Self Leadership Content Server

8/6/2019 Self Leadership Content Server

1/17

ol Management Review. 1986, Vol. 11, No. 3. 5 8 5 - 6 0 0 .

Se l f -Leadersh ip: Toward an E x p a n d e dTheory of Self-InfluenceP r oc e s s e s in Organizat ionsCHARLES C. MANZUniversity of Minnesota

The considerab le attention devoted to individual sel-inluence pro-cesses in organizations has been limited to scope, iocusing primarily onseli-managem ent that iacilitates behaviors that are not naturally moti-vating and that meet externally an chored standards. In this paper,individual seli-control systems are viewed as the central controlmechanisms within organizations. An expanded "seli-leadership" viewis developed that includes (a) seli-imposed strategies ior managingperiormance o tasks o low intrinsic motivational potential and (b)sel-inluence that capitalizes on the "natural"/intrinsic motivationalvalue o task activity. Implications ior theory and practice areaddressed.Recently, significant attention has been devot-to a previously neglected aspect of organiza-mbe rs exeri over thems elves. This "new" man-

has emerged primarily from theal lea rnin g theory literatu re (Band ura, 1977a)in self-control (Bandura, 1969;

1969; Goldfried & Merb au m, 1973;1970; Mah o n ey & Arnkofl, 1978, 1979;& Thoresen, 1974; Thoresen & Ma-

In the organization literature, thishas been referred to as self-

& Heimberg , 1982;& Da vis, 1979; M anz & Sims, 1980; Marx,Mills, 1983).This pa per , stimulated by the earlier work, pro-

an e x p a n d e d and more comprehensiveof the self-influence of organizat ion

the participants in "The Not For Primefor their helpful comments on an earlier

of this paper.for reprints should be sent to Charles C. Manz,

of Management , 271 19th Avenue South, UniversityMN 55455.

members. First, the fundamental importance,a n d the n eed for greater integration, of the self-influence processes into organizational theoriesare discussed. Second, an overview of concep-tualization of self-management thus far in theorganization literature is presented. It is a rg u edthat while these treatments are useful, they pro-vide an incomplete view of self-influence; there-fore, an expanded "self- leadership" perspectiveis propo sed that em ph asiz es purposeful leader-ship of self toward personal standards and "nat-ural" rewards that hold greater intrinsic motiva-tional value. Implications for theory, research,and pract ice are discussed.

Recognizing Self-Control SystemsOrganizations impose multiple controls of vary-ing character on emp lo y ees . Tan n en b au m(1962), for example, argued that "organizat ionimplies c ontrol" (p. 237). Law ler and Rho de (1976)pointed out that control system s try to exeri influ-en ce by identifying appropriate behavior, pro-vid ing means to monitor behavior that is taking

585


2/17

place, and coordinating, rewarding, and punish-ing this behavior. One view suggests that thecontrol process involves app lyin g rational, m an-ageable, control mechanisms (work standards,appraisal and reward systems, etc.) to influenceemployees through external me ans to assu re thatthe organization achieves its goals.An alternative view, however, shifts the per-spective of the control system-controllee inter-face significantly. Simply stated, this perspec-tive views each person as possessing an internalself-control syste m (Manz, 1979; M anz, M oss-holder, & Luthans , in press). Org aniza tional con-trol system s in their most bas ic form prov ide per-fo rmance s tandards , eva lua t ion mechanisms,an d systems of rew ard a nd punishm ent (Lawler,1976; Law ler & R ho de, 1976). Sim ilarly, indivi-duals possess self-generated personal stan-dards, engage in self-evaluation processes, andself-administer rewards and punishments inm an ag in g their daily activities (Band ura, 1977a;Mahoney & Th orese n, 1974; M anz & Sims, 1980).Even though these mechanisms take place fre-quently, in an almost automatic manner, thismakes them no less poweriul.Furthermore, while organizat ions provide em-ployees with certain values and beliefs pack-ag ed into cultures, c orp ora te visions an d so forth,people too possess their own systems of values,beliefs, and visions (however vague) for theirfuture. In addition, the counterparts of organiza-tional rules, policies, and operating proceduresare represented internally in the form of behav-ioral and psychological scripts (Abelson, 1981;Gioia & Poole, 1984; Sc ha nk & A be lso n, 1977) or"programs" (Carver & Sc heie r, 1982) he ld at var i-ous levels of abstraction.The point isorganizat ions provide organ iza-tional control systems that influence people butthese systems do not access individual act iondirectly. Rather, the impact of organizational con-trol mechanisms is determined by the way theyinf luence, in in tended as well as unintendedways, the self-control systems within organiza-t ion members. This logic is portrayed graphi-cally in Figure L

While this perspective is not new, an anaof theory and research in the field reveals thhas not been well integrated into organizatm ana gem ent. The li terature does include ctive mediation of external stimuli (e.g., slea rnin g theory view s Dav is & Luth ans, Manz 8f Sims, 1980; attributed causes to obsphysical action s Feldm an, 1981; Gre eMitchell, 1979; Mitchell, G re en , & W ood, Mitchell, Larson, & G re en , 1977; St aw , 197does not ad eq ua te ly recogniz e the self-influsystem as a focal point (rather than a medfor en ha nc ed un de rs ta nd ing a nd prac t io rgan iza t ional management . The perspeshown in Figure 1, on the other hand, sugthat the self-influence system is the u ltimatetem of control. In addition, it suggests thainternal control system must receive signifattention in its own right before maximum fits for the organization and employeerealized.Recent work on cybernetic (control) thprov ides a useful perspe ctive for makin g conthe nature of employee self-regulating sy(Carver & Sc he ier, 1981, 1982). B ase d on thative feedback loop. Carver and Scheier (present an insightful view of self-regulatingcesses involving: (a) input perceptions of ing conditions, (b) comparison of the percewith an existing reference value (standardoutput behaviors to reduce discrepancies the standard , a nd (d) a co nseq uent impathe environment. From this view, an empattempting to achieve a given productiondard would operate within a closed loop oftrol aimed at minimizing deviations from dards in exist ing performance. Unless avironmental d isturb ance of some kind occthis self-regulating process theoretically occur indefinitely.

