Personality and self-leadership

PERSONALITY AND SELF-LEADERSHIP

Scott Williams Texas A&M University

Self-leadership is being heralded by its proponents as a substitute for leadership in organizations. Self-leadership training interventions teach employees strategies for maximizing intrinsic motivation and improving self-direction. However, some trainees are likely to benefit more from self-leadership interventions than others. In order to determine which employees would benefit most, more must be known about how personality affects self-leadership. The purpose of this article is to identify the personality factors that are most likely to moderate self-leadership effectiveness.

Self-leadership is a relatively new human resource development intervention. Through self-leadership training, individuals can learn self-influence techniques that stimulate and capitalize on intrinsic motivation (Manz 1986). Self- leadership incorporates the principles of self-regulation (e.g., Carver & Scheier 1981) and self-management (e.g., Luthans & Davis 1979; Manz & Sims 1980; Mills 19831, but goes beyond these to include self-determined (rather than externally dictated) governing standards and a unique set of self-motivation techniques. Considerable research has found self-leadership to be effective at enhancing performance in clinical, athletic, and educational settings (Neck & Manz 1992). Recent research in employment contexts has also found self-leadership to enhance performance, self-efficacy, and satisfaction (Neck & Manz 1995; Stewart, Carson, & Cardy 1996).

As the literature on self-leadership develops, one conspicuous gap is the inattention to individual differences. Specifically, potential effects of personality on the need for, and effectiveness of, self-leadership interventions are generally overlooked. In fact, proponents of self-leadership (Neck & Manz 1992; Neck, Stewart, & Manz 1995) have dismissed speculation that personality might limit the generality of self-leadership’s effectiveness, citing nonsig- nificant findings for extraversion as a moderator of the effect of mental imagery (a self-leadership technique) on a rotary pursuit task (Turner, Kohl, & Morris 1982). These dismissals provide little assurance. Although self-leader-

Direct all correspondence to: Scott Williams, Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4221.

Haman Resource Management Review, Copyright 0 1997 Volume 7, Number 2,1997, pages 139-155 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN:1053-4822

140 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2,1997

ship goes beyond the cybernetic control theory perspective on self-regulation, it does incorporate control theories as a foundation, Personality has been demonstrated to influence self-control and self-regulation, and it is reasonable to expect personality to moderate self-leadership too. Not surprisingly, conscientiousness has recently been identified as a significant moderator of the effectiveness of self-leadership training for service employees (Stewart et al. 1996). Several other personality characteristics are likely to affect self-leadership interventions as well.

The purpose of this article is to review the literature on self-leadership, and the related literatures on self-management and self-regulation, to identify personality characteristics likely to moderate the effectiveness of self-leadership. First, a review of self-leadership is presented which places self-leadership in an appropriate context for examining the effects of personality. Then, the Big 5 Model of personality will be applied as a framework for addressing the possible effects of personality on self-leadership. Next, research identifying other personality traits known to affect self-regulation will be reviewed.

OVERVIEW OF SELF-LEADERSHIP

Definition and Discrimination of the Self-Leadership Construct

Self-leadership has been defined as “the process of influencing oneself to establish the self-direction and self-motivation needed to perform” (Neck et al. 1995, p. 281). Self-leadership is of the same social cognition lineage as Ban- dura’s (1986) self-influence theory and Kanfer’s (1970) self-regulation theory. Self-leadership is related to, premised upon, and yet distinct from self-regulation and self-management. Self-regulation and self-management differ from self-leadership and from each other on assumptions regarding behavioral standards and the self-influence strategies employed.

Self-reguhtion is a more basic level of self-influence than either self-management or self-leadership. It subsumes three interdependent activities: self- observation, self-evaluation, and self-reaction (Kanfer & Ackerman 1989). Self- observation is the act of cognitively allocating attention to one’s behavior and its consequences, and may occur in response to internal or external prompts. Self-evaluation is the process of comparing current performance with a desired state (standard). Self-evaluations lead to two types of self-reactions; self-satisfaction and self-efficacy. Self-regulation normally assumes standards exist and devotes little attention to their source (see Locke & Latham 1990).

Self-management has been proposed as a substitute for leadership in organizations and involves strategies for behaviors targeted for change (Manz & Sims 1980). Self-management “teaches people to assess problems, to set specific hard goals in relation to those problems, to monitor ways in which the environment facilitates or hinders goal attainment, and to identify and administer reinforcers for working toward, and punishers for failing to work toward, goal

PERSONALITY AND SELF-LEADERSHIP 141

attainment” (Frayne & Latham 1987, p. 387). While self-regulation models tend to simply assume standards exist, self-management acknowledges (and attempts to develop through training interventions) individuals’ abilities to identify problems and the means to resolve them, which suggests the individual can develop the standards (see Mills 1983, for a criticism of this position). Self-management strategies employed to solve these problems include cueing strategies, self-goal setting, and rehearsal (Manz 1986).

