Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a thorough review of self‐leadership literature past and present, including a historical overview of how the concept was created and expanded as well as a detailed look at more recent self‐leadership research trends and directions. The paper also presents a theoretical and conceptual explanation and differentiation of the self‐leadership concept relative to other related motivational, personality, and self‐influence constructs.

Design/methodology/approach
Self‐leadership research and related literatures of motivation, personality and self‐influence are discussed and described in order to present the current state of the self‐leadership body of knowledge and to suggest future directions to explore and study.

Findings
It is suggested that self‐leadership is a normative model of self‐influence that operates within the framework of more descriptive and deductive theories such as self‐regulation and social cognitive theory.

Research limitations/implications
While self‐leadership research composes an impressive body of knowledge, it is a domain of study that has been under‐investigated in some aspects, both empirically and conceptually.

Practical implications
This paper suggests several future directions that researchers can undertake to advance self‐leadership knowledge.

Originality/value
This paper fills a void in the organizational literature by reviewing the body of self‐leadership knowledge, by stating how self‐leadership is a distinctive theory in its own, and by presenting directions for future self‐leadership research.

Full text

Two decades of self-leadership
theory and research
Past developments, present trends,
and future possibilities
Christopher P. Neck
Department of Management,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, USA, and
Jeffery D. Houghton
Department of Management Science, Abilene Christian University,
Abilene, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a thorough review of self-leadership literature past
and present, including a historical overview of how the concept was created and expanded as well as a
detailed look at more recent self-leadership research trends and directions. The paper also presents a
theoretical and conceptual explanation and differentiation of the self-leadership concept relative to
other related motivational, personality, and self-influence constructs.
Design/methodology/approach – Self-leadership research and related literatures of motivation,
personality and self-influence are discussed and described in order to present the current state of the
self-leadership body of knowledge and to suggest future directions to explore and study.
Findings – It is suggested that self-leadership is a normative model of self-influence that operates
within the framework of more descriptive and deductive theories such as self-regulation and social
cognitive theory.
Research limitations/implications – While self-leadership research composes an impressive
body of knowledge, it is a domain of study that has been under-investigated in some aspects, both
empirically and conceptually.
Practical implications – This paper suggests several future directions that researchers can
undertake to advance self-leadership knowledge.
Originality/value – This paper fills a void in the organizational literature by reviewing the body of
self-leadership knowledge, by stating how self-leadership is a distinctive theory in its own, and by
presenting directions for future self-leadership research.
Keywords Leadership, Empowerment, Motivation (psychology), Management techniques
Paper type Conceptual paper
Self-leadership (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004) is a process through which individuals
control their own behavior, influencing and leading themselves through the use of specific
sets of behavioral and cognitive strategies. The concept of self-leadership first emerged in
the mid-1980s (e.g. Manz, 1983, 1986), as an expansion of self-management (e.g. Manz and
Sims, 1980), which was rooted in clinical self-control theory (e.g. Cautela, 1969) and
inspired by Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) notion of “substitutes for leadership”. Over the past
two decades, the self-leadership concept has enjoyed considerable popularity, as
evidenced by the large number of practitioner-oriented self-leadership books and articles
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
21,4
270
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2006
pp. 270-295
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940610663097

on the subject (e.g. Blanchard, 1995; Cashman, 1995; Manz, 1991; Manz and Sims, 2001;
Sims and Manz, 1996; Waitley, 1995). Moreover, self-leadership has earned the respect of
many academics, as reflected by a plethora of theoretical and empirical self-leadership
journal publications (e.g. Anderson and Prussia, 1997; Houghton et al., 2003a; Manz and
Sims, 1987; Markham and Markham, 1995, 1998; Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996a; Neck et al.,
1996; Prussia et al., 1998; Roberts and Foti, 1998; Stewart et al., 1996; Williams, 1997), and
by coverage in a growing number of management and leadership textbooks (e.g. Kreitner
and Kinicki, 2003; McShane and Von Glinow, 2005; Nahavandi, 2006). Business
executives have also embraced self-leadership concepts through training programs
designed to increase self-leadership skills and behaviors in the workplace (e.g. Neck and
Manz, 1996a; Stewart et al., 1996).
The purpose of this paper is to provide a thorough review of self-leadership
literature past and present, including a historical overview of how the concept was
created and expanded as well as a detailed look at more recent self-leadership research
trends and directions. We will also provide a theoretical and conceptual explanation
and differentiation of the self-leadership concept relative to other related motivational,
personality and self-influence constructs such as self-regulation, self-management,
conscientiousness and emotional intelligence. Finally, we will also suggest some
directions for future self-leadership research, including discussions of which aspects of
self-leadership have been under-investigated in the past and which aspects hold the
most promise for future investigation.
Self-leadership: definition and overview
Self-leadership is a self-influence process through which people achieve the
self-direction and self-motivation necessary to perform (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck,
2004). Self-leadership consists of specific behavioral and cognitive strategies designed
to positively influence personal effectiveness. Self-leadership strategies are usually
grouped into the three primary categories of behavior-focused strategies, natural
reward strategies and constructive thought pattern strategies (Manz and Neck, 2004;
Manz and Sims, 2001; Prussia et al., 1998). Behavior-focused strategies strive to
heighten an individual’s self-awareness in order to facilitate behavioral management,
especially the management of behaviors related to necessary but unpleasant tasks
(Manz and Neck, 2004). Behavior-focused strategies include self-observation, self-goal
setting, self-reward, self-punishment and self-cueing. Self-observation involves raising
one’s awareness of when and why one engages in specific behaviors. This type of
self-awareness is a necessary first step toward changing or eliminating ineffective and
unproductive behaviors (Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978, 1979; Manz and Sims, 1980;
Manz and Neck, 2004). Armed with accurate information regarding current behavior
and performance levels, individuals can more effectively set behavior-altering goals for
themselves (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 1980). A large body of
research suggests that the process of setting challenging and specific goals can
significantly increase individual performance levels (Locke and Latham, 1990). Self-set
rewards, coupled with self-set goals, can aid significantly in energizing the effort
necessary to accomplish the goals (Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978, 1979; Manz and Sims,
1980; Manz and Neck, 2004). Self-rewards may be something simple or intangible such
as mentally congratulating oneself for an important accomplishment, or something
more concrete like a special vacation at the completion of a difficult project.
Self-leadership
theory and
research
271

Self-punishment or self-correcting feedback should consist of a positively framed and
introspective examination of failures and undesirable behaviors leading to the
reshaping of such behaviors. The excessive use of self-punishment involving
self-criticism and guilt can be detrimental to performance and should be avoided (Manz
and Sims, 2001). Finally, concrete environmental cues can serve as an effective means
of encouraging constructive behaviors and reducing or eliminating destructive ones
(Manz and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 1980, 2001). Lists, notes, screensavers and
motivational posters are just a few examples of external cues that can help keep
attention and effort focused on goal attainment. In short, behavior-focused
self-leadership strategies are designed to encourage positive, desirable behaviors
that lead to successful outcomes, while suppressing negative, undesirable behaviors
that lead to unsuccessful outcomes.
Natural reward strategies are intended to create situations in which a person is
motivated or rewarded by inherently enjoyable aspects of the task or activity (Manz
and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 2001). There are two primary natural reward
strategies. The first involves building more pleasant and enjoyable features into a
given activity so that the task itself becomes naturally rewarding (Manz and Neck,
2004; Manz and Sims, 2001). The second strategy consists of shaping perceptions by
focusing attention away from the unpleasant aspects of a task and refocusing it on the
task’s inherently rewarding aspects (Manz and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 2001). Both
strategies are likely to create feelings of competence and self-determination, two
primary mechanisms of intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). To summarize,
natural reward strategies are designed to help create feelings of competence and
self-determination, which in turn energize performance-enhancing task-related
behaviors.
Constructive thought pattern strategies are designed to facilitate the formation of
constructive thought patterns and habitual ways of thinking that can positively impact
performance (Manz and Neck, 2004; Neck and Manz, 1992). Constructive thought
pattern strategies include identifying and replacing dysfunctional beliefs and
assumptions, mental imagery and positive self-talk. Individuals should first examine
their thought patterns, confronting and replacing dysfunctional irrational beliefs and
assumptions with more constructive thought processes (Burns, 1980; Ellis, 1977; Manz
and Neck, 2004; Neck and Manz, 1992). In addition, negative and destructive self-talk
should be identified and replaced with more positive internal dialogues. Self-talk is
defined as what people covertly tell themselves (Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996a) and
involves mental self-evaluations and reactions (Ellis, 1977; Neck and Manz, 1992). By
carefully analyzing self-talk patterns, negative or pessimistic self-talk can be
suppressed or eliminated and replaced with more optimistic self-dialogues (Seligman,
1991). Finally, mental imagery is the symbolic and covert cognitive creation of an
experience or task prior to actual overt physical muscular movement (see also Driskell
et al., 1994; Finke, 1989; Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996a). Individuals who envision
successful performance of an activity in advance of actual performance are more likely
to perform successfully when faced with the actual task (Manz and Neck, 2004). In
support of this assertion, Driskell et al. (1994) performed a meta-analysis of 35
empirical studies and found a significant positive effect for mental imagery on
individual performance.
JMP
21,4
272