Carver and Scheier (1981, 1982) furtherulated, based on the work of Powers (11973b), that standards emerge from a hiercal org aniza tion of control system s. That isda rd s for a pa rticular control system loop (Xof production) derive from sup ero rdi na te sy586


3/17

StandardsRulesPoliciesProcedures

Organizational Control System

Appraisal Reward andPunishmentSystems

Self-Control System

Individual Values, Beliefs, Scripts, and ProgramsSelf-

Self- Self- AdministeredStandards Behavior Evaluation Consequences

"Natural" Motivation wants, preferences, . . .

StructureCorporate beliefs,visions, culture

The organiza t iona l and self-control systems.control. Thus, an employee working to achievea product ion stan-at one level may serve higher level sys-at higher leve l s tandards (mee t inga conscient ious em-a good person) .From an organizat ional perspect ive, recogniz-g and facilitating em plo yee self-regulating sys-ms pos e a viab le an d m ore realistic view of con-on external in-uence. In addit ion , ove rrel ia nce on exte rna lcan l ead to a n u m b e r of dysfunctionalbe-of only those behaviors

that are r e w a r d e d by the control system), inputting of inva l id informat ion in to managemeninformation systems, and so forih (Camman &Nadler, 1976; Lawler, 1976; Lawler & Rhode1976).It is instructive at this point to a ddre s s c u r re nviews of employee se l f -management and theto present an expanded self-leadership view oself-regulatory processes.Employee Self-Management

Most re levant t reatments of se l f -managemento date focused on stra tegies designed to facilta te behaviors ta rge ted for c ha nge (e . g587


4/17

Andrasik & Heimberg, 1982; Luthans & Davis,1979; Manz & Sims, 1980). This work generallyreflects the view that behaviors are not per-formed for their intrinsic value but b e c a u s e oftheir necessity or b e c a u s e of w ha t the performerwill receive for his/her performance. A widelyreco gn ized definition of self-control, o ne th at illus-trates this view, is: "A per son disp lays self-controlw h e n in the re la t ive absence of immediate exter-nal constraints (performs without external as-sistance) he or she e n g a g e s in behavior whoseprevious probabil i ty has been less than that ofal ternat ively avai lable behaviors (a less attrac-t ive beh avior but one that is implied to be moredesirable)" (text added) (Thoresen & Mahoney ,1974, p. 12).Several specific self-management s t ra tegiescan be identified. Mahoney and Arnkoff (1978,1979) provided a useful array of strategies thatwere appl ied in clinical contexts. These include:self-observation, self-goal setting, cueing strat-egies, self-reinforcement, self-punishment, andrehearsa l . Much of the employee se l f -manage-ment li terature has cente red on adap ta t i ons ofthese self-control strategies for addre s s ing man-agement problems (Andrasik &Heimberg, 1982;Luthans & Da vis, 1979; M anz 8f Sims, 1980, 1981).Luthans and Davis (1979) provided descriptionsof cueing stra tegy intervent ions across a varietyof work contexts. Physical cues such as a wallg r a p h to char t progress on t a rge t behaviors anda magne t i c message boa rd w e re used to self-i nduce de s i red behav io ra l change in specificcases . Manz and Sim s (1980) exp licate d the rele-v a n c e of the b r o a d e r r a n g e of self-control strate-gies, especially as substitutes for formal organi-za t iona l lea de rsh ip . Se l f -observa t ion, c ue in gstrategies, self-goal setting, self-reward, self-pun i shment , and rehea rsa l w e re each d i scussedin terms of their applicability to organiza t iona lcontexts. Andrasik and Heimberg (1982) devel-oped a behav io ra l s e l f -managem ent p rogramfor individualized self-modification of t a rge t edwork behaviors . The i r approach involved pin-point ing a specific b eha vio r for change , obse rv -in g the behav ior over t ime , deve loping a b e h a v -

ioral ch an ge plan involving self-reward or sother self-influence strategy, and adjusfingp l a n b a s e d on se l f -aw areness of a n e e dc h a n g e .In terms of cybernetic self-regulating syst(Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1982), these emplself-management perspecfives can be vieweproviding a set of strateg ies that facilitate b ehiors that serve to reduce deviations from hilevel reference valu es that the employee mam ay not have helped establ ish. That is , thee rn ing s tanda rd s at higher levels of abstrac(cf.. Powers, 1973a, 1973b)for example, whm e a n s to be a good employee ba sed on orgza t iona l or profe s s iona l va lue s can remlargely external ly defined even though loleve l s tand ards to reach the goa l s may be sonally created. Mills (1983) argued that facsuch as the normative system and professinorms can exercise just as much control oveindividual as a mechanistic situation in wthe performance process is manipulated direThe implication is that, unlike the perspecsugges t ed in Figure 1, the a i m s of the "m a n a g e d e m p l o y e e " can be, in actuality, enally controlled by existing higher level extes t anda rds .This view is consistent with arguments employee self-control is p e r h a p s m o r e ansion than a reality (Dunbar, 1981) and thatmanaged ind iv idua l s are far from loosely suvised or controlled (Mills, 1983). In addit iohas been a rgued tha t se l f -management s tg ies themse lves are behaviors that require forcement in orde r to be maintained (KeSlocu m, 1981; M anz & Sims, 1980; ThoresM aho ney , 1974). Be cau se of th is depen den cexternal re inforcement , it could be argued the self-man agem ent a pp ro ach violates Thora n d M ah on ey 's (1974) definition cited ea" . . . in the re la tive ab se nc e of imm ediate extconstraints . . ." in the long run. That is, wimmediate external constraints or supportsnot be requi red , longer-term re inforcemenAgain , se l f -management is subject to extcontrol.

588


5/17

Toward a Broader View ofSelf-Influence ProcessesIn develop ing a b ro ad e r p e r sp ec t iv e , self-influence should be viewed as more than a setof s t ra teg ies des igned to faci l i ta te employeebehaviors that help meet standards. For someindividuals being "less controlled" (not meeting

socially based standards) may represent activeself-controlled choice.In addres sing the quest ion "What is truly self-controlled behavior?" one can become imm ersedin metaphysical argum ents on the nature of free-will (cf., Denn ett, 1984). Ry chlak (1979) su gg es te dthat the crucial concern is a telic onethat is,the underlying reason one is performing thebehavior. For example, is the individual perform-ing because he /she wants to or b e c a u s e of abelief that he/she "should?" Interestingly, Marx(1982) sugge sted m an ag em en t of one's "should/want ratio" (p. 439) as a self-control strategy foravoiding becoming overburdened with activitiesthat must be done ("shoulds") relative to thosethat one likes to do ("wants").Following this line of reasoning, the differencesbetween se l f -management and external controlcan become c louded depend ing on the perspec-tive adopted. Consider a person w ho truly wan tsto deal with a prob lem behav ior to ach iev e afreely chosen personal standard, but despite sys-tematic persistent use of self-management strate-gies does not succeed . In such a case, cal l ing onanother person or organizat ion to establish con-straints for his/her behavior (i .e. , giving up "self-man ag emen t" ) may be the most effective meansto achiev e a personal goal . Again, Thoresen andMahoney's (1974) deflnition of self-control is vio-lated. Yet, acting on the environment to p ro d u ceconstraints may be the most v iab le avenue forexercising self-influence in such cases .