Self-leadership differs from self-management and self-regulation by empha- sizing intrinsic sources of behavioral standards. Rather than taking the standards as a given or treating them as responses to externally perceived problems, self-leadership emphasizes doing things for their intrinsic value. Finally, self-leadership employs a unique set of self-influence strategies; work context strategies, task performance process strategies, and thought self-leadership. A brief description of these strategies is provided.

Self-Leadership Strategies

Work context strategies involve manipulating the work context in order to maximize intrinsic motivation. While some tasks, such as puzzles and games, stimulate intrinsic motivation by providing challenge and piquing curiosity, performance of less interesting tasks can be enhanced by finding the right environment in which to perform them. The performance of mundane or te- dious tasks can be enhanced by selecting an aesthetically pleasing environment in which to work. Alternatively, one can choose a social environment that, due to its norms or climate, is conducive to task enjoyment. For instance, people tend to perform mundane, well-learned tasks better in the presence of others than when alone (Bond & Titus 1983).

Task performance process strategies recognize that how (as opposed to where or with whom) work is performed affects its intrinsically motivating properties. Natural reward elements of work include feelings of competence, self-control, and purpose (Manz 1986, see also Deci 1975; Hackman & Oldham 1976). For instance, setting and achieving subgoals (of larger performance goals [Locke & Latham 19901) which are made progressively more difficult can stimulate feelings of competence as a person notices improvements in his or her proficiency.

Thought self-leadership may be the most distinctive and most promising type of self-leadership. Thought self-leadership is “a process of influencing or leading oneself through the purposeful control of one’s thoughts” (Neck et al. 1995, p. 281). Cognitive strategies are used such as self-talk, mental imagery, and internalized beliefs which create habitual, constructive ways of thinking (Neck et al. 1995). These strategies affect cognitive processes, affective experiences, and behaviors (Neck & Manz 1992).

Self-talk refers to the processes detailed in cognitive-behavioral (Beck 1976) and rational-emotive (Ellis 1975) therapies in which individuals mentally “tell” themselves what they choose to believe. For instance, through self-talk strategies, individuals can learn to refute pessimistic self-talk and embrace opti-

142 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2.1997

mism (Seligman 1991). Self-talk can also be used to boost self-efficacy (e.g., “I think I can, I think I can,” [Neck & Manz 19921). With self-talk, self-efficacy beliefs can be enhanced through a sort of self-persuasion.

Mental imagery might also enhance self-efficacy through the mental sim- ulation of mastery experiences. While self-talk refers to mental verbalizations, mental imagery is a self-leadership technique that involves mental visualiza- tion and rehearsal. The individual imagines successful performance of a task, such as public speaking or performance of a physical task (Neck & Manz 1992). Weick (1979) has referred to a similar process as “future perfect thinking.”

With sufficient self-talk and mental imagery, the beliefs and assumptions involved can become internalized. These internalized beliefs are taken for granted and automatically affect information processing.

Self-Leadership Training as Metalearning

Self-leadership has been likened to double-loop learning (Manz 1986). Sin- gle-loop learning is comparable to the cybernetic control system model (cf. Carver & Scheier 1981) which posits people have standards for performance and compare performance feedback to those standards and make adjustments for any observed deviations. Double-loop learning adds a second feedback loop, one that compares feedback to the values underlying the standards (Argyris & Schon 1996).

Participants in self-leadership training learn how to double-loop learn; that is, trainees engage in metalearning. Metalearning is an aspect of metacogni- tion that involves acquiring knowledge necessary for subsequent learning (Biggs 19851.1 Th e work context strategies, task performance process strategies, and thought self-leadership strategies taught to trainees can be conceptualized as me&skills (i.e., skills that facilitate learning). These self-leadership metaskills compare to those identified as necessary for self-regulation; namely self-observation, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement (Bandura 1986; Ka- roly 1983).

Although changes in metaskill levels are the most immediate effects of self- leadership training, skills are latent and some behavioral manifestion of the metaskills acquired will always be the dependent measures for self-leadership training.2 For instance, Stewart and colleagues (1996) assessed self-leadership training effectiveness with supervisors’ evaluations of trainees’ self-directed behavior; e.g., being innovative, taking initiative, and engaging in task revi- sion. With many skills, measures of on-the-job behavior may not fully indicate the level of skill acquisition because situational constraints or a lack of induce- ments may reduce the opportunity or motivation for individuals to demonstrate their skills. For those skills, special skills testing may be the most appropriate way to evaluate training outcomes. However, self-leadership involves being self-motivated and being able to engage in double-loop learning that can mitigate the effects of situational constraints. Consequently, any valid measure of a jobholder’s self-directed behavior is a reasonable criterion for evaluating self-leadership training.