Self-leadership: development, expansion and applications
The self-leadership concept first appeared in a 1983 practitioner-oriented book (i.e.
Manz, 1983) that expanded upon the existing concept of self-management (e.g. Manz
and Sims, 1980). The seminal academic work on self-leadership appeared three years
later in the Academy of Management Review (i.e. Manz, 1986). This article laid the basic
theoretical foundations of self-leadership and presented the basic self-leadership
strategies outlined above, although the constructive thought pattern strategies were
somewhat underdeveloped at this point. Throughout the latter part of the decade and
into the early 1990s, the self-leadership concept was applied to two primary areas:
(1) self-managing teams; and
(2) empowering leadership.
The emerging self-managing teams literature of the late 1980s often prescribed
self-leadership among team members as an integral part of the self-managing process
(e.g. Manz and Sims, 1986, 1987, 1994; Manz, 1990a). About this same time, leadership
theorists were beginning to explore the concept of empowerment (e.g. Conger and
Kanungo, 1988) as a possible alternative to the heroic leadership model of the 1970s
and 1980s. In particular, the concept of SuperLeadership, the process of leading others
to lead themselves, was introduced as an effective means for empowering followers
and creating self-leaders (e.g. Manz and Sims, 1989, 1991; Manz, 1990b, 1991, 1992a).
The first empirical study to examine self-leadership in an organizational setting was
published in Administrative Science Quarterly in 1987 and examined the role of
self-leadership in the context of both empowering leadership and self-managing teams
(Manz and Sims, 1987). This study suggested that the most effective external leaders of
self-managing work teams are those that engage in behaviors that facilitate
self-leadership strategies such as self-observation, self-goal setting and self-reward
(Manz and Sims, 1987).
A few years later, self-leadership’s constructive thought pattern strategies were
more fully developed and expanded under the label “thought self-leadership” (e.g.
Manz and Neck, 1991; Neck and Manz, 1992). The practical usefulness of the more fully
developed thought self-leadership strategies was later demonstrated in a
training-intervention based field study (Neck and Manz, 1996a). The results of this
study suggest that individuals who received the thought self-leadership training
experienced increased mental performance, positive affect (enthusiasm), job
satisfaction and decreased negative affect (nervousness) relative to those not
receiving the training (Neck and Manz, 1996a). Throughout the remainder of the 1990s
and into the new century, self-leadership theorists have made application of
self-leadership concepts within a variety of contextual settings including:
.spirituality in the workplace (Neck and Milliman, 1994);
.performance appraisals (Neck et al., 1995);
.organizational change (Neck, 1996);
.total quality management (Neck and Manz, 1996b);
.self-leading teams (Neck et al., 1996);
.entrepreneurship (Neck et al., 1997a);
.diversity management (Neck et al., 1997b);
Self-leadership
theory and
research
273

.job satisfaction (Houghton and Jinkerson, 2004; Roberts and Foti, 1998);
.non-profit management (Neck et al., 1998);
.goal setting/goal performance (Godwin et al., 1999; Neck et al., 2003);
.the United States Army (Neck and Manz, 1999);
.team performance (Stewart and Barrick, 2000);
.team sustainability (Houghton et al., 2003b);
.succession planning (Hardy, 2004); and
.ethics (VanSandt and Neck, 2003).
In addition, over the past decade and a half, a number of popular books on
self-leadership and SuperLeadership have been published, with a significant amount of
success (e.g., Manz and Sims, 1989, 1994, 2001; Sims and Manz, 1996). The book
Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence has become
the quintessential text on the subject and is currently in its fourth edition (Manz, 1992a;
Manz and Neck, 1999, 2004; Neck and Manz, n.d.).
Self-leadership criticisms
Although it has enjoyed an enduring and expanding popularity based on a strong
intuitive appeal, self-leadership has not been without developmental problems and
criticisms. For instance, the majority of self-leadership research has been conceptual
with relatively few empirical studies examining self-leadership in organizational
settings. This lack of extensive empirical research may be due in part to the fact that a
valid self-leadership measurement scale has been slow to development. The first
published self-leadership assessment instrument, Anderson and Prussia’s (1997)
Self-Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ), was based to a large extent on self-leadership
assessment prototypes created by Manz and Sims (1991; Manz, 1992a) and represented
an excellent preliminary effort in self-leadership scale development. Nevertheless, the
Anderson and Prussia SLQ suffered from a number of psychometric problems and
required further refinement. More recently, a Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire
(RSLQ; Houghton and Neck, 2002) has been presented and has shown a greater degree
of reliability and construct validity than the earlier SLQ. The RSLQ was created by
eliminating or rewriting ambiguous items from the Anderson and Prussia SLQ and by
integrating additional items from a previously unpublished self-leadership assessment
instrument (i.e. Cox, 1993). Additional data is needed to fully assess the reliability and
validity of the RSLQ. Nevertheless, preliminary applications indicate that the RSLQ
may prove to be an effective self-leadership measure with positive potential for
facilitating additional empirical self-leadership research.
Perhaps the most common criticism of self-leadership is that it is conceptually
indistinct from and redundant with classic theories of motivation such as
self-regulation. As outlined above, self-leadership consists of a broad set of
strategies that may be useful in leading to greater personal effectiveness. Many of
these self-leadership strategies are founded upon other established theories of
motivation and self-influence. Thus, some theorists have questioned the extent to
which self-leadership is a unique and distinguishable construct with respect to these
related motivational and personality constructs, while others have suggested that
JMP
21,4
274

self-leadership is a mere repackaging of individual differences already explained by
previously existing personality constructs such as conscientiousness (e.g. Markham
and Markham, 1995, 1998; Guzzo, 1998). For instance, Markham and Markham (1998,
p. 197) claim that “one of the major stumbling blocks of self-leadership theory is its
uniqueness when compared to more traditional views of similar psychological
processes”. Likewise, Guzzo (1998, p. 214) has expressed concern as to whether
“self-leadership is distinguishable from other, existing psychological constructs such
as the personality dimension of conscientiousness”. In addition, Markham and
Markham (1995, p. 198) suggest that “it is possible that various aspects of
self-leadership simply recast previous personality traits”.
When critics suggest that self-leadership overlaps with other classic theories of
motivation, they fail to understand that self-leadership is a normative model rather
than a descriptive or deductive theory. Normative theories, which are common in
applied fields such as business, are prescriptive and emphasize how something should
be done. In contrast, deductive or descriptive theories seek to explain the basic
operation of various phenomena, but generally stop short of providing specific
normative advice for managing a particular process. As Hilton (1980) has suggested,
normative and descriptive theories often take differing perspectives in examining the
same phenomenon. Indeed, descriptive theories can often help to explain how and why
the prescriptions of normative theories operate.
The realistic job previews (RJPs) literature provides a good example of a beneficial
interaction between normative and descriptive theory. RJPs (e.g. Dugoni and Ilgen,
1981; Reilly et al., 1981; Wanous, 1973) is a normative concept that has long been
accepted as an effective practical tool for reducing employee turnover. For many years,
however, the reasons why RJPs work and the theoretical mechanisms through which
they operated were not entirely clear (Hom et al., 1998). In response, Hom and his
colleagues (Hom et al., 1998, 1999) have recently attempted to clarify and delineate the
theoretical contexts and mechanisms through which RJPs influence employee
turnover.
In the following sections we will respond to self-leadership critics in a similar
manner by providing a theoretical and conceptual explanation of the self-leadership
concept relative to several related theories of motivation. Specifically, we will argue
that self-leadership is a normative concept that provides certain behavioral and
cognitive prescriptions while operating within and through the theoretical contexts
provided by self-regulation, social cognitive, self-control and intrinsic motivation
theories. We will further suggest that self-leadership represents a unique constellation
of strategies that are founded upon, related to, and yet distinct from these various
theories as well as from various personality traits. Although previous efforts have been
made to conceptually distinguish self-leadership from related psychological constructs
(e.g. Houghton et al., 2004; Manz, 1990b; Neck, 1998; Neck and Manz, 1996b; Williams,
1997), the present discussion will go well beyond these in both scope and depth.
Self-leadership theoretical contexts
Self-leadership and self-regulation
Self-leadership strategies operate within the larger theoretical framework of
self-regulation. Drawing from literature in the field of cybernetics (e.g. Ashby, 1961;
Clark, 1996; Wiener, 1948) and based on linkages suggested by Powers (1973), Carver
Self-leadership
theory and
research
275