Schelling (1980) addressed a host of in ternalstruggles (e .g . , inducing over withholding onincome taxes to a s s u r e a surp lus of p er so n a lfunds later), all of which exemplify relying onexternal constraints to exercise "self-command."Bandura's (1977a, 1978) notion of reciprocal de-

terminism, which recognized an in terdependrelat ionship between one 's behavior and environment, is useful here. That is, actingthe environment to c a u s e it to influence or cotrol one's be havior in a personally desired wcan be a legitimate form of self-mfluence (albone s tep removed). Ind eed, self-constraints (elack of confidence, inadequate ability) can somtimes produce greater limitations on one's frdom to behave than rigid external controls.The question "Who is more or less self-ctrolled, the person who uses self-managemto achieve standards imposed by someone eor the person who chooses externally controlsituations to achieve personally chosen stdards?" illustrates the heari of this discussiThe position taken in this paper is that true sleadership is b ased on the personal meaningfness and "ownership" of the individual's goveing standards. Invoking external influenceachieve personally chosen standards is a legmate form of self-leadership. Self-imposing smanagement s t ra teg ies to reach externally dfined and personally undesired standards, hoever, is a form of "self-management" that maexternal control.

Toward a Theory of Self-LeadershIn this section, a self-leadership view is pposed. Here, self-leadership is conceptualiza s a comprehensive self-influence perspectthat concerns leading oneself toward perim a n c e of naturally motivating tasks as wellmanaging oneself to do work that must be d obut is not naturally motivating. It includesself-management of immedia te behav iors ain addition, similar to the notion of "double lolearning" (Argyris, 1982a, 1982b), it chal lenthe appropr ia teness of operat ing standards t

govern the employee self-influence system as reasons for the behavior. Three critical elemeof self-leadership that distinguish it and conbute to our u n d er s t an d in g of self-influenceyond the previou s w ork include: (a) that it allofor addressing a wider range (higher level)589


6/17

Standards for self-influence, (b) that it more fullyincorporates the role of intrinsic work motiva-tion, and (c) that it suggests some add i t ionalstrategies for em plo yee self-control. E ach of theseelements is discussed below.Standards for Self-Influence

A standa rd establishes a target or goal for per-formance and can serve a primary controllingfunction. Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham ( 1981 )pointed out that goals direct attention, mobilizeeffori, increase persistence, and motivate strat-egy development. Thus, when go als or standa rdsare established by an external source they canserve as a significant external influence or con-t rol mechanism.The ability of s t an d a rd s to influence employ-ees is b ased in par i on knowledge of one's prog-ress in meet ing the s tandards tha t is receivedfrom external sources. Thus, external feedbackcan h av e an impact on employee self-control.Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) indicated thatexcessive external feedback can place externallimits on self-influence. They suggested that inorder to shift to an internal locus of control inpersons, the frequency of feedback (from exter-nal sources) likely will need to be c h a n g e d( reduced) to allow inc rea se d self-monitor ing.Despite its impor iance a systematic review of therole of feedback in employee influence is beyondthe scope of the current discussion (cf., Taylor,Fis he r, & Ilgen, 1984).Consequent ly , the focus here is on the stan-dards themselves . The position taken is that aself-leadership view facilitates a broader higher-level perspective on individuals ' guiding stan-dards than does the existing work on emp lo y eeself-management. Figure 2 illustrates a philo-sophical difference between the concep ts of self-m a n a g e m e n t and self-leadership relating to thisissue. The figure relies on a cybernetic controlsystem perspective of self-influence (Carver &Scheier, 1981, 1982). The aim of this system is tor ed u ce d ev ia t io n s f ro m o p e ra t in g s t an d a rd swhich are defined hierarchically by increasingly

abstract perceptions about the relat ion betwework and self. Conceptually , self-managemcan be viewed as a set of strategies that aidemployees in structuring their work environmein establishing self-motivation, and so forih, tfacilitates appropriate behaviors for achieviminimal deviations from primarily lower-lebehavioral standards. Self- leadership, on other hand , encompasses se l f -management bhavior but it is also concerned with leadingself-influence system at superordinate levelsSelf-m anag eme nt, for exa m ple, might be excised by establishing a performance self-gostandard of calling on six customers daily,order to meet sales quotas, and then providinself-reward each day for meeting this goal. Sleadership, on the other hand, al lows for slead ing of the higher level standards that pvide the reasons for the self-managed behavie.g. , "Why does one wan t to meet a sales qta . . . be a good sa lesperson or be in salesa l l . . . be a conscientious provider for one's faily . . . be a good person?"A central distinction betw een self-managema n d the proposed self- leadership perspectivea difference in focus. Self-management is largconcerned with a set of b eh av io ra l and cogtive strate gie s tha t reflect a rational view of wpeople ought to be doingfor example, ssmoking (Thoresen & M ah on ey , 1974), finisreport (Luthans & Davis, 1979), reduce nproductive informal con versation s (Manz & S1980). Self- leadership goes beyond this to plsignif icant emphasis on the intrinsic valuetasks. While employee self-management thr ists l ikely would recognize the r e l e v a n c eintrinsic mo tivation factors for self-managemethe existing focus in the literature on stratethat facilitate "appropriate " behaviors tenddistract potential developments in this vein.self- leadership view proposed here is intento stimu late a broader v iew of self-influence includes the important role of the intrinsicap p ea l in g a sp ec t s of work ("natural" rewaa n d how important these aspects are in dennwhy behav ior is performed.

590


7/17

Sup>erordinate StandardsI

addresses

Comparison to standards

Immediate operatingstandards

. includes.