To the extent that trainees already possess self-leadership skills, self-leadership interventions may have little effect on double-loop learning and job performance. This is one of two ways presented next in which personality can moderate the effectiveness of a self-leadership intervention.

Personality and Metalearning

There are two principle ways in which personality can influence the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions in organizations; through affecting processes or through direct associations with metaskill levels. First, where personality affects self-regulation or self-management processes, it also affects self-leadership. Although self-leadership and self-regulation are distinct, self- regulation is the foundation of self-leadership, and instruction in self-regulation is a part of self-leadership training (Stewart et al. 1996). As will be shown, there are numerous studies that indicate personality moderates self-regulation processes. Although self-leadership strategies (e.g., mental imagery and self-talk) distinguish self-leadership from other approaches to self-management, bear in mind the same self-regulation principles of standards, negative feedback loops, and self-reinforcement are the foundation of self-leadership. The fact that self-leadership goes beyond self-regulation to teach double-loop learning skills does not diminish the importance of self-regulation in the process. Therefore, it is highly probable that personality-related constraints on self-regulation also serve as constraints on self-leadership. This implies that personality characteristics that moderate self-regulation processes should also be moderators of self-leadership.

Second, there are direct links between some personality characteristics and one’s metaskills prior to any organizational intervention to foster self-leadership. This implies that self-leadership interventions are not as necessary for trainees with certain personalities who have already developed the metaskills taught in self-leadership training. There may be diminishing marginal utility of each additional opportunity to learn a self-leadership skill. If there is a diminishing marginal utility effect, we would expect to observe a greater effect of self-leadership interventions in those who most need it. This phenomenon has been referred to as a ceiling effect (Gist & Mitchell 1992). Figure 1 shows the conceptual difference between the learning curve of trainees high in metaskills prior to the training intervention with the learning curve of those low in metaskills at that point in time. The “ceiling” in question is the horizontal asymptote the curves approach.3 Since trainees with metaskills at level A are closer to the asymptote, they have less to learn from self-leadership interventions than those with metaskills represented by point B.4

A ceiling effect is likely for many trainees because some of the technology of self-leadership is considerably diffuse. Although few people apply all of the self-leadership techniques prior to training, most people are probably familiar with at least some of them. Consider, for instance, the use of positive self-talk to boost self-efficacy. This is by no means a new technology as Neck and Manz’s (1992) reference to The Little Engine That Could indicates. However, other self-


T Trainees ’ Levels of Metaskills

> Time

ceiling -__--- --____-_______- -

C

prior to after training training

Figure 1. Comparing Groups with Different Metaskill Learning Curves

leadership techniques, such as mental imagery, may not be as well known and may be as helpful for those who possess considerable metaskills as those who do not. Thus, to the degree that self-leadership know-how is widely diffuse, ceiling effects will be encountered.

Furthermore, where personality is directly related to metaskills, there can be an absorptive capacity effect on metalearning. Absorptive capacity is the ability to acquire know-how and is facilitated by existing, related know-how (Cohen & Levinthal1990). In a self-leadership context, the absorptive capacity hypothesis suggests that people who already have good metaskills are in a better position to learn advanced metaskills. Thus, although the greatest change in self-leadership metaskills may accrue to trainees who need them most, the trainees with the most metaskills prior to training may reach the highest level of proficiency. For the latter group, training on the rudiments of self-leadership does little more than reinforce their preexisting knowledge. However, that preexisting knowledge allows them to grasp some of the nuances of self-leadership that might be lost on trainees who have not yet mastered the fundamentals. In Figure 1, the average slope along curve 1 is greater than the average slope along curve 2, indicating trainees best represented by curve 2 have the greatest change. However the curves do not intersect, suggesting trainees best represented by curve 1 will always have a higher level of metaskill development (although this may be difficult to demonstrate statistically as the gap can narrow considerably). Therefore, to the extent that personality


dimensions are related to metaskills, personality affects the outcomes of self- leadership interventions.

With these issues in mind, we turn to a review of some of the specific personality characteristics likely to moderate the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions. Due to its preeminent role in personality theory and research, the characteristics of the Big 5 Model of personality will be addressed first. Then, other important personality characteristics likely to affect self- leadership interventions will be discussed.

THE BIG 5 MODEL OF PERSONALITY AND SELF-LEADERSHIP

The rich history of personality theory and research has generated a tremen- dous number of traits that explain some of the variance in the stable patterns of individuals’ cognition, affect, and behavior. In the last twenty years or so, an effort has been made to identify a parsimonious set of traits which account for most of the variance in personalities. The Big 5 Model (Digman 1990; John 1990) is perhaps the most popular hierarchical model of personality. The Big 5 Model posits that variation in personalities can largely be explained by five personality dimensions; extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience.