and Scheier (1981, 1998) have presented a broad self-regulatory explanation of how
behavior happens. According to this view, the self-regulation process is analogous to
the operation of a mechanical thermostat. The thermostat senses temperature
variations relative to a given standard and signals appropriate action to reduce the
discrepancy. Similarly, within the process of behavioral self-regulation (Carver, 1979;
Carver and Scheier, 1981, 1998), a sensor monitoring performance in the environment
yields a signal that is compared to a set standard or desired state. If discrepancy or
error exists, then a behavioral change is facilitated through an adjustment of effort.
Alternatively, the standard for behavior can be cognitively re-evaluated and adjusted
downward to meet the level of performance. In either case, the objective is the reduction
of the discrepancy between the actual performance level and the standard or goal.
In addition, self-regulation theory suggests a hierarchical organization of the
self-regulatory system in the form of superordinate and subordinate feedback loops or
goals (Carver and Scheier, 1998; Powers, 1973). This hierarchy of goals ranges from
systems concepts such as a globalized sense of the idealized self (see also Burke, 1991;
Klein, 1987), to overarching principles of what a person wants to be, to more specified
programs of behavior that indicate what a person should do in order to conform to
higher-level principles, and finally, to specific sequences of behavior that facilitate
program goal attainment (Carver and Scheier, 1998). Self-regulation theory further
assumes that goals at the various hierarchical levels function simultaneously in
shaping behavior but that there is a natural upward drift toward higher levels of goal
abstraction as a person becomes more comfortable with his or her behavior (Vallacher
and Wegner, 1985, 1987). Likewise, there appears to be a complementary downward
drift toward more concrete goals in response to difficulties in maintaining behavioral
regulation in the context of higher levels of abstraction (Carver and Scheier, 1998).
Self-regulation theory also suggests that when faced with problems and
discrepancies in progressing toward goal attainment, those individuals who are
confident or hopeful (i.e. possess positive expectancies for goal attainment) tend to
persist or even increase their efforts, while those who lack confidence or hope (i.e.
possess negative expectancies for goal attainment) tend to search for the availability of
alternative goals or disengage altogether (Carver and Scheier, 1981, 1998). Thus, a key
component in self-regulation theory is the concept of confidence or hope as manifested
in terms of performance-related expectancies. Although disengagement from
unattainable goals is a necessary and vital part of the self-regulation process,
cognitive distortions of feedback leading to lower than warranted levels of confidence
and related expectancies can result in premature goal disengagement and other
self-regulatory dysfunctions such as binge eating or alcoholism (Carver and Scheier,
1998).
Finally, self-regulation theory distinguishes between a promotion and a prevention
self-regulatory focus (e.g. Carver, 2001; Carver and Scheier, 1998; Higgins, 1987, 1989,
1996, 1998; Higgins et al., 1994). A promotion focus operates on the basis of
accomplishments, hopes and aspirations, thus regulating the presence and absence of
positive outcomes (Higgins, 1998). This type of focus is closely associated with the
concept of an ideal self-guide, which represents the attributes a person would ideally
like to possess (Higgins, 1987, 1989). In contrast, a prevention focus operates on the
basis of safety, responsibility and obligations, thus regulating the absence and
presence of negative outcomes (Higgins, 1998). The prevention focus is closely
JMP
21,4
276

associated with the concept of ought self-guides, which represent the attributes that a
person believes they should or ought to possess (Higgins, 1987, 1989). Although
broadly conceptualized as an individual difference variable, regulatory focus may also
vary across momentary situations (e.g. Higgins, 1996, 1998).
In short, self-regulation theory is a broad descriptive view of human behavior that
seeks to explain how behavior happens. According to this viewpoint, however,
self-regulatory processes do not always operate smoothly nor do they always lead to
successful performance outcomes and goal attainments. Indeed, as Latham and Locke
(1991, p. 240) have suggested, “although people are natural self-regulators in that
goal-directedness is inherent in the life process, they are not innately effective
self-regulators”. Some theorists have even used the term “self-regulatory failure” to
describe extreme examples of breakdowns in the self-regulatory process (e.g.
Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996; Baumeister et al., 1994; Kirschenbaum, 1987). While
self-regulation theory specifies the existence and likelihood of dysfunctions in
self-regulation, it prescribes few strategies for increasing self-regulatory effectiveness.
In contrast, self-leadership, operating within self-regulation’s broad theoretical
framework for understanding behavior, prescribes specific behavioral and cognitive
strategies designed to enhance individual self-regulatory effectiveness.
Self-leadership strategies may enhance self-regulatory effectiveness in a number of
important ways. For instance, the behavior-focused strategy of self-observation can
lead to a heightening of self-awareness and increases in self-focus. Research evidence
suggests that an increase in self-focus can promote increases in task focus and
ultimately in task performance (e.g. Carver, 1975; Wicklund and Duval, 1971). In
addition, increased observation of one’s own behavior can provide a more accurate and
richer interpretation of feedback loops, leading to the identification of specific
behaviors that should be changed, enhanced or eliminated relative to goal attainment.
Likewise, self-goal-setting may have a positive effect on self-regulatory processes. Goal
setting research (e.g. Locke and Latham, 1990) has demonstrated that performance is
better when goals are difficult and specific than when they are easy and vague. Indeed,
in the absence of an intentional goal-setting process, individuals tend to “satisfice”
(Simon, 1955), adopting goals that are less than optimal but seem adequate for the
given situation (Carver and Scheier, 1998, p. 66). In contrast, difficult and specific goals
tend to result in increased effort and better task performance. Thus, through conscious
and intentional self-goal-setting processes, individuals may increase self-regulatory
effectiveness in terms of increased effort and better performance outcomes. Finally,
self-rewards, self-punishment and self-cueing each have a certain potential for
enhancing self-regulation. In order for a goal to be meaningful, it must be both valuable
and attainable (e.g. Carver and Scheier, 1998). The creation of self-reward contingencies
increases the value of goal achievement, thereby leading to increased effort and
persistence toward goal attainment. In like manner, by providing detailed feedback
regarding goal-performance discrepancies, self-punishment and self-cueing each may
further enhance the efficacy of self-regulatory processes.
Natural reward strategies are particularly useful in improving self-regulatory
performance relative to self-determined or intrinsic goals (Deci and Ryan, 1985), or
what Carver and Scheier (1998) have called individual or personal goals. Strategies
such as incorporating more pleasant and enjoyable features into a given task or
focusing attention on a task’s inherently rewarding aspects help to make even
Self-leadership
theory and
research
277

externally imposed or coercive goals seem less controlling and more internalized,
intrinsic and personal. Such goal internalization may lead to improved self-regulatory
processes.
Much like the behavior-focused and natural reward strategies, constructive thought
strategies also demonstrate potential for improving self-regulatory effectiveness. For
example, the strategy of evaluating and challenging dysfunctional beliefs and
assumptions may have a positive effect on self-regulatory feedback processes.
Individuals often distort feedback to be closer to what they expect to see or want to see
(Carver and Scheier, 1998). Mental distortions such as mind reading, extreme thinking,
overgeneralization and mental filters (Burns, 1980; Carver and Scheier, 1998; Manz and
Neck, 2004) lead to feedback distortion and ultimately, impaired self-regulatory
processes. By confronting the beliefs and assumptions that lead to distortion and
replacing them with more realistic and less dysfunctional ones, feedback may become
less distorted and self-regulation more effective.
Self-talk and mental imagery strategies also have particular application for
improving individual self-regulation. As outlined above, a key component in
self-regulation is the concept of confidence as reflected in the form of expectations of
success or failure. Confidence can be defined in terms of both perceptions of personal
capabilities (i.e. self-efficacy; Bandura, 1986, 1991) and external situational factors
(Carver and Scheier, 1998). When confidence is unwarrantedly low, individuals may
prematurely disengage effort toward goal attainment. Such a premature
disengagement may result from a failure to adequately assess current feedback (as
discussed above) or from inaccurate performance expectancies. When faced with
problems or difficulties individuals “tend to turn automatically to previously encoded
sources of information about expectancies” (Carver and Scheier, 1998, p. 221). This
process has been described as a “residual sense” (Carver and Scheier, 1998) and as
“habitual ways of thinking” or “thought patterns” (Manz and Neck, 1991, 2004; Neck
and Manz, 1992, 1996a). Often, when the residual sense is in the form of doubt or
inadequacy or when thought patterns are pessimistic or obstacle-oriented, individuals
will give up and disengage effort at the first sign of trouble or adversity without
realizing that the present obstacle is minor and relatively easy to overcome (Carver and
Scheier, 1998; Manz and Neck, 1991, 2004; Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996a). Positive
self-talk and mental imagery strategies are intended to facilitate optimistic or
opportunity-oriented thought patterns which may lead to greater persistence in the
face of challenges and difficulty (Manz and Neck, 1991, 2004; Neck and Manz, 1992,
1996a). Finally, research evidence (e.g. Neck and Manz, 1996a; Prussia et al., 1998)
suggests that self-leadership strategies such as positive self-talk and mental imagery
may increase self-efficacy levels, a primary determinant of confidence and performance
expectancies, potentially leading to more effective self-regulation and increased
performance (Carver and Scheier, 1998).
According to self-regulation theory, standards are simply assumed to exist and little
attention is paid to how standards are determined. In an organizational setting,
self-regulatory standards are based primarily on existing organizational standards and
objectives. As long as organizational policies, rules and procedures are followed,
deviation reduction will occur. Thus, in the short run, the process of deviation
reduction becomes relatively automatic and self-perpetuating (Neck and Manz, 1996b).
Given a continuum ranging from complete external influence to complete internal
JMP
21,4
278