Perception ofsituation

Behavior to reducediscrepancy fromstandards

Impact onsituation/environment

Self-LeadershipAddresses the super-ordinate standards(reasons) forbehavior in additionto self-managementstrategies

Self-ManagementStrategies tofacilitatebehaviors thatreduce discrepxanciesfrom standards

Figure 2. A cybernetic control system view of the role of self-management and self- leadership.Intrinsic Motivation in Self-Regulation

Self -management emphasizes rewards tha tare sep ara te from the task an d that are receivedfor its completion (e .g . , self-praise, externalrecognition, a nd r ew ards ). A br oa de r self-lead-ership view explicitly recognizes rewards thatresult f rom performing act ivi t ies themselves.These can be descr ibed as "natura l" rewards(Manz, 1983a, 1983b) be ca us e they a r e a na tura lpar t of the task performan ce process an d der ivefrom natural intrinsic responses. Self-leadershipgoes beyond se l f -mana gement to addr ess rede-fining one's tasks and one's relat ionship withand/or perception of tasks so that desired p>erfor-

mance results from a natural motivational prcess. Particular e m ph as is is taken from the intrsic motivation literature (cf., Deci, 1971, 1975Deci & Ryan, 1980) an d especially, cognitive evuation theory (Deci, 1975a, 1975b).Cognitive evaluation theory, bas ed on the woof White (1959) and de Charms (1968), wfounded on the assumpt ion tha t behav iorca us ed by interna l states (Deci, 1975b). Althouthe validity of cognitive evaluation theory hnot received universal suppori (e.g., Farr, 197Fa rr, V an ce, & M clntyre, 1977; PhUlips & Lor1980; Scott, 1975), an impressive body of evidenhas been ga thered in its support both from Deand his colleagues (Benware & Deci, 1975; De

591


8/17

1971, 1975a; Deci, N ezlek, & Sheinman , 1981; Deci& Ry an, 1980) and from others (Calder & Staw,1975; Daniel & Esser, 1980; G r e e n e & Lepper,1974; Kru glansk i, Alon, & Lew is, 1972; Le pp er &Gre ene, 1975; Lepper , Gr een e, & Nisbett, 1973).Thus, while this view is subject to potentiala rg u men t s , for example from more functionalviewpoints (Scott, 1975), this assumption as par tof a broader view of behaviora l causes is ac-cepted here. Notably , social learnin g theoryrelies on a reciprocal determinism view in whichbehavior is cau sed by internal states as well asexternal influences, and each of these three com-ponen ts (behavior, internal processe s, and exter-nal forces) influences each other in a reciprocalfashion (Band ura, 1978). This co m pre he ns ivereciprocal determinism view is the assumpt iveframework upon which conceptual developmentis based in this paper.In cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1975a),an individual 's feelings of self-determination andcompetence are cen t r a l to the e x p e r i e n c e ofintrinsic motivation. Specifically, rewards thatincrease these intrinsic outcomes will increaseintrinsic motivation. Deci (1975a) suggested thatthe natu ral inclination to pu rsue feelings of com-petence and self-determination lea ds to a b e h a v -ioral pattern. This pattern includes a sea rch forreasonab le cha l lenges and an expendi tu re of

effort to overcome these cha l lenges . The logic isthat by overcoming such challenges, feel ings ofcompetence and self-control will be e n h a n c e d .In a similar vein, B an du ra (1977a, 1977b, 1982)viewed individual self-efficacy perceptions ascentral to social learning theory. He pointed outthat perceived self-efficacy will influence theamo u n t of effort and pers is tence expended inthe face of adve rsity. B an du ra (1977b, 1982) alsoindicated that the strongest contributor to posi-tive self-efficacy pe rc ep tio ns is o n e ' s p e r so n a lperformance history.In p e r fo rman ce a p p r a i s a l . Be rn a rd in andBeatty (1984) suggested that the t en d en cy of rat-ers to be lenient in their evaluations may stemfrom a perception of a low personal capab i l i ty(low self-efficacy) to cope with the likely nega-

tive reaction of the ratee. They suggested traing to assess rater efficacy perceptions followby training to allow raters to experience masteof progressively difficult rating tasks. This aproach was designed to facilitate increasesrater self-efficacy perceptions which were asu med to result in more accura te eva lua t ionsraters. Again, a grea ter sense of co mp e ten celinked to one's w illingness and motivation to pform a task.By combinin g the work of Deci and the liteture on self-efficacy, it could be concluded than imporiant aspect of self-influence is the pcess of establishing intrinsic motivation by ehancing one's feelings of co mp e ten ce and secontrol (more generally one's perceptions of seefficacy). Furthermore, a primary object iveself-leadership practice should be to e n h a nself-efficacy perceptions which are reciprocarelated to performance. That is, e n h a n c e d sefficacy should lead to higher performanthrough its impact on effori and persistencehistory of higher per formance in turn will haa positive impact on future self-efficacy perctions (Bandura, 1977b).In add ition to feelings of co mp e ten ce and secontrol, a third intrinsic motivation factor,task performer's feelings of purpose, is addreed. This addit ional co mp onent is consistent wli terature emphasizing the impor tance of ppose and belief in one's work for fostering tperformance. Examples of this are providedthe Japan ese m an age m en t l i te ra tu re (HatvanPucik, 1981a, 1981b; O uch i, 1981a, 1981b; Ou& laeger , 1978; Pa sca le &Athos, 1981; Sulliv1983), work that emphasizes the impor ianceshared v is ion (e .g . , a corpora te ph i losop(Hatvany & Pucik, 1981a; Ouchi & Price, 19a n d the job charac ter i s t ic " task s ign i f icanad d ressed in the job design literature (Hackm& O ldh am , 1975). The essential idea is thareason (purpose) for doing one's work thattends beyond the r eward s , r ep r iman d s , andforth, is important . The shared va lues comnent of the recently proposed McKinsey "7 ap p ro ach for characterizing organizations is c

592


9/17

sistent with this latter phenomenon (Pascale &Athos, 1981; Pe ters & W ate rm an , 1982).One view suggests that feelings of purposemost probably result from worthwhile contribu-fions to something or someone other than one-self (i.e., altruism) (Manz, 1983a). In this sense,"external" corporate philosophies or visions canfoster internal purpose if they are defined in analtruisfic fashion. It may be that this altruisticcomponent is coupled with an egoistic mofive(e.g., altruisfic egoism, Selye, 1974). On the otherhand , ev idence has been ga thered suggest ingthat altruism is part of human nature apari f rom"selfish" e n d s (Hoffman, 1981). One Amer icanproduction plant that has displayed highly moti-vated and committed workers, for example , hasa s its motto "people he lp ing people" (Manz,1983b). Examination of Japanese organizat ionsoften reveals a similar concern for purposeful(altruistic) ends.Strategies for Self-Leadership Practice

Self-leadership, with its emphasis on the intrin-of work, suggests sev-

can complement existing self-(cf., Andrasik & Heim-, 1982; M anz & Sims, 1980). The se add ition al

are b a s e d on employees want ing to,

Work Context Strategies. Briefly, one self-lead-p appr oa ch involves choosing, to the extentthe

of the physical work setting onA long d is tance runner who

to run in p l e a s a n t s u r r o u n d i n g s asto a conventional quarter-mile track

In addit ion, a sen se of com-can result from successfully navigating

of self-deter-are e n h a n c e d by the runner 's controland the positive health(purpose) are provided to the runner as

aa

on motivation and per formance .