Extraversion

Extraversion can be described as the extent to which a person is assertive, gregarious, and enthusiastic (Barrick & Mount 1993; George 1996). Positive affectivity, a synonym of extraversion (George 1996), is the extent to which a person experiences positive moods and emotions. People high in extraversion tend to view the world and other people in a favorable way, and tend to feel self- efficacious (George 1996). Extroverts are optimistic. Introverts, those low on the extraversion dimension, are less outgoing, gregarious, enthusiastic, and optimistic.

Research on self-regulation suggests extraversion moderates the effect of self-leadership training on metalearning. Optimism is positively associated with self-regulation (Cantor & Zirkel 1990; Kirschenbaum 1987; Scheier & Carver 1985). People who are high in positive affectivity are inclined to view self-regulation situations, and their competence in them, favorably. In other words, positive affectivity predisposes an individual to have high self-efficacy, and self-efficacy plays a central role in self-regulation. Self-efficacy affects task choice, goal level, goal commitment, and reactions to feedback (see Gist & Mitchell 1992 for review). Extroverts may also be better self-regulators to the extent that they are more action-oriented than introverts. Kuhl and Koch (1984) found that action-oriented subjects learned and performed better at a novel task than state-oriented subjects. In factor analyses, the “active” trait loads on the extraversion factor of the Big 5 Model (John 1990).

Evidence that extraversion is related to self-management skills also sug-

146 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 2.1997

gests extraversion will affect self-leadership interventions. Williams and colleagues (Williams, Verble, Price, & Layne 1995) found extraversion to be positively related to self-management skills. Their self-management measures included four dimensions of self-management; having a performance focus, being goal-directed, accomplishing tasks in a timely manner, and organizing one’s physical space. Extraversion seems to be especially related to the self- management dimensions of being goal-directed and effectively organizing one’s physical space. Williams and colleagues’ study was observational rather than experimental and, therefore, the correlations between personality dimensions and metaskills are those that would be present prior to self-leadership interventions.

Thus, research on self-regulation and self-management metaskills suggests extraversion is likely to be positively correlated with self-leadership metaskills. Referring to Figure 1, curve 1 is relatively more representative of people high in extraversion while curve 2 is more representative of people low in extraversion. For these reasons, the following proposition is asserted:

Proposition la. Extraversion is positively associated with self-leadership metaskills prior to, and after, training.

Proposition lb. Extraversion moderates the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions such that those low on extraversion will show the greatest gain in metaskills.

Neuroticism

The neuroticism dimension addresses the extent to which a person is dis- posed to experience distress, nervousness, insecurity, and tension (Barrick & Mount 1993). Those high in negative affectivity, a synonym of neuroticism, are inclined to view the world, themselves, and others negatively (George 1996). High neurotics are pessimistic. Those low on neuroticism are less nervous, insecure, tense, and pessimistic.

The relationship of neuroticism to self-leadership and self-regulation is perhaps strongest through the link of neuroticism to depressogenic cognitions (Cantor & Zirkel 1990; Kirschenbaum 1987). Negative affectivity colors the way these individuals are likely to view their competence in bringing about a self-management outcome and how they perceive life events to affect their self- regulation. Similarly, depressive cognitions and negative self-ruminations seem to be causal factors in self-regulatory failure (Pyszczynski & Greenberg 1987).

Mental imagery and self-talk affect behaviors and emotions through their effects on beliefs, expectancies, and scripts. Ellis (1975) proposed that emotions are the consequence of the interaction of one’s experiences and beliefs. Neurot- icism was argued to be the result of a pattern of irrational beliefs that “cata- strophize” or “horribilize” unfortunate events; that is, beliefs that cause exag- gerated negative interpretations of life events. Neurotics overreact negatively to such events, and experience negative affect. The research of Ellis and others


(e.g., Seligman 1991) has found that through self-talk, individuals can change their beliefs and, thereby, manage their emotional reactions to events.

In summary, people high in neuroticism naturally have more trouble with self-regulation and self-management, and have more opportunity to benefit from self-leadership interventions. For these reasons, the second proposition is as follows:

Proposition 2a. Neuroticism is negatively associated with self-leadership metaskills prior to, and after, training.

Proposition 2b. Neuroticism moderates the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions such that those high on neuroticism will show the greatest gain in metaskills.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness describes the extent to which a person is dependable, responsible, goal-oriented, efficient, and organized (Barrick & Mount 1993). People high on the conscientiousness dimension are those that display considerable self-direction, which is a behavioral outcome of self-leadership training (Stewart et al. 1996).