influence (see also Manz, 1990b; Neck and Manz, 1996b), self-regulation falls closer to
the complete external influence end of the spectrum. As outlined above, self-leadership
strategies may be useful in helping the individual to set and manage self-regulatory
standards, thereby improving self-regulatory effectiveness and increasing the degree
of internal influence.
In summary, self-leadership strategies operate within the broader theoretical
context of self-regulation. Specific self-leadership strategies may serve to increase
self-regulatory effectiveness by improving self-focus, goal-setting processes, goal
valence and saliency, feedback processes, and task-related confidence or performance
expectancies. In short, self-leadership does not represent an alternate theoretical view
of self-influence, but rather a complimentary set of strategies designed to improve the
self-regulation process.
Self-leadership and social cognitive theory
Self-leadership also operates within the context of Bandura’s (1986, 1991) social
cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory suggests that human behavior may be best
explained by a triadic reciprocal relationship among internal influences, external
influences and behavior. Together with self-regulation theory, this reciprocal
determinism view provides the other major conceptual framework upon which
self-leadership strategies are based (Manz, 1986). Much like self-regulation theory,
social cognitive theory suggests that the basic structure of the self-regulatory system is
comprised of processes involving self-monitoring, self-judgments and self-reactions.
But whereas self-regulation deals primarily with the concept of discrepancy reduction,
social cognitive theory proposes a system of discrepancy production followed by
discrepancy reduction. The basic assumption is that individuals have control over
setting their own performance standards. Based on past performance experiences,
people will set performance goals in such a manner as to create discrepancy. The
production of discrepancy mobilizes and induces efforts to subsequently reduce
discrepancy. When discrepancies are eliminated, higher standards are set and the
process begins again.
Social cognitive theory also differs from self-regulation in terms of self-reactions.
According to Bandura and Cervone (1986), three types of self-influences mediate the
relationship between goals and performance. These influences are self-satisfaction,
self-efficacy and the regulation of internal standards. Self-regulation theory focuses
primarily on the internal regulation of standards. Social cognitive theory, in contrast,
stresses the importance of the self-reactive influences of satisfaction and self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is a key construct within social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy describes a
person’s self-assessment of the capabilities necessary to perform a specific task
(Bandura, 1986, 1991; Gist, 1987). Self-efficacy can influence aspirations, effort,
persistence and thought-patterns.
The concept of self-efficacy is of particular importance to self-leadership. Indeed, a
major objective of all self-leadership strategies, particularly natural reward and
thought pattern strategies, is the enhancement of self-efficacy perceptions in advance
of higher performance levels (e.g. Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004; Neck and Manz,
1992, 1996a; Prussia et al., 1998). High levels of task-specific self-efficacy lead to higher
performance standards (Bandura, 1991), greater effort and greater persistence in the
pursuit of goals and objectives, and ultimately greater effectiveness (e.g. Bandura and
Self-leadership
theory and
research
279

Cervone, 1983, 1986). Empirical evidence tends to support the usefulness of
self-leadership strategies in promoting self-efficacy perceptions. For instance, Frayne
and Latham (1987; Latham and Frayne, 1989) demonstrated a positive relationship
between self-management training and self-efficacy for reducing absenteeism.
Furthermore, Neck and Manz (1996a) reported a significant difference in self-efficacy
levels between a group that had received self-leadership training and a non-training
control group. More recently, Prussia and colleagues (Prussia et al., 1998) examined the
role of self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between self-leadership strategies
and performance outcomes. Their results indicated significant relationships between
self-leadership strategies, self-efficacy perceptions and task performance. Taken
together, these findings suggest that self-efficacy may function as the primary
mechanism through which self-leadership strategies affect performance.
Self-leadership, self-management and self-control
Inspired by the concept of “substitutes for leadership” (Kerr and Jermier, 1978),
self-management (e.g. Manz and Sims, 1980; Luthans and Davis, 1979; Andrasik and
Heimberg, 1982) also operates within the framework of self-regulation theory by
providing specific strategies for managing one’s own behaviors in an effort to regulate
discrepancy from set standards (Manz, 1986). Self-management is founded upon
concepts of self-control originally developed in clinical psychology (e.g. Cautela, 1969;
Mahoney and Thoresen, 1974; Thoresen and Mahoney, 1974; Mahoney and Arnkoff,
1978, 1979). Self-management has been described as a process through which an
individual chooses a less attractive (i.e. apparent low probability) but perhaps
ultimately more desirable behavior from among short-run alternatives (Manz, 1986;
Manz and Sims, 1980). Thus, according to self-management, undesirable short-run
behaviors are energized by a focus on desirable long-term consequences (Manz and
Sims, 1980).
Several specific strategies of self-control have been presented in the clinical
literature. These strategies include self-observation, self-goal setting, cueing strategies,
self-reinforcement, self-punishment, and rehearsal (Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978, 1979).
These strategies were originally used in clinical settings in order to manage addictive
or self-destructive health-related behaviors (e.g. smoking cessation or eating disorders).
These strategies were subsequently adapted to organizational settings and relabeled
“self-management” by organizational theorists (Luthans and Davis, 1979; Manz and
Sims, 1980; Andrasik and Heimberg, 1982). Later, these same strategies of self-control
and self-management became the basis for self-leadership’s behavior-focused
strategies (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004).
In short, self-management consists of a set of strategies designed to help a person
manage behavior with respect to reducing discrepancies from immediate externally set
standards. Self-management does not, however, facilitate the assessment of the
standards themselves. Thus, while self-management provides ample self-influence in
terms of how discrepancy reduction should be approached, it provides little
self-influence in terms of what should be done and why (Manz, 1986; Neck and Manz,
1996b). In other words, the purposes and importance of the given standards are not
addressed by self-management.
In contrast, self-leadership is a more encompassing approach to self-influence than
self-management (Manz, 1986). Self-leadership merges the behavioral strategies
JMP
21,4
280