A subtle, yet no less powerful, aspect of thwork context involves social psychological elements such as group norms, corporate valuesand existing interpersonal employee interacfionpatterns. Two more global concepts that havreceiv ed significant attenfion in the literature areorganizational cfimate (e.g.. Field & Abelson1982; HeUriegel & Slocum, 1974; Sch neid er, 1975and corporate culture (e.g. . Deal & Kennedy1982; MarshaU, 1982; Pettigrew, 1979). Again, aindividual is using a work context self-leadershistrategy by choosing and working to createsocial psychological work context that contributes to natural enjoyment of task performance.Task Performa nce Process Strategies. Anotheapproach for exercising self-leadership is to builnatural rewards into the process of performingthat is, to focus on how the task is performedThe challenge for the self-leading individual ito discover what activities provide him/her wit"natural" rewards and then tobuild these activifies into the task process, where possible.A man ag e r , for example , may h a v e a choicregard ing whether to explain a new work procedure to a subordinate through a memo or face-toface communica t ion . If d o cu men ta t io n is noessential, a manager might choose oral communication because he/she finds the task proce ss tbe more enjoyable (more natural ly rewarding)These kinds of work proce ss choices that confinual ly a r i se become the base from which selfleadership can be exercised. \i an individual caestablish a reasonable level of self-awarenesregarding what kinds of activities he/she enjoyand perform work consistent with these preferences (where this is possible without jeopardizing performance), self-leadership is e n h a n c e d

An open-ended search for activities that prov id e n a tu r a l r eward s wo u ld be difficult anhighly inefficient. Fortunately, the three naturareward elements: feelings of co mp e ten ce , selcontrol, and purpose , can g u id e in identifyinand building activities into one's work. In essence , the process becom es a self-periormed joanalys is and job redesign, within the limits oone's job specificafions (although these too migh

593


10/17

be negotiated and modified). While an ex p an d edview of cognitive evaluation theory is suggestedh e re as a flexible and genera l bas is for self-initiated job redesign, other theoretical viewscould be used to provide some specific alterna-tive strategies . A self-initiated job characteristicsapproach (e.g . , Hackman & Old h am, 1975; Sims,Szilagyi, & Keller, 1975) to job redesign mightb e one way of exercising self-leadership withinthese broad guidelines. In this approach, indivi-d u a l s use their discretion to define certain as-pects of the performance process to establish en-hanced natural motivation potential for workperformance.Other types of self-leadership strategies couldbe identified beyond those centered on the workcontext or process discussed above . For exam ple,choice of a vocational field or a part icular jobposition in itself can represen t a powerful self-leadership strategy with considerable potentialfor a ffecting the intrinsic enjoyment and motiva-tion derived from work. Another important typeof self-leadership strategy focuses on m a n a g e -ment of thought processes, the subject of the fol-lowing discussion.Seli-Leadership o Thought Patterns. P e r h a p sthe u l t imate goal of se l f - leadersh ip p rac t iceshould be to en ha nc e the effectiveness of employ-ees in managing the i r own thought pat terns. Forex amp le , in addition to sys temat ica l ly manag-ing one's own behavior or alter ing the physicalcontext or the process by which work is per-formed, one can manage h is /her menta l repre-sentation of the work. In a sense , the job is rede-signed mental ly rather than physical ly .A ny job holds both desirab le and u n d es i r ab lee lements for a performer. To the extent that one'smenta l energy is focused on u n p leasan t a sp ec t sof the work (fatigue, pressure, uncertainty, etc.)the work process likely will be e x p e r i e n c e dunfavorably. On the other hand, if desi rab le ele-ments (challenge, learning, variety, etc.) becomethe focus of one ' s menta l energy , the potentialfor motivatio n can be estab lished . This view h oldsobvious similarities to popular ized notions sucha s the p o wer of "positive thinking" (Peale, 1956).There exists more than a little merit, however.

to the notion that an existing reality is m ore inmind of the beholder than in any physical s(e.g.. Beck, 1970; Ellis, 1970;Meichenbaum, 19Leadership approaches that center on m a ning meaning and vision (Berlew, 1979; Ho1977) inc orp ora te pa ral lel logic. Berlew (1979)cussed an essential ly charismatic approacleadership that provides employees with, amother things, "common vision" (e.g. , purpa n d the opportunity for organizat ion membe"feel stronger and more in control of their odest in ies" (a s e n s e of c o m p e t e n c e and scontrol) (p. 347). The logic of self-leadershithought is similar except that the worker tan act ive par i in mentally establishing wowhile states for himself/herself.Recent applicat ions of the schema conceporganizational behavior (e.g., Gioia & Poole,Hastie, 1981; Langer , 1978; Taylor & Croc1981), der iv ed from a schema-based, informatproces sing view (e.g. , G raes ser, Woll, Kowa& Sm ith, 1980), ma ke it app aren t tha t such mtal functioning, that has been character izedbeing "automatic," almost "thoughtless," beyond descr ipt ive power. That is, if consis(similar to habi tual ) way s of processing infotion develop (e.g. , relying on stereotypHamilton, 1979), individuals need not be passubjects but can and frequently do experithese thought processes in a "thoughtful"(Gioia & Manz, 1985; Gioia & Poole, 1984)actively self-managing mental activity (schor otherwise) desired thought patterns capursued .It is beyond the scope of th is paper to adda detai led analysis of how this can be achieIt has been suggested elsewhere (Manz, 198however , that desired thought pat terns migdeveloped by managing internal verbalizaor self-talk (Meichenbaum & Cameron, 19imagery (Bandura , 1969; Cau te la , 1966, 11971; Mahoney, 1974), and one's belief sys(Ellis, 1975; Ellis & Whiteley, 1979). A geillustrative example could be a conscious eto increase menta l energy devoted to workments that provide natural reward value those that do not. The objective is to foste

