that interventions were most beneficial for at-risk students and for employees experiencing high stress with low protective factors. Accordingly, work to determine which employees are most receptive to grit interventions has scientific and practical merit.

Invariably, scholars have operationalized fit at individual levels of analysis (Hill et al., 2016). However, as with the individual-level construct, team-level grit likely impacts group attitudes and work behavior. Teamwork differs from individual work in that it involves the interaction of multiple members, each with their personality traits, histories, attitudes, and grit, who must act together to meet a common goal (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). Entrepreneurial teams provide an especially useful venue for team grit research, considering they operate in environments that are novel, dynamic, and risky (Blatt, 2009). They are novel because the act of starting a new company involves uncertainty about the challenges one may face and the methods available to cope with those challenges. They are dynamic as they are “characterized by rapid, unpredictable and frequent change around core features such as products, customers, demand, competition, and complementers” (Eisenhardt, 2013, p. 809).

Although raising the level of analysis from individual entrepreneurs to entrepreneurial teams raises questions about just how the process dynamics might affect venture growth, we expect that similar processes operate at the team level of analysis as has been found in published research on individual entrepreneurial characteristics. Specifically, research by Baum and Locke (2004) found that entrepreneurs’ passion and tenacity demonstrated indirect effects through goal setting and self-efficacy to influence venture success. Despite the inherent complications, organizational- and multi-level thinking is worth addressing in the future.

Another relevant area of research focuses on goal orientation, which distinguishes between learning goal orientation (LGO; objectives aimed at achieving competence and acquiring knowledge) and performance goal orientation (PGO; objectives designed to attain performance levels but not necessarily learning) (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Studies affirm that LGO relates positively to self-efficacy, effort, and goal-setting level (VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Moreover, LGO individuals are more likely than PGOs to accept negative feedback in performance-improving ways (e.g., perspective taking) and rebound more quickly from unfortunate situations (Kim, Choi, & Vandenberghe, 2018).

Similarly, the adaptability of high-grit individuals implies the use of a LGO versus PGO (VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). However, the lack of empirical research makes it impossible to predict which goal orientation high-grit individuals will adopt. We advocate for both, albeit in different ways. LGO may resonate better with high-grit people because they are pursuing long-term goals, and need the “learning-self-efficacy-goal persistence” to endure (Bateman & Barry, 2012). Research further reports that LGO individuals use negative feedback proactively in formulating ways to improve performance (Latham & Pinder, 2005). However, there is also value in adopting PGO to maintain proximal motivation for goal attainment in the short term (Diefendorff, 2004).

Affect also plays a considerable role in work motivation, with particular reference to the role of emotion in goal setting (E. Wong, Tschan, & Semmer, 2017). Research supports the influence of affect or emotion in long-term goal achievement (Sirois & Giguère, 2018), and positive affect has been found to relate to effort, persistence, and motivation (D. Garcia, Kerekes, & Archer, 2012). Moreover, research has examined cognitive, affective, and behavioral components focusing on the affective or emotional aspects of goal setting (Albarracin, Hepler, & Tannenbaum, 2011). Recently, Kanfer et al. (2017) suggested that “Additional research on the role of affective processes in goal revision and goal pursuit offer exciting new possibilities for extending current integrative work motivation theories and developing new practices to manage motivation following affective events, such as downsizing” (p. 347).

Finally, introducing new concepts is inherently risky and thus incorporates the potential for failure or multiple failures over the life span of a venture (Moscovici, 1976). Pertaining to grit, these characteristics lead to three team challenges to success. First, entrepreneurial teams must establish relationships and a shared understanding of the task. Second, they must continually assess each other and their environment. Finally, they must adapt to failure and accept that others in their team may fail. In other words, they must demonstrate grit to succeed! Future conceptual and empirical research considering grit as a multi-level phenomenon is now appropriate (cf., Wright & Sweeney, 2016). In addition to our team-level example, grit exists at the department and organization levels of analysis, warranting research interest.

Practical Implications

Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build model of positive emotions holds relevance regarding grit components (Fredrickson, 2009). Based on the model, several positive emotions, including the manifestation of passion, share the ability to “broaden” an individual’s momentary thought–action repertories by enlarging the inventory of available feelings and behaviors. For instance, coupled with an increase in one’s passion comes enhanced manifestations of excitement, interest, perseverance, and zest to undertake and complete a goal. Furthermore, these manifestations of passion have the added benefit of building upon one’s current arsenal of positive thoughts and behaviors by enlarging one’s available cognitive capacity (Wright & Cropanzano, 2004). Duckworth (2016) described one practical consequence of this broadening-and-building as the enhanced personal fulfillment derived from viewing one’s work as a “calling.”

With the ever-increasing interest in the globalization of markets, what encompasses “grit” in Western culture may not be the same as in Eastern cultures. Duckworth (2016) assumes no significant differences across various demographic and socioeconomic status groups. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that Western-based descriptors of “purpose” and grit themselves may markedly vary across cultures. We encourage future research to include a broad representation of culture-neutral descriptors of purpose and grit.