suggested by self-management and self-control with cognitive strategies based on the
concepts of intrinsic motivation and constructive thinking. Self-leadership addresses
not only the reduction of discrepancy from performance standards, but also the
purposes and appropriateness of the standards themselves (Manz, 1986). Thus,
according to self-leadership, the discrepancy reduction process is based on
internalized, superordinate standards of behavior rather than on immediate,
short-run operating standards (Manz, 1986). Superordinate or higher-level standards
for self-influence provide specific reasons for self-managed behaviors. For example,
rather than merely focusing on attaining a certain goal, one might evaluate the validity
and appropriateness of the goal within a greater context beyond the immediate
situation. By focusing on the reasons for behavior and by incorporating both cognitive
and behavioral strategies, self-leadership theory represents a substantially higher level
of self-influence than self-management. Self-leadership therefore subsumes
self-management and specifies additional sets of cognitive-oriented strategies
designed to influence behavioral outcomes. Self-leadership also goes beyond
self-management by addressing the superordinate standards (i.e. the reasons) for
behavior.
Self-leadership and intrinsic motivation
Self-leadership strategies have also been significantly informed by the concept of
intrinsic motivation. While self-management emphasizes extrinsic rewards (i.e.
outcomes such as praise, recognition, and self-reinforcement using external reward
contingencies), self-leadership extends beyond this perspective to focus on the natural
rewards that result from the performance of the task or activity itself (Manz, 1986;
Manz and Neck, 2004). Self-leadership’s conceptualization of natural rewards is based
primarily on the intrinsic motivation literature (e.g. Deci, 1975), particularly Deci and
Ryan’s (1985) cognitive evaluation theory. Building on the work of White (1959) and
deCharms (1968), cognitive evaluation theory suggests that the need for competence
and the need for self-determination are the primary mechanisms that drive intrinsic
motivation. The need for competence involves the need to exercise and extend one’s
capabilities, while the need for self-determination involves the need to feel free from
pressures such as contingent rewards (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Cognitive evaluation
theory contends that individuals will seek to find and overcome challenges in an effort
to increase feelings of competence and self-determination.
Feelings of competence and self-control (i.e. self-determination) are a central part of
self-leadership’s conceptualization of natural rewards (Manz and Neck, 2004).
According to self-leadership, to the extent that activities and tasks can be chosen,
structured or perceived in ways that lead to increased feelings of competence and
self-determination, task performance will be enhanced. Finally, although natural
reward strategies are generally more effective, self-reward strategies utilizing external
reward contingencies (as suggested by self-management) may be more helpful in
situations lacking natural or intrinsic rewards (Manz and Neck, 2004). That is to say,
given a task that is inherently unpleasant or tedious (i.e. a task lacking intrinsically
motivating aspects), external self-reward contingencies become particularly
appropriate and effective. Nevertheless, most tasks have at least some potential to
be naturally rewarding. Thus, for most tasks or activities, natural reward strategies
will be more effective and generally preferable.
Self-leadership
theory and
research
281

Self-leadership and personality
As mentioned earlier, some theorists (e.g. Guzzo, 1998; Markham and Markham, 1998)
have questioned whether self-leadership is unique and distinguishable with respect to
certain personality traits such as conscientiousness. Self-leadership is usually
conceptualized as learned behavior rather than as a fixed trait (Manz, 1986) and
self-leadership proponents have generally ignored personality and individual
difference factors. Some advocates (e.g. Neck and Manz, 1992; Neck et al., 1995) have
even implied that personality traits may be unrelated to self-leadership effectiveness,
citing a study (Turner et al., 1982) that found no relationship between extraversion and
performance for individuals using mental imagery (a self-leadership strategy). In
contrast, Williams (1997) has suggested that a variety of personality traits are likely to
be associated with self-leadership skills in meaningful ways. In particular, Williams
(1997) proposed positive associations between self-leadership skills and extraversion,
emotional stability, conscientiousness, general self-efficacy, internal locus of control
and self-monitoring.
Empirical evidence provides some support for the existence of relationships
between self-leadership and various personality concepts. For example, Williams et al.
(1995) have shown significant relationships between self-management and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers and McCaulley, 1985) trait preferences of
extraversion, judging, and sensing. In addition, Stewart and his colleagues (Stewart
et al., 1996) demonstrated significant correlations (p,0:01) between
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and supervisor evaluations of self-leadership
behaviors.
On the other hand, the findings of Stewart and his colleagues (Stewart et al., 1996)
seem to suggest that self-leadership is nonetheless a distinct concept from personality.
Their findings revealed an interaction effect between conscientiousness and
self-leadership training such that those scoring lowest in conscientiousness
subsequently showed the greatest increase in self-leadership behaviors as a result of
the training. This lends support to the assertion that self-leadership behaviors are
amenable to change (e.g. Manz, 1986), while personality characteristics are relatively
stable across both time and situation (e.g. Block, 1981; Conley, 1985; Costa and McCrae,
1988. If self-leading behaviors are malleable while personality is not, then these
concepts may not be synonymous.
Self-regulation theory would also seem to indicate that self-leadership may operate
apart from personality influences. In contrast to personality traits, one’s self-regulating
tendencies may vary across situations (Carver and Scheier, 1998; Higgins, 1998). For
instance, although people may have established tendencies, regulatory focus varies
from promotion to prevention across momentary situations (Higgins, 1996, 1998). In so
much as self-leadership strategies operate within the general framework of
self-regulation, it seems reasonable to suggest that people may vary their utilization
of self-leadership strategies separate and apart from the influences of their fixed
personality traits.
Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence outline above, it would appear that
self-leadership dimensions are distinct from, yet related to, certain key personality
traits. Houghton et al. (2004) have recently provided some additional empirical
evidence in support of this position. They reported significant relationships between
the three self-leadership strategy dimensions and the personality traits of extraversion
JMP
21,4
282

and conscientiousness. Nevertheless, a comparison of the hierarchical factor structures
of self-leadership and a constellation of personality traits (including extraversion and
conscientiousness) utilizing factor analysis and structural equations modeling
techniques suggested that the three self-leadership strategy dimensions are distinct
from personality traits, particularly at lower levels of abstraction (Houghton et al.,
2004).
In the preceding sections we have argued that self-leadership, while related to and
sometimes predicated upon similar psychological processes, is a unique concept that
may be distinguished from other concepts of self-influence and personality. More
specifically, we have suggested that self-leadership is a normative constellation of
behavioral and cognitive strategies that operates within theoretical frameworks
provided by more descriptive theories including self-regulation, social cognitive,
self-control, and intrinsic motivation theories. We have also contended that
self-leadership is conceptually distinct from related personality traits such as
extraversion and conscientiousness. We have provided theoretical and empirical
arguments and rationale in support of our positions, supplemented by available
empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the extent of the uniqueness of self-leadership and its
value for understanding and shaping one’s behavior is a question that should be
further addressed by future empirical research. In the following section, we will
continue by providing an overview of some of the primary predictable outcomes or
dependent variables associated with the self-leadership concept.
Self-leadership predictable outcomes/mechanisms
The self-leadership literature has suggested a number of predictable outcomes or
dependent variables thought to be associated with the application of self-leadership
strategies. These include commitment, independence, creativity/innovation, trust,
potency, positive affect, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment and self-efficacy.
These outcomes may serve as the mechanisms that affect individual, group and
organizational performance. Although we have previously mentioned some of these
possible outcomes, we will now provide a more detailed overview of the primary
self-leadership predictable outcome variables.
Commitment and independence
Commitment and independence are two of the more commonly suggested outcome
variables in the self-leadership literature (e.g. Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Manz and
Sims, 2001). Individuals engaging in self-leadership often develop a sense of ownership
over their tasks and work processes. As a result, self-leading individuals may
demonstrate higher levels of commitment to their tasks, goals, teams or organizations
than individuals who are not engaging in self-leadership (e.g. Bligh et al., 2006;
Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Manz and Sims, 2001). Likewise, individuals practising
self-leadership may experience greater feelings of control and autonomy, leading to
heightened levels of independence in behavior and decision making (Manz and Sims,
2001). In contrast, individuals who are not actively practising self-leadership may
become dependent on external influences from traditional leaders to guide their
actions, becoming increasingly incapable of independent thought and action
(Houghton and Yoho, 2005). Although these outcomes have often been suggested in
the literature, no empirical examinations to date have attempted to substantiate these
Self-leadership
theory and
research
283

claims. Future researchers should undertake to examine these hypothesized
relationships in greater detail.
Creativity and innovation
Creativity may be defined as the development of original, novel, appropriate and useful
ideas, while innovation implies the subsequent implementation of creative concepts
within in an organizational (e.g. Amabile et al., 1996). Self-leadership proponents have
often suggested relationships between self-leadership and creativity/innovation (e.g.
DiLiello and Houghton, 2006; Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Manz and Sims, 2001). As
DiLiello and Houghton (2006) suggest, many critical concepts from the creativity
literature may be related to self-leadership. For example, autonomy and
self-determination are key components of both creativity and self-leadership
(DiLiello and Houghton, 2006). Yun et al. (2006) have provided empirical evidence
suggesting that the need for autonomy may be positively related to individual
self-leadership practices and autonomy is often identified as an essential component in
individual creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1996). For a more detailed overview of the
relationships between self-leadership and creativity/innovation, see DiLiello and
Houghton (2006). As these authors suggest, additional research is needed to further
clarify the relationships between self-leadership and creativity/innovation.
Trust and team potency
Self-leadership has often been presented as a critical component for facilitating team
effectiveness, particularly in self-managing teams with no formal internal leader (e.g.
Houghton et al., 2003a, 2003b; Manz and Sims, 1987, 1994; Neck et al., 1996). Of
particular note, trust and team potency have been suggested as two possible
self-leadership outcomes that may have important implications for team effectiveness
(Bligh et al., 2006). Trust generally refers to the belief that others will be honest,
upholding commitments and declining to take unfair advantage when given an
opportunity (e.g. Cummings and Bromiley, 1996). Team potency is a belief jointly held
among team members that the team can be effective in accomplishing its goals and
objectives (Guzzo, 1998). See Bligh et al. (2006) for an in-depth discussion of this issue
and presentation of a model detailing the relationships between self-leadership, trust
and potency in a team context, along with propositions for future research in this area.
Positive affect and job satisfaction
Positive affect and job satisfaction are two additional predictable self-leadership
outcomes that have been advanced in the literature. In a field study of a group of
employees at America West airlines, Neck and Manz (1996a) found significant
relationships between a thought self-leadership training intervention and subsequent
levels of both positive affect (enthusiasm) and job satisfaction. More recently in a
separate empirical study, Houghton and Jinkerson (2004) reported a significant
relationship between self-leadership’s constructive thought strategies and job
satisfaction as mediated by the absence of dysfunctional thought processes and by
subjective well-being (happiness). Although these studies provide good preliminary
support for these relationships, future research should continue to investigate the role
of self-leadership in shaping positive affect and job satisfaction.
JMP
21,4
284

Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment is yet another commonly predicted outcome of
self-leadership. Indeed, self-leadership has often been proclaimed as a primary
mechanism for facilitating empowerment (e.g. Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Manz, 1992;
Prussia et al., 1998). For example, Shipper and Manz (1992) have presented a case study
that portrays self-leadership as an integral part of the empowerment of the employees
at W.L. Gore and Associates. Self-leadership may enhance feelings of empowerment by
creating perceptions of meaningfulness, purpose, self-determination, and competence
(Lee and Koh, 2001). More precisely, the behavior-focused strategies of
self-observation, self-goal setting and self-reward can foster feelings of
self-determination and competence, while natural reward strategies are aimed at
increasing feelings of competence, self-control and purpose (Manz and Neck, 2004,
pp. 42-4). Because the purported relationship between self-leadership and
psychological empowerment has yet to be fully explored in the literature, we
strongly encourage future research in this direction.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is perhaps the single most commonly mentioned self-leadership outcome
variable (e.g. Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 2004; Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996a, b;
Prussia et al., 1998). As we have discussed in detail in an earlier section, empirical
research (e.g. Neck and Manz, 1996a, b; Prussia et al., 1998) has provided significant
evidence in support of self-efficacy as the primary mechanism through which
self-leadership affects performance. Nevertheless, this is yet another area that could
benefit from additional empirical investigation.
To summarize our arguments to this point, we have suggested that self-leadership
is a normative concept that may operate within several theoretical contexts including
self-regulation theory, social cognitive theory, intrinsic motivation theory and
self-control theory. We have further suggested that the application of self-leadership
strategies may result in a number of predictable outcomes/performance mechanisms,
including commitment, independence, creativity, innovation, trust, team potency,
positive affect, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment and self-efficacy. We
believe that these outcome variables, in turn, may lead to higher levels of individual,
team and organizational performance. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of these
suggested relationships.
Figure 1.
A model of self-leadership
theoretical contexts and
performance mechanisms
Self-leadership
theory and
research
285

Current trends and future research directions
After more than two decades of self-leadership theory and research, the field continues
to move in new and exciting directions. Current trends in self-leadership research
include intercultural/international issues, self-leadership contingency factors,
executive health/fitness and shared leadership.
The intercultural and international aspects of self-leadership have not been fully
explored to date. Self-leadership has developed largely within the context of the culture
of the USA. As a result, the usefulness and applicability of self-leadership should be
examined across a variety of international settings. Indeed, such efforts are already
underway. For example, Georgianna (2005) recently reported a number of significant
differences in the use of self-leadership strategies between US and Chinese students. In
a similar vein, Neubert and Wu (2006) examine the psychometric properties and
construct validity of the Houghton and Neck (2002) Revised Self-leadership
Questionnaire (RSLQ) in a Chinese context. This study investigates the extent to
which self-leadership dimensions are generalizable across cultures, as well as
addressing the issue of how to measure the existence and development of
self-leadership practices across cultures. Finally, Alves et al. (2006) examine the
culturally bounded nature of leadership and explore the applicability of self-leadership
theory across cultures by drawing on Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions
framework to address the question of how self-leadership may be understood and
practised in other cultures.
Another current trend in self-leadership research concerns self-leadership
contingency factors. Although proponents have generally encouraged the use of
self-leadership strategies across a wide variety of situations, some researchers have
questioned whether self-leadership should be encouraged across all types of situations.
For example, Markham and Markham (1998, p. 199) have raised the issue as to whether
self-leadership is “a universally applicable theory that will work with all employees
under all circumstances” or “a contingency theory that best fits certain boundary
conditions”. As a matter of fact, self-leadership theorists have often admitted that
encouraging follower self-leadership may not be universally appropriate. For instance,
Manz and Sims (2001, pp. 63-4) have stated that “it is naı
¨ve to assume that relying on
self-leadership is always appropriate [...] several important situational factors
influence the appropriateness of attempts to develop self-leadership in followers”.
In response these concerns, Houghton and Yoho (2005) have recently presented a
comprehensive contingency leadership model that specifies when and under what
circumstances self-leadership should be encouraged by organizational leaders. The
model suggests that certain key contingency factors, including follower development,
situational urgency and task structure, dictate which of several leadership approaches,
including directive, transactional, transformational and empowering, should be
chosen. Each specific leadership approach in turn results in a specific combination of
predictable outcomes, which include the level of follower involvement, dependence,
creativity and psychological empowerment. Along the same lines, Yun et al. (2006)
present an alternative contingency model of leadership in which the interaction
between the leadership approach and follower need for autonomy can influence
subsequent follower self-leadership. The results of their study support the view that
specific attributes of the follower can be an important element within a contingency
view of leadership.
JMP
21,4
286

In addition to these possible research directions, the realm of self-leadership might
need to be expanded beyond behavioral and cognitive elements to include
physiological components as well. In other words, a comprehensive view concerning
the potential of individuals to truly self-lead themselves certainly must be impacted by
their fitness level and nutritional habits. The work of Neck and Cooper (2000) and Neck
et al. (2004), suggesting that “fit” leaders are more productive leaders, is a step in this
direction.
Finally, one of the more exciting and promising areas of current self-leadership
research relates to shared leadership. Shared leadership is an ongoing process of
mutual influence that occurs when the members of a team share traditional leadership
roles and responsibilities (e.g. Pearce, 2004). Recently, Houghton et al. (2003a) presented
a model that explains the role of SuperLeadership and self-leadership in facilitating
shared leadership in teams. In short, this model suggests that an empowering
leadership approach from the external vertical leader will encourage team member
self-leadership, which in turn will enhance self-efficacy perceptions among team
members for sharing leadership roles. Pearce and Manz (2005) have further elaborated
on the importance of self- and shared leadership operating in combination, particularly
in the context of knowledge work. Bligh et al. (2006) expand even further in this
direction to examine the relationships between self- and shared leadership in the
context of team-based knowledge work, presenting a model that links self- and shared
leadership as important antecedents to knowledge creation in team-based
environments.
Future self-leadership research should continue along the lines of these current
trends. In particular, future empirical research effort should be focused on further
examinations of the intercultural aspects of self-leadership, self-leadership contingency
and outcome factors, and the role of self-leadership within the shared leadership
process. Future self-leadership research should also empirically investigate the way in
which self-leadership processes operate within the larger theoretical contexts of
self-regulation, social cognitive, intrinsic motivation and self-control theories. For
instance, future research should directly examine the effectiveness of self-leadership
strategies in improving self-regulation. Although self-leadership strategies are
generally portrayed as efficacious for improving self-focus, goal-setting processes,
goal valence and saliency, feedback process and task-related confidence or
performance expectancies, very little empirical research has examined these
relationships. Thus, research endeavors should examine the extent to which
self-leadership strategies facilitate improvements in measurable aspects of the
self-regulatory process. Future research should also examine the distinctiveness of
self-leadership strategy dimensions at the measurement level in a comparison of scales
designed to measure self-leadership, such as Houghton and Neck’s (2002) Revised
Self-Leadership Questionnaire, and instruments designed to directly measure
self-regulatory processes, such as a revised version of Kuhl’s (1994) action-state
orientation scale (Diefendorff et al., 2000).
Future self-leadership research should also strive to investigate empirically the
relationships between self-leadership and the predictable outcome variables discussed
above. In particular, researchers should expand on the work of Prussia et al. (1998) to
delineate more clearly the role of self-efficacy as a primary mechanism through which
self-leadership strategies influence various performance outcomes. To the extent that
Self-leadership
theory and
research
287