594


11/17

development of new thought patterns that aidrather than hinder motivation and performance.Overall, it has been argued tha t a broaderself-influence view (self-leadership) recognizesnot only strategies for self-managing behaviorsto meet existing standards, but a lso addressesthe higher-level standards (reasons for behavior)themselves. Thus, self-leadership concerns itselfwith self-leading ongoing self-influence (cyber-netic) systems. An important aspect of this self-leadership process centers on "natura l" rewardsthat foster intrinsic motivation to more fully inte-grate "wants" with "shoulds" in establishing amo re co mp reh en s iv e v iew of e m p l o y e e self-influence. In par t icu lar , the theoret ical v iewdeveloped here suggests that intrinsic motiva-tion derived from feelings of competence , self-control, and purpose is an important componentof self-leadership.Self-Leadership:Some Implications for Theoryand Practice

Some dist inct ions have been drawn betweenexisting employee self-management perspectivesan d a more comprehensive self-leadership view.Self-leadership is conceptualized as a processtha t encompasses behav iora l ly focused self-management s t ra teg ies and further addressesself-regulation of higher- level control standardsto mo re fully reco gniz e the role of intrinsic motiva-tion. Such an expanded view poses signif icantimplications for both theory and practice.It sug gests the existence of at least three self-influence perspectives. The flrst, lab eled he re asemployee seli-regulation, consists of an ongoingcybernetic control process aimed at reducingdeviation from existing standards that are ar-ranged hierarchically. Usually, self-regulation inthe short run occurs automatical ly and adjust-ments are m a d e to help reduce d iscrepanciesfrom established reference points. Control canb e an ch o red to the existing external (e.g. , or-ganization) control system where self-regulationserves as a process to satisfy this system.

Employee seli-management consists of a sof self-manag emen t strategies that are designeto facilitate behaviors that help meet standardIn the imm ediate time period (i.e., negativ e feeback loop) these standards may be establisheby the self-managed individual (e.g. , a self-sgoal of X units of output on a given day). Thself-management strategies (including self-sgoals), however, tend to serve as mechanisms freducing deviation from standards in highelevel control loops (meet job specifications, be"good" em plo yee , etc.). The focus is on behavioto facilitate performance of what "should" bdone .The seli-leadership perspective proposedthis paper represents a broader view of seinfluence. This view includes self-managemestrategies to foster functional behaviors for meeing standa rds; it a lso add resse s how app ropriaor how desirable the s t an d a rd s are themselveIn addition, the self-leadership view goes byond a behavioral focus to more fully recognithe imporiance of intrinsic motivation. Recogntion of individual "wants," in addit ion"shoulds," is viewed as a legitimate aspectself-influence. The self-leadership view moaccurately reflects the concept of free will as issue of why b e h a v i o r is per formed , not juwhether it is personally chosen, by address ithe legitimacy of govern ing s tandards and tintrinsic based "wants" of the individual.These different conc epts ind icate a n eed to dtinguish the specific view of self-influence thatadopted by management theories. Theories thprovide for employee autonomy (e.g. , self-maagement) actually may represent efforis to cotrol employees through achieving greater devition reduction at higher levels of control. Ostu dy (M anz & A ng le , 1985), for e x a m p l e , dscribed an insurance firm that introduced sem an ag ed work grou ps (almost universal ly vieed as a mech an i sm for increasing worker atonomy) apparen t ly to increase con t ro l ovinsurance sales people in complying with company procedures and goals .

595


12/17

Indeed, the whole notion of employee free-dom and au tonomy in ex is t ing managementtheories deserves closer scrutiny in the light ofdiffering perspectives on em ploy ee self-influence.Future research should address the implicationsof different kinds of au tonomy and self-control atdifferent levels of control (e.g. , over immediatebehavior, over work system standards, over theorganizational mission, etc.) . Questions such as"What are the implications (in terms of commit-ment, performance, ethics, etc.) of worker in-volvement strategies that seek employee pariici-pation to meet goals established by executivemanagement vs. programs that involve employ-ees in establishing higher-level organizationaland personal goals?" are especially relevant.The self-leadership view posited in th is paperalso suggests several self-leadership strategiesthat are b a s e d on the in tr insic motivationalaspec ts of work. They offer the potential to mak eemployee self-control more universal. After all,if the ideal of having em ployees experience theirwork as a natural ly enjoyed act ivi ty can beachieved, theoretically, autonomous work per-formance should be as natura l as play. The logichere is similar to ear ly par t ic ipa t ive manage-ment theorists (e.g., Argyris, 1964; McGregor ,1960), who suggested tha t when a person is per-forming because of the r eward v a lu e of the taskprocess itself, the potential for greater commit-ment to the task is established.Realistically, however, such an idea l is likelyto rema in an objective that can be continuouslypursued but never completely achieved. As aconse quence , self- leadership for every employeem ay not be feasible. Some persons will be bettercan d id a te s for self-leadership than others. Forexample , if the v a lu es and beliefs of the organ i -zation are not sufficiently congruent with thoseof the emp lo y ees the potential for b reak d o wn s inthe control process and for suboptimized out-comes is increased . Converse ly , the feasibilityof self-leadership for a specif ic employee whosewo rk v a lu es are high ly d iscrepan t f rom the

organization's may seem quite low. Such a sition may pose a difficult dilemma; shouldorganization opt for employee compliance baon externa l control or should it acc ep t lower ornizationally valued employee output in the srun in order to encourage employee commitmand self-leadership capability in order to lettwo value systems hopefully converge over tiNot every e mp loyee may a p p e a r to warran tinvestment entailed in the latter alternative,achieving the ideal of an organization consin g of highly committed self-led employees mrequire that such hard choices be m a d e .

Conclus ionsThe recent attention to self-influence procehas cha l lenged researchers and practitionerrethink many of their fundamental assumptiregarding organizat ional research and pract

Indeed, employee self-control should be viea s a central element of imporiant organizat ioprocesses such as leade rship, control, and ma g e m e n t in general . The employee self-manament literature, however, typically has centeon a set of behaviorally focused strategies tend to diveri attention away from, or overlthe reasons the behavior is being self-managA more comprehensive self- leadershipspective has been proposed to more fully addthe higher- level standa rds/rea sons that emploself-influence is performed and to suggestinfluence s trategie s that allow the intrinsic vof work to help enhance individual performaFurther research and theoret ical developmen e e d e d to address severa l cen t ra l e lemenself-influencefor example, the deriv ation ofsonal s tandards at multiple hierarchical levhu m an thou ght patterns, self-influence stratethat build motivation into target behaviorshave been neg lec ted in the employee self-magement l i terature. This paper is in tended ta first step in a d v a n c i n g the existing litertoward such a broader self- leadership perstive.

596


13/17

ReferencesAbelson, R. P. (1981) Psychologica l statu s of the ScriptConcept. American Psychologist, 36, 715 729.Andrasik, F., & Heim berg, J. S. (1982) Self-m anag em entprocedures. In L. W. Frederikson (Ed.), Handbook oforganizational behavior management (pp. 219247). NewYork: Wiley.Argyris, C. (1964) Integrating the individual and the organi-zation. New York: Wiley.Argyris, C. (1982a) Reasoning, learning and action: Individ-ual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Argyris, C. (1982b) The executive mind and double-looplearning. Organizaiionai Dynamics, 11, 522.Bandura, A. (1969) Principles of behavior modification. NewYork: Holt, Flinehart, and Winston.Bandura, A. (1977a) Social earning theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-H all.Bandura, A. (1977b) Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theoryof behavioral chan ge. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1978) The self system in a reciprocal deter-minism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.Ban dura, A. (1982) Self-efficacy m ech an ism in hu m anagency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.Beck, A. T. (1970) Cognitive therapy: Nature and the relationto behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 1, 184-200.Benware, C , & Deci, E. L. (1975) Attitude change as a func-tion on the induc eme nt for espo using a pro-attitudinal com-munication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,11, 271-278.Berlew, D. E. (1979) Leadership and organizational excite-ment. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, & J. M. Mclntyre (Eds.),Organizational psychology: A book of readings(pp. 343-356). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bem ardin, H.J., & Beatty, R. W. ( 1984) Performanceappraisai;Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent Publish-ing Co.Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975) The se lf-perception of intrin-sic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 35, 599-605.Camman, C, & Nadler, D. (1976) Fit control systems to yourman agerial style. Harvard Business Review, 54(1), 65 -7 2.Ca rve r, C. S., & Sche ier, M. F. (1981) Afienfion an d self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior.New York: Springer-Verlag.Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982) Control theory: A use-ful conceptual framework for personalitysocial, clinicaland health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92,111-135.

Cautela, J. R. (1966) Treatment of compulsive behavior bycovert sensitization. Psychological Record, 16, 33-41.Cautela, J. R. (1967) Covert sensitization. Psychological Reports, 20, 459-468 .Ca ute la, J. R. (1969) Behavior th erapy an d self-control: Techniques and implications. In CM. Franks (Ed.), Behaviotherapy: Appraisal and status (pp. 323340). New YorkMcGraw-Hill.Cautela, J. R. (1971) Coverf modeling. Paper presented athe Association for the Advancement of Behavior TherapyWashington, DC.Daniel, T. L., 8f Esser, J. K. ( 1980) Intrinsic motivation as inflenced by rewa rds, task interest, an d task structure. Journof Applied Psychology, 65, 566573.Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980) A social learning approach to organizational beh avior. Academy of Management Review, 5, 281-290.Deal, T. E., & Kenn edy , A. A. (1982) Corporate cuiiureReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.deCharms, R. (1968) Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York:Academic PresDeci, E. L. (1971) Effects of externally mediated rewards ointrinsic m otivation. Journal of Personality and Social Pschology, 18, 105-115.Deci, E. L. (1975a) Intrinsic motivation. New York: PlenumDeci, E. L. (1975b) Notes on the theory and metatheory ointrinsic motivation. Organizafionai Behavior and HumaPerformance, 15, 130-145.Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, S. ( 1981 ) Characteristicthe rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardeJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1 1Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1980) The empirical exploration intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (EdAdvances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1pp. 39-80). New York: Academic Press.Dennett, D. C. (1984) Elbow room: The varieties of free wworth wanting. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Dunba r, R. L. M. (1981) Des igns for orga niza tional control.W. Starbuck & P. Nystrom (Eds.), Handbook of organi

tions (pp. 85-115). New York: Oxford University Press.Ellis, A. (1970) The essence of rational psychotherapy: A coprehensive approach to treatment. New York: Institute fRational Living.Ellis, A. (1975) A new guide to rafionaJ iiving. EnglewoCliffs, NJ: Pren tice-Hall.

597


14/17

Ellis, A ., & Whiteley, J. M. (Eds.)(1979)Theoreficaiandempiri-cal foundations of rational emotive therapy. Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole.Fan", J. L. (1976) Task characteristics, reward contingency,and intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 16, 294 -307.Farr, J. L., Vance, R. J., & Mclntyre, R. M. (1977) Further ex-amination of the relationship between reward contingen-cy and intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 20, 3153.Feldman, J. M. (1981) Beyond attribution theory: Cognitiveprocesses in performance evaluation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 66, 127-148.Field, R. H. G., & Abelson, M. A. (1982) Cmate: A recon-ceptualization and proposed model. Human Relations, 35,131-201.Gioia, D. A., & Manz, C. C. (1985) Linking cognition an dbehavior: A script processing interpretation of vicariouslearning. Academ y o/M anag em ent feview, 10, 527-539.Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984) Scripts in o rgan ization albehavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449459.Go ldfried, M. R., & M erb au m , M. (Eds.) (1973) Behaviorchange through self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart, an dWinston.Gr aess er, A. C , Woll, S. B., Kowalski, D. J., & Smith, D. A.(1980) Memory for typical and atypical actions in scriptedactivities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 503-515 .Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979) Attributional processesof leaders in leader-member interactions. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 23, 429458.Greene, D., & Lep per, M. R. (1974) Effects of extrinsic rew ardon children s subse quen t intrinsic interest. Child Develop-

ment, 45, 1141-1145.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) Development of thejob diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,159-170.Hamilton, D. L. (1979) A cognitive-attributional analysis ofstereotyping. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi-mental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 5384). New York:Academic Press.Hastie, R. (1981) Schematic principles in human memory. InE. T. Higgins, C. P. Herm an, an dM . P. Sanna(E ds.), Socialcognition (Vol. 1, pp. 39-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hcrtvany, N., & Pucik, V. (1981a) An integrated m an ag em entsystem: Lessons from the Japanese expenence. Academyof Management Review, 6, 469480.Hatvany, N., & Pucik, V. (1981b) Japa nese m ana gem ent prac-tices an d productivity. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 5-21 .

HeUriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1974) O rga niz aticlimate: Measures, research and contingencies. Acadof Management Journal, 17, 255280.Hoffman, M. L. (1981) Is altruism par t of hum an natJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121House, R. J. (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadershJ. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cuedge (pp. 189207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinoisversity Press.Ilgen, D., Fisher, C , & Taylor, M. S. (1979) Conse que ncindividual feedback on behavio r in organizations. Joof Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.Kanfer, F. H. (1970) Self-regulation: Research, issuesspe cul atio ns. In C. Ne urin ger & J. L. Mich ael (EBehavior modification in clinical psychology (pp. 178New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Kerr, S., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1981) ControUing the pemance of p^eople in organization. In W. StarbuckNystrom (Eds.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 116-New York: Oxford University Press.Kruglanski, A. W., Alon, S., & Lewis, T. (1972) Retrospe

miscrttribution and task enjoyment. Journal of Experital Social Psychology, 8, 493-501.Langer, E. J. (1978) Rethinking the role of thought in sinteraction. InJ. H. Harv ey, W . J. Ickes, &R. F. Kidd(ENew directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp . 35Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Lawler, E. E. (1976) Contirol system s in organ izations. InDunnette (Ed. ), Handbook of industrial and organizatpsychology {pp. 1247-1291). Chicago: Rand-McNallLawler, E. E., 8f Rhode, J. G. (1976)/n/orma(ion and conforganizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.Lazarus, R. S. (1956) Subception: Fact or artifact? a repEriksen. Psychology Review, 63, 343-347.Lepper, M. R., & G re en e, D. (1975) Turning pla y into Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewardchildren s intrinsic motivation. Journa l of PersonalitySocial Psychology, 31, 479-486.Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., 8f Nisbett, R. E. (1973) Umining children s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewA test of the overjustification hyp othes is. Journal osonality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.Locke, E., S haw , K., S aar i, L., & Lath am , G . (1981)setting and task performance: 1969-1980. PsycholoBulletm, 90, 125-152.Luthans, F., & Davis, T. (1979) Behavioral self-manag(BSM): The m issing link in m an ag er ia l effectiveOrganizational Dynamics, 8, 42-60.

598


15/17

ahoney, M. J. (1974) Cognition and behavior modification.Cambridge: Ballinger.ahoney, M. J., & Amkoff, D. B. (1978) Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Borgin (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy and therapy change (pp.689-722). New York: Wiley.

Mahoney, M. J., & Amkoff, D. B. (1979) Self-management:Theory, resea rch an d application. In. J. P. Brady & D.Pomerleau (Eds. ), Behavioral medicine: Theory and prac-tice (pp. 75-96). Baltimore: Williams and Williams.ahoney, M. J., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.) (1974) Self-control:Power to the person. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.anz, C. C. (1979) Sources of control: A behavior modifica-tion perspective. Proceedings: Eastern Academy of Man-agement, 82-88.anz, C. C. (1983a) The art of self-leadership : Strategies forpersona l effectiveness in your life and work. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prence-Hall.

self-leadership. National Productivity Review, 2, 288-297.C. C, & A ng le, H. L. (1985) Does group self-management mean a loss of personal control?: Triangulat-ing on a paradox. Paper p resented at the annu al meetingof the National Acad emy of Mana gem ent, San D iego.

, C. C , Mossholder, K. W., & Luthan s, F. (in press)An integrated perspective of self-control in organizations.Administration and Society.C. C, & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980) Self-management as asubstitute for leader ship : A social le arnin g theory {perspec-tive. Academy of Managem ent Review, 5, 361-367.C. C, k Sims, H. P., Jr. (1981) Vicarious learning: The

influence of modeling on organizational behavior.Academy of Managem ent Review, 6, 105- 113.(1982) Organiza tional culture : Elements in its por-traiture and some implications for organization functioning.Group and Organization Studies, 7, 367-384.

A model for maintenance of behavior change. Academyof Managem ent Review, 7, 433441.The human side of the enterprise. NewYork: M cGraw-H ill.

Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change.(pp. 357-391). New York: Pergamon.& Ca m ero n, R. (1974) The clinical poten-tial of modifying wh at clients say to them selve s. In M. J.Ma hone y & C. E. Tho resen (Eds.), Self-control: Power tothe person (pp. 263-290). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mills, P. K. (1983) Self-managem ent: Its control an d relation-ship to other organizational properties. Academy of Man-agement Review, 8, 445-453.Mitchell, T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E. ( 1981 ) Anattribtional model of leadership and the p>oor performing sub-ordinate: Development and validation. In B. Staw & LCummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 3, pp . 197-234). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .Mitchell, T. R., La rson, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1977) Lead er

behavior, situational moderators and group performanceAn attnbutional analysis. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 18, 254-268.Ouchi, W. G. (1981a) Theory Z: How American business cameet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ouchi, W. G. (1981b) Organizational paradigms: A commentary of Japanese management and theory Z organizationsOrganizational Dynamics, 10, 36-43.Ouch i, W. G., & Jaeger, A. M. (1978) Type Z organiza tionStability in the midst of mobility. Academy of Management Review, 3, 305-313.Ouchi, W. G., & Price, R. L. (1978) Hiera rchies , c lans a ndtheory Z: A new perspective on organizational development. Organizational Dynamics, 7, 25-44.Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981) The art of Japanesmanagement. New York: Simon and Schuster.Peale, N. V. ( 1956) The pow er o /positive fhinidng. New YorSpire Books.Pete rs, T. J., & W ate rm an , R. H., Jr. (1982) n search oexcellence: Lessons from America's best run companiesNew York: Harper & Row.Pettigrew, A. M. (1979) On studying organizational culturesAdmmistrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1980) De term inants of intrinsimotivation: Locus of control and comp>etence informationas components of Deci 's cognitive evaluation theoryJournal of Applied Psychology, 65, 211218.Powers, W. T. (1973a) Behavior: The control of perceptionChicago: A ldine.Powers, W. T. (1973b) Feedba ck: Beyond beha viorismScience, 179, 351-356.Rychlak, J. F. (1