In the only study to date that has addressed both personality and self- leadership interventions, Stewart and colleagues demonstrated ceiling effects for those high in conscientiousness. Fifty-nine employees in various positions in a resort hotel received the self-leadership training. Trainees participated in two classroom training sessions and were instructed to complete workbook assignments designed to address principles of self-leadership described by Manz (1992); dealing with necessary but undesirable work, developing constructive thinking patterns, and building natural motivation into work. As mentioned above, supervisors’ evaluations of trainees’ self-directed behavior were obtained prior to and after training in order to assess training effectiveness. Self-leadership training did not have a significant effect overall, but more importantly, it was demonstrated that conscientiousness was a significant moderator. For those low in conscientiousness, the intervention had an effect on self-directed behavior, but not for those high on conscientiousness. Thus, the third proposition is advanced:

Proposition 3a. Conscientiousness is positively associated with self-leadership metaskills prior to, and after, training.

Proposition 3b. Conscientiousness moderates the effectiveness of self- leadership interventions such that those low on conscientiousness will show the greatest gain in metaskills.

Further support for this proposition is obtained from the study of self- management and Myers-Briggs personality dimensions. The judging dimension, which corresponds with conscientiousness in the Big 5 Model (John 19901, is positively and strongly associated with self-management skills (Williams et al. 1995).

148 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RRllEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 2,1997

Openness to Experience

Openness to experience addresses the traits of imagination, artistic sensi- tivity, and intellectualism (Barrick & Mount 1993). People who are open to new experiences might be more likely than others to be willing to try self-leadership. Findings consistent with this supposition were obtained in Williams and colleagues’ (Williams et al. 1995) study which examined the correlation between self-management skills and the Myers-Briggs personality dimensions. Sensing, which corresponds to openness to experience in the Big 5 Model, is positively associated with self-management particularly on the timeliness of task accomplishment and organization of physical space dimensions. There- fore, the following is proposed:

Proposition 4. Openness to experience is positively associated with self- leadership metaskills prior to, and after, training.

It is not clear, however, that openness to experience moderates the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions such that those low on openness to experience will show the greatest gain in metaskills. Future research may find that being low on this dimension interferes with trainees’ metalearning because they may be less inclined to try some of the more unusual motivation techniques of self-leadership.

Agreeableness

The agreeableness dimension represents the extent to which a person is trusting, cooperative, and good-natured (Barrick & Mount 1993). Agreeable- ness does not seem to be related to any metaskills. In addition, agreeableness does not seem to moderate self-regulation processes. Finally, the Myers-Briggs Thinking-Feeling personality dimension, which corresponds to the agreeableness dimension of the Big 5, does not seem to be related to self-management capabilities (Williams et al. 1995). For these reasons, the following is proposed:

Proposition 5. Self-leadership metaskills and the effectiveness of self- leadership training are unrelated to agreeableness.

The Big 5 Model covers many aspects of individual differences. However, several more specific personality traits that seem likely to moderate self-leadership also deserve attention.

OTHER PERSONALITY TRAITS AND SELF-LEADERSHIP

Research on self-regulation and self-management has identified four special personality dimensions that are likely to also affect self-leadership. These traits are general self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, and self-monitoring.


General Self-Efficacy

Although self-efficacy was originally conceptualized as a situation specific belief in one’s ability to perform at a certain level (Bandura 19771, subsequent research and theory have identified a general, trait self-efficacy which influ- ences situation-specific self-efficacy (Speight, Rosenthal, Jones, & Gastenvald 1995; Watt & Martin 1994; Woodruff & Cashman 1993). Like trait self-esteem, trait self-efficacy relates to enduring patterns in cognition, affect, and behavior regarding oneself, and is accordingly termed by some a personality trait (e.g., Bandura 1991).

There is considerable evidence that low self-efficacy is predictive of failure to self-regulate in the short-term (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale 1978; Kirschenbaum 1987; Kirsch 1985). However, in a long-term study, a one-year follow-up failed to replicate the predictive power of self-efficacy (see Kirschen- baum 1987). Trait self-efficacy measures may be better predictors of long-term performance than specific measures since specific measures address one’s current expectancies and general self-efficacy measures correspond better to general criteria (cf. Ajzen & Fishbein 1980).

The relationship of trait self-efficacy to metalearning is straightforward- trait self-efficacy is positively related to one’s self-efficacy in a specific self- regulation context, and hence, is indirectly related to metalearning capabilities. People with high trait self-efficacy will tend to be better self-leaders prior to the intervention. Moreover, people with low trait self-efficacy are likely to gain more from self-leadership training due to (a) their need for the training and (b) the boost in self-efficacy the training can provide. This reasoning suggests the sixth proposition:

Proposition 6a. General self-efficacy is positively associated with self- leadership metaskills prior to, and after, training.

Proposition 6b. General self-efficacy moderates the effectiveness of self- leadership interventions such that those low in general self-efficacy will show the greatest gain in metaskills.