the role of self-leadership strategies can be differentiated from the mechanisms through
which they operate, self-leadership’s distinctive yet harmonious identity within its
various theoretical frameworks may be better understood. Finally, future
self-leadership research should also continue to investigate specific relationships
between personality and self-leadership. In particular, future researchers should
investigate the relationships between self-leadership and other personality
characteristics of interest such as general self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control,
and self-monitoring (see also Williams, 1997).
In conclusion, two decades after its conception, self-leadership continues to show
impressive potential for application in today’s fast-paced and highly technical
competitive environments characterized by flexible and decentralized organizational
types. As organizational members at all levels are encouraged to take more and more
responsibility for their own jobs and work behaviors, the ability for these workers to
successful lead themselves will become increasingly critical. As self-leadership
strategies are acknowledged as having value beyond related psychological concepts,
empirical research in the self-leadership domain may be advanced and our
understanding and application of this useful self-influence concept will continue to
expand in the context of twenty-first century organizational settings.
References
Alves, J.C., Lovelace, K.J., Manz, C.C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F. and Ke, K. (2006), “A cross
cultural perspective of self-leadership”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp.
338-59.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the work
environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1154-84.
Anderson, J.S. and Prussia, G.E. (1997), “The self-leadership questionnaire: preliminary
assessment of construct validity”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 119-43.
Andrasik, F. and Heimberg, J.S. (1982), “Self-management procedures”, in Frederikson, L.W.
(Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior Management, Wiley, New York, NY,
pp. 219-47.
Ashby, W.R. (1961), An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman, London.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 248-87.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1983), “Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45,
pp. 1017-28.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1986), “Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in
cognitive motivation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 38,
pp. 92-113.
Bar-on, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (2000), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,
Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
JMP
21,4
288

Baumeister, R.F. and Heatherton, T.F. (1996), “Self-regulation failure: an overview”, Psychological
Inquiry, Vol. 7, pp. 1-15.
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. and Tice, D.M. (1994), Losing Control: Why People Fail at
Self-Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Blanchard, K. (1995), “Points of power can help self-leadership”, Manage, Vol. 46, p. 12.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L. and Kohles, J.C. (2006), “The importance of self- and shared leadership in
team based knowledge work”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 296-318.
Block, J. (1981), “Some enduring and consequential structures of personality”, in Rabin, A.I. (Ed.),
Further Explorations in Personality, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 27-43.
Burke, P.J. (1991), “Identity processes and social stress”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 56,
pp. 836-49.
Burns, D.D. (1980), Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy, William Morrow, New York, NY.
Carver, C.S. (1975), “Physical aggression as a function of objective self-awareness and attitudes
toward punishment”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 510-9.
Carver, C.S. (1979), “A cybernetic model of self-attention processes”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1251-81.
Carver, C.S. (2001), “Affect and the functional bases of behavior: on the dimensional structure of
affective experience”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5, pp. 345-56.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1981), Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control Theory Approach
to Human Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1998), On the Self-Regulation of Behavior, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Cashman, K. (1995), “Mastery from the inside out”, Executive Excellence, Vol. 12 No. 12, p. 17.
Cautela, J.R. (1969), “Behavior therapy and self-control: techniques and applications”, in Franks,
C.M. (Ed.), Behavioral Therapy: Appraisal and Status, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
pp. 323-40.
Clark, R.N. (1996), Control System Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 639-52.
Conley, J.J. (1985), “Longitudinal stability of personality traits: a
multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1266-82.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1988), “Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of
self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 853-63.
Cox, J.F. (1993), “The effects of superleadership training on leader behavior, subordinate
self-leadership behavior, and subordinate citizenship”, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI):
development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 302-30.
deCharms, R. (1968), Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Deci, E.L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Self-leadership
theory and
research
289

Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1985), “The support of autonomy and control of behavior”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 1024-37.
Diefendorff, J.M., Hall, R.J., Lord, R.G. and Stream, M.L. (2000), “Action-state orientation:
construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 250-63.
DiLiello, T.C. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the
future: toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, 319-37.
Driskell, J.E., Copper, C. and Moran, A. (1994), “Does mental practice enhance performance?”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 481-92.
Dugoni, B.L. and Ilgen, D.R. (1981), “Realistic job previews and the adjustment of new
employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 579-91.
Ellis, A. (1977), The Basic Clinical Theory of Rational-Emotive Therapy, Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Finke, R.A. (1989), Principles of Mental Imagery, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Frayne, C.A. and Latham, G.P. (1987), “Application of social learning theory to employee
self-management of attendance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 387-92.
Georgianna, S. (2005), Intercultural Features of Self-leadership, Shaker-Verlag, Aachen.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85.
Godwin, J.L., Neck, C.P. and Houghton, J.D. (1999), “The impact of thought self-leadership on
individual goal performance: a cognitive perspective”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 18, pp. 153-69.
Guzzo, R.A. (1998), “Leadership, self-management, and levels of analysis”, in Dansereau, F. and
Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches, Classical and New
Wave, JAI Press, Stanford, CT, pp. 213-9.
Hardy, K. (2004), “Self-leadership as a tool in management succession planning”, Public Manager,
Vol. 33, pp. 41-4.
Higgins, E.T. (1987), “Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 94, pp. 319-40.
Higgins, E.T. (1989), “Self-discrepancy theory: what patterns of self-beliefs cause people to
suffer?”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 93-136.
Higgins, E.T. (1996), “Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience”,
in Higgins, E.T. and Kruglanski, A.W. (Eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic
Principles, Guildford, New York, NY, pp. 133-68.
Higgins, E.T. (1998), “Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle”,
in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30, Academic
Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-46.
Higgins, E.T., Roney, C., Crowe, E. and Hymes, C. (1994), “Ideal versus ought predilections for
approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 276-86.
Hilton, R.W. (1980), “Integrating normative and descriptive theories of information processing”,
Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18, pp. 477-505.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
JMP
21,4
290

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hom, P.W., Griffeth, R.W., Palich, L.E. and Bracker, J.S. (1998), “An exploratory investigation
into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic job previews”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 51, pp. 421-51.
Hom, P.W., Griffeth, R.W., Palich, L.E. and Bracker, J.S. (1999), “Revisiting met expectations as a
reason why realistic job previews work”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 97-112.
Houghton, J.D. and Jinkerson, D.L. (2004), “Constructive thought strategies and job satisfaction: a
preliminary examination”, paper presented at the 2004 Western Academy of Management
Conference, Alyeska, AK.
Houghton, J.D. and Neck, C.P. (2002), “The revised self-leadership questionnaire: testing a
hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17,
pp. 672-91.
Houghton, J.D. and Yoho, S.K. (2005), “Toward a contingency model of leadership and
psychological empowerment: when should self-leadership be encouraged?”, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 65-84.
Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (2003a), “Self-leadership and superleadership: the heart
and art of creating shared leadership in teams”, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds),
Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 123-40.
Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (2003b), “We think we can, we think we can, we think
we can: the impact of thinking patterns and self-efficacy on work team sustainability”,
Team Performance Management, Vol. 9, pp. 31-41.
Houghton, J.D., Bonham, T.W., Neck, C.P. and Singh, K. (2004), “The relationship between
self-leadership and personality: a comparison of hierarchical factor structures”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 427-41.
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), “Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement”,
Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 375-403.
Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1987), “Self-regulatory failure: a review with clinical implications”, Clinical
Psychology Review, Vol. 7, pp. 77-104.
Klein, J. (1987), Our Need for Others and its Roots in Infancy, Tavistock, London.
Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A. (2003), Organizational Behavior, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston,
MA.
Kuhl, J. (1994), “Action versus state orientation: psychometric properties of the action control
scale (ACS-90)”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckma
¨nn, J. (Eds), Volition and Personality: Action Versus
State Orientation, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, WA, pp. 47-59.
Latham, G.P. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Self-regulation through goal setting”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 212-47.
Latham, G.P. and Frayne, C.A. (1989), “Self-management training for increasing job attendance:
a follow-up and replication”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 411-6.
Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12, pp. 684-95.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Luthans, F. and Davis, T. (1979), “Behavioral self-management (BSM): the missing link in
managerial effectiveness”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 42-60.
Self-leadership
theory and
research
291