Self-Esteem

While trait self-efficacy addresses enduring patterns in one’s competency judgments, trait self-esteem addresses enduring patterns in judgments of self- worth and self-regard. People with high self-esteem show better self-regulation (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice 1993). They set appropriate goals and perform more effectively.

People with low self-esteem are more influenceable than people with high self-esteem (Brockner 1988; Hovland & Janis 1959; Rhodes & Wood 1992). For this reason, interventions such as Eden and Aviram’s (1993) that boosted self- esteem of unemployed individuals and aided them in their self-directed job search, may be more effective for those low in self-esteem than for those high in self-esteem (Eden & Aviram 1993).


Proposition 7. Self-esteem moderates the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions such that those low in self-esteem will show the greatest, gain in metaskills.5

Locus of Control

A necessary condition for self-regulation is perceptions of control (Bandura 1986), and the same should hold true for metalearning. Locus of control is the stable trait of believing one’s outcomes in life are controllable (Rotter 1966). An internal locus means that one believes his or her choices and behaviors have considerable bearing on their personal outcomes. On the other hand, those with an external locus of control believe they have less influence on their environment, and that their personal outcomes are largely determined by factors beyond their control. Believing outcomes are beyond one’s control can have a strong negative effect on motivation (see, for instance, Seligman & Schulman 1986).

Self-regulation research shows locus of control is an important determinant of successful self-regulation. An internal locus of control is positively associated with reducing smoking, (Chambliss & Murray 1979; Rosenbaum & Argon 19791, weight loss (Balch & Ross 1975; Weinberg 1984), and reducing stuttering (Craig & Howie 1982). As with conscientiousness, locus of control appears to be related to self-directed behavior at work. In a study of career self-management, people with an internal locus of control demonstrated significantly more initiative managing their career development than people with an external locus of control (Hammer & Vardi 1981).

Self-leadership interventions can teach trainees how to gain greater control over their work outcomes. Perceptions of a lack of control in circumstances where individuals could exercise control are part of the learned helplessness syndrome (Seligman 1991). Through self-leadership interventions, trainees can develop a greater sense of control over their work outcomes. This reasoning prompts the following proposition:

Proposition 8a. Internal locus of control is positively associated with self- leadership metaskills prior to, and after, training.

Proposition 8b. Locus of control moderates the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions such that those with an external locus of control will show the greatest gain in metaskills.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring, in the personality trait sense of the term, differs from self- monitoring in self-regulation. While self-monitoring as a metaskill means the degree to which a person observes his or her own behaviors toward bringing about a self-regulation outcome, self-monitoring as a personality trait means the extent to which one tailors behaviors to make them appropriate for the


given social environment (Snyder 1987). High self-monitors exert more control over the images of self they project in social interaction, while low self-monitors place greater value on maintaining congruence between “who they are” and what they do.

Snyder (1987) contends that high and low self-monitors may be equally effective at self-management of behaviors, but for different reasons. High self- monitors will be more motivated to self-manage behaviors to the extent that they expect effective self-management to be instrumental in cultivating a favorable public image. Improving one’s job performance through the various self-leadership strategies should be appealing to high self-monitors to the extent that they would like to appear competent. Low self-monitors, on the other hand, are motivated to achieve congruence between their values and their behaviors. Where low self-monitors have a strong work ethic, self-leadership should appeal to their desires to perform well. Snyder’s logic gives rise to the final proposition:

Proposition 9a. For people high in self-monitoring, metalearning will be positively associated with their expectation that acquiring self-leadership metaskills will be instrumental in achieving favorable self-presentation.

Proposition 9b. For people low in self-monitoring, metalearning will be greatest for those who place a high intrinsic value on having good meta- shills.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this article was to propose moderating effects of several personality characteristics on the effectiveness of self-leadership interventions. First, some personality traits are directly related to self-leadership metaskills. As Stewart and colleagues’ (Stewart et al. 1996) study shows, these effects can be important enough to obscure any benefit to trainees and their employers. There may be no point in giving rudimentary self-leadership training (e.g., positive self-talk, work context strategies) to employees who have acquired considerable metaskills. At a minimum, it seems employees of certain personality profiles need advanced types of self-leadership instruction (e.g, task performance process strategies, mental imagery) in order for the program to be of value. Second, there are the personality traits-such as locus of control and general self-efficacy-that moderate self-regulation processes and are likely to have a moderating effect on self-leadership as well.

If self-leadership interventions are to be effective in organizations, it seems necessary for trainers to address the role of trainees’ personalities. Future research is needed to examine the effects of the above personality traits on self- leadership.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to thank Michael Abelson, Brenny Bachoo, Jennifer George, David Glew, Ricky Griffin, Wendy Wood, and Patrick Wright for their assis- tance in preparation of the manuscript.

NOTES

1. Although the metalearning of interest to self-leadership is learning how to double-loop learn, metalearning is a term that can be applied to any situation in which a person or group learns how to learn.

2. I thank an anonymous reviewer for helping me make this distinction. 3. Conceptually, the asymptote can be raised with innovations in self-motivation.

For instance, self-leadership metaskills subsume and exceed self-management metaskills (which subsume and exceed self-regulation metaskills). Therefore, self-leadership innovations raise the asymptote from the level of metaskill development made possible by self-management technology. To the extent that self-motivation research “discovers” techniques rather than “creates” self-motivation technology, the asymptote is not actu- ally moved with research on self-motivation, but rather brought more clearly into focus.

4. Whether a person’s level of metaskills prior to training is best characterized by point A or point B in Figure 1 is likely determined by many factors including past training experiences, intelligence, and (the focus of this article) personality. Further- more, whether A > D is determined by the nature of the training (e.g., quality, dura- tion) and the sample.

5. Baumeister and colleagues (Baumeister et al. 1993) found that under conditions of ego threat, high self-esteem individuals might set inappropriately risky goals and achieve lower outcomes. In other words, self-esteem might moderate the relationship between self-leadership interventions and self-leadership outcomes (self-regulation and performance), but this moderating effect might itself be moderated by the level of ego threat. However, in the absence of ego threat, proposition seven is expected to hold.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., M. E. P. Seligman, and J. Teasdale. 1978. “Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation.” Journal of Abnormal Aychology 87: 32- 48.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behav- ior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon. 1996. Organizational Learning ZZ. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Balch, P. and A. W. Ross. 1975. “Predicting Success in Weight Reduction as a Function of Locus of Control: A Unidimensional and Multidimensional Approach.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43(l): 119.

Bandura, A. 1977. “Self Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84: 191-215.

-. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


-. 1991. “Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 248-287.

Bar-rick, M. R. and M. K. Mount. 1991. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Personnel Psychology 44: l-26.

-. 1993. “Autonomy as a Moderator of the Relationship between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance.” Journal ofApplied Psychology 78: 111-118.

Baumeister, R. F., T F. Heatherton, and D. M. Tice. 1993. “When Ego Threats Lead to Self-Regulation Failure: Negative Consequences of High Self-Esteem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(l): 141-156.

Beck, A. 1976. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: Internation- al Universities.

Biggs, J. B. 1985. “The Role of Metalearning in Study Processes.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 55: 185-212.

Bond, C. F. and L. J. Titus. 1983, “Social Facilitation: A Meta-Analysis of 241 Studies.” Psychological Bulletin 94: 265-292.

Brockner, J. 1988. Self-Esteem at Work: Research, Theory, and Practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Cantor, N. and S. Zirkel. 1990. “Personality, Cognition, and Purposive Behavior.” In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, edited by L. A. Pervin. New York: Guilford Press.

Carver, C. S. and M. F. Scheier. 1981. Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control Theory Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Chambliss, C. and E. J. Murray. 1979. “Cognitive Procedures for Smoking Reduction: Symptom Attribution Versus Efficacy Attribution.” Cognitive Therapy and Re- search 3: 91-95.

Cohen, W. M. and D. Levinthal 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-152.

Craig, A. R. and P. M. Howie. 1982. “Locus of Control and Maintenance of Behavioral Therapy.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology 21(l): 65-66.

Deci, E. L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum. Digman, J. M. 1990. “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model.”

Annual Review of Aychology 41: 417-440. Eden, D. and A. Aviram. 1993. “Self-Efficacy Training to Speed Reemployment: Helping

People to Help Themselves.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78(3): 352-360. Ellis, A. 1975. A New Guide to Rational Living. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Frayne, C. A. and G. P. Latham. 1987. “Application of Social Learning Theory to Em-

ployee Self-Management of Attendance.” Journal of Applied Aychalogy 72: 387- 392.

George, J. M. 1996. “Trait and State Affect.” In Individual Differences and Behavior in Organization-s, edited by K. Murphy. Jossey-Bass.

Gist, M. E. and T. R. Mitchell. 1992. “Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Deter- minants and Malleability.” Academy of Management Review 17(2): 183-211.

Hackman, J. R. and G. R. Oldham. 1976. “Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 250-279.

Hammer, T. H. and Y. Vardi. 1981. “Locus of Control and Career Self-Management among Nonsupervisory Employees in Industrial Settings.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 18(l): 13-29.

Hovland, C. I. and I. L. Janis. 1959. Personality and Persuasibility. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.


John, 0. P. 1990. “The ‘Big Five’ Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural Language and in Questionnaires.” In Handbook of Personality: Theory and research, edited by L. A. Pervin. New York: Guilford Press.

Kanfer, F. H. 1970. “Self-Regulation: Research, Issues, and Speculations.” Pp. 178-220 in Behavior modification in clinical psychology, edited by C. Neuringer and J. L. Michael. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Kanfer, R. and P. L. Ackerman. 1989. “Motivation and Cognitive Abilities: An Integra- tive Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Approach to Skill Acquisition.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 657-690.

Karoly, P. 1993. “Mechanisms of Self-Regulation: A Systems View.” Annual Review of Psychology 44: 23-52.

Kirsch, I. 1985. “Self-Efficacy and Expectancy: Old Wine With New Labels.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 824-830.

Kirschenbaum, D. S. 1987. “Self-Regulatory Failure: A Review With Clinical Implica- tions.” Clinical Psychology Review 7: 77-104.

Kuhl, J. and B. Koch. 1984. “Motivational Determinants of Motor Performance: The Hidden Task.” Psychological Research 46: 143-153.

Locke, E. and G. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance. En- glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Luthans, F. and T. Davis. 1979. “Behavioral Self-Management (BSM): The Missing Link in Managerial Effectiveness.” Organizational Dynamics 8: 42-60.

Manz, C. C. 1986. “Self-Leadership: Toward an Expanded Theory of Self-Influence Processes in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 11: 585-600.

-. 1992. Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims, Jr. 1980. “Self-Management As a Substitute for Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 5: 361-367.

Mills, P. K. 1983. “Self-Management: Its Control and Relationship to Other Organiza- tional Properties.” Academy of Management Review 8: 445-453.

Neck, C. P. and C. C. Manz. 1992. “Thought Self-Leadership: The Impact of Self-Talk and Mental Imagery on Performance.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 12: 681-699.

-. 1995. “Thought Self-Leadership: The Impact of Mental Strategies Training on Employee Behavior, Cognition, and Affect.” Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Neck, C. P., G. L. Stewart, and C. C. Manz. 1995. “Thought Self-Leadership As a Framework for Enhancing the Performance of Performance Appraisers.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 3X3): 278-302.

Pyszczynski, T. J. and Greenberg. 1987. “Self-Regulatory Perseveration and the Depres- sive Self-Focusing Style: A Self-Awarness Theory of Reactive Depression.” Psy- chological Bulletin 102(l): 122-138.

Rhodes, N. and W. Wood. 1992. “Self-Esteem and Intelligence Affect Influenceability: The Mediating Role of Message Reception.” Psychological Bulletin 111(l): 156- 171.

Rosenbaum, M. and S. Argon. 1979. “Locus of Control and Success in Self-Initated Attempts to Stop Smoking.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 35(4): 870-872.

Rotter, J. B. 1966. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Locus of Control of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs 80: l-28.

Scheier, M. F. and C. S. Carver. 1985. “Optimism, Coping, and Health: Assessment and Implications of Generalized Outcome Expectancies.” Health Psychology 4: 219- 247.


Se&man, M. E. P. 1991. Learned Optimism. New York: Knopf. Seligman, M. E. P. and P. Schulman. 1986. “Explanatory Style as a Predictor of Produc-

tivity and Quitting among Life Insurance Sales Agents.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(4): 832-838.

Snyder, M. 1987. Public Appearances, Private Realities: The Psychology of Self-Monitor- ing. New York: Freeman.

Speight, J. D., K. S. Rosenthal, B. J. Jones, and P. M. Gastenveld. 1995. “Medcamp’s Effect on Junior High School Students’ Medical Career Self-Efficacy.” The Career Development Quarterly 43: 285-295.

Stewart, G. L., K. P. Carson, and R. L. Cardy. 1996. “The Joint Effects of Conscientious- ness and Self-Leadership Training on Employee Self-Directed Behavior in a Ser- vice Setting.” Personnel Psychology 49: 143-155.

Turner, P. E., R. M. Kohl, and L. W. Morris. 1982. “Individual Differences in Skilled Performance Following Mental Imagery of Bilateral Skills.” Perceptual and Mo- tor Skills 55: 771-780.

Watt, S. E. and P. R. Martin. 1994. “Effect of General Self-Efficacy Expectancies on Performance Attributions.” Psychological Reports 75: 951-961.

Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weinberg, R. S., H. H. Hughes, R. E. Critelli, and A. Jackson. 1984. “Effects of Preexist-

ing and Manipulated Self-Efficacy on Weight Loss in a Self-Control Program.” Journal of Research in Personality 18: 352-358.

Williams, R. L., J. S. Verble, D. E. Price, and B. H. Layne. 1995. Relationship of Self- Management to Personality Types and Indices.” Journal of Personality Assess- ment 64(3): 494-506.

Woodruff, S. L. and J. F. Cashman. 1993. “Task, Domain, and General Efficacy: A Reexamination of the Self-Efficacy Scale.” Psychological Reports 72: 423-432.

Documents

Personality and self-leadership