McShane,S.L.andVonGlinow,M.A.(2005),Organizational Behavior,3rded.,
Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Mahoney, M.J. and Arnkoff, D.B. (1978), “Cognitive and self-control therapies”, in Garfield, S.L.
and Borgin, A.E. (Eds), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Therapy Change, Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 689-722.
Mahoney, M.J. and Arnkoff, D.B. (1979), “Self-management: theory, research, and application”, in
Brady, J.P. and Pomerleau, D. (Eds), Behavioral Medicine: Theory and Practice, Williams
and Williams, Baltimore, MD, pp. 75-96.
Mahoney, M.J. and Thoresen, C.E. (Eds) (1974), Self-Control: Power to the Person, Brooks Cole,
Monterey, CA.
Manz, C.C. (1983), The Art of Self-Leadership: Strategies for Personal Effectiveness in your Life
and Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. (1986), “Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 585-600.
Manz, C.C. (1990a), “How to become a SuperLeader”, Executive Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 10-13.
Manz, C.C. (1990b), “Beyond self-managing work teams: toward self-leading teams in the
workplace”, in Woodman, R. and Pasmore, W. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change
and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 273-99.
Manz, C.C. (1991), “Developing self-leaders through SuperLeadership”, Supervisory
Management, Vol. 36 No. 9, p. 3.
Manz, C.C. (1992a), Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. (1992b), “Self-leadership ... the heart of empowerment”, The Journal for Quality and
Participation, Vol. 15, pp. 80-9.
Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (1991), “Inner leadership: creating productive thought patterns”,
The Executive, Vol. 5, pp. 87-95.
Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (1999), Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal
Excellence, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (2004), Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal
Excellence, 3rd ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1980), “Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social
learning perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 361-7.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1986), “Leading self-managed groups: a conceptual analysis of a
paradox”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 7, pp. 141-65.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership
of self-managing work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-28.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1989), Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead Themselves,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1991), “Superleadership: beyond the myth of heroic leadership”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 18-35.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1994), Business Without Bosses: How Self-Managing Work Teams
are Building High Performing Companies, Wiley, New York, NY.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2001), New Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead Themselves,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Markham, S.E. and Markham, I.S. (1995), “Self-management and self-leadership reexamined: a
levels of analysis perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 343-59.
JMP
21,4
292

Markham, S.E. and Markham, I.S. (1998), “Self-management and self-leadership reexamined:
a levels of analysis perspective”, in Danereau, F. and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Leadership:
The Multiple-Level Approaches, Classical and New Wave, JAI Press, Stanford, CT,
pp. 193-210.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter,
D. (Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators,
Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-31.
Myers, I.B. and McCaulley, M.H. (1985), Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Nahavandi, A. (2006), The Art and Science of Leadership, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Neck, C.P. (1996), “Thought self-leadership: a self-regulatory approach to overcoming resistance
to organizational change”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 4,
pp. 202-16.
Neck, C.P. (1998), “The rest of the self-leadership story”, in Dansereau, F. and Yammarino, F.J.
(Eds), Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches, Classical and New Wave, JAI Press,
Stanford, CT, pp. 221-8.
Neck, C.P. and Cooper, K.H. (2000), “The fit executive: exercise and diet guidelines for enhanced
performance”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 72-83.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1992), “Thought self-leadership: the impact of self-talk and mental
imagery on performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 681-99.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996a), “Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies
training on employee behavior, cognition, and emotion”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 445-67.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996b), “Total leadership quality: integrating employee self-leadership
and total quality management”, in Goush, S. and Fedor, D. (Eds), Advances in the
Management of Organizational Quality, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 39-77.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1999), “In search of the self-led soldier: army leadership in the
twenty-first century”, in Hunt, J.G., Dodge, G.E. and Wong, L. (Eds), Out-of-the-Box
Leadership: Transforming the Twenty-First Century Army and other Top Organizations,
JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 153-76.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (2007), Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal
Excellence, 4th ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Neck, C.P. and Milliman, J.F. (1994), “Thought self-leadership: finding spiritual fulfillment in
organizational life”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 9-16.
Neck, C.P., Ashcraft, R. and VanSandt, C. (1998), “Employee self-leadership: enhancing the
effectiveness of nonprofits”, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior,
Vol. 1, pp. 521-52.
Neck, C.P., Neck, H.M. and Manz, C.C. (1997a), “Thought self-leadership: mind management for
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, pp. 25-36.
Neck, C.P., Smith, W. and Godwin, J. (1997b), “Thought self-leadership: a self-regulatory
approach to diversity management”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 190-203.
Neck, C.P., Stewart, G. and Manz, C.C. (1995), “Thought self-leadership as a framework for
enhancing the performance of performance appraisers”, Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 31, pp. 278-302.
Self-leadership
theory and
research
293

Neck, C.P., Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1996), “Self-leaders within self-leading teams: toward an
optimal equilibrium”, in Beyerlein, M. (Ed.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work
Teams, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-65.
Neck, C.P., Mitchell, T., Manz, C.C. and Thompson, E. (2004), Fit to Lead: The Proven 8 Week
Solution for Shaping Your Body, Your Mind, And Your Career, St Martin’s Press,
New York, NY.
Neck, C.P., Nouri, H., Houghton, J.D. and Godwin, J.L. (2003), “How self-leadership affects the goal
setting process”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 691-708.
Neubert, M.J. and Wu, J.C. (2006), “An investigation of the generalizability of the Houghton and
Neck Revised Leadership Questionnaire to a Chinese context”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 360-73.
Pearce, C.L. (2004), “The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to
transform knowledge work”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp. 47-57.
Pearce, C.L. and Manz, C.C. (2005), “The new silver bullets of leadership: the importance of self-
and shared leadership in knowledge work”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34, pp. 130-40.
Powers, W.T. (1973), Behavior: The Control of Perception, Aldine Press, Chicago, IL.
Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S. and Manz, C.C. (1998), “Self-leadership and performance outcomes:
the mediating influence of self-efficacy”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19,
pp. 523-38.
Reilly, R., Brown, B., Blood, M. and Malatesta, C. (1981), “The effects of realistic job previews: a
study and discussion of the literature”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 823-34.
Roberts, H.E. and Foti, R.J. (1998), “Evaluating the interaction between self-leadership and work
structure in predicting job satisfaction”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12,
pp. 257-67.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1991), Learned Optimism, Alfred Knopf, New York, NY.
Shipper, F. and Manz, C.C. (1992), “Employee self-management without formally designated
teams: an alternative road to empowerment”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 48-61.
Simon, H.A. (1955), “A behavioral model of rational choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Vol. 69, pp. 99-118.
Sims, H.P. Jr and Manz, C.C. (1996), Company of Heroes: Unleashing the Power of Self-Leadership,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Stewart, G.L., Carson, K.P. and Cardy, R.L. (1996), “The joint effects of conscientiousness and
self-leadership training on self-directed behavior in a service setting”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 143-64.
Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000), “Team structure and performance: assessing the
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 135-49.
Thoresen, C.E. and Mahoney, M.J. (1974), Behavioral Self-Control, Holt Rinehart & Winston,
New York, NY.
Turner, P.E., Kohl, R.M. and Morris, L.W. (1982), “Individual differences in skilled performance
following imagery of bilateral skill”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 55, pp. 771-80.
Vallacher, R.R. and Wegner, D.M. (1985), A Theory of Action Identification, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
JMP
21,4
294

Vallacher, R.R. and Wegner, D.M. (1987), “What do people think they’re doing? Action
identification and human behavior”, Psychological Review, Vol. 94, pp. 3-15.
VanSandt, C.V. and Neck, C.P. (2003), “Bridging ethics and self leadership: overcoming ethical
discrepancies between employee and organizational standards”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 43, pp. 363-87.
Waitley, D. (1995), Empires of the Mind: Lessons to Lead and Succeed in a Knowledge-Based
World, William Morrow, New York, NY.
Wanous, J.P. (1973), “Effects of raelistic job preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, and job
survival”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 327-32.
White, R.W. (1959), “Motivation reconsidered: the concept of confidence”, Psychology Review,
Vol. 66, pp. 297-333.
Wicklund, R.A. and Duval, S. (1971), “Opinion change and performance facilitation as a result of
objective self-awareness”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 319-42.
Wiener, N. (1948), Cybernetics: Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Williams, R.L., Verble, J.S., Price, D.E. and Layne, B.H. (1995), “Relationship of self-management
to personality types and indices”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 64, pp. 494-506.
Williams, S. (1997), “Personality and self-leadership”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 7, pp. 139-55.
Yun, S., Cox, J. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2006), “The forgotten follower: a contingency model of
leadership and follower self-leadership”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 374-88.
Corresponding author
Christopher P. Neck can be contacted at: christopherneck@yahoo.com
Self-leadership
theory and
research
295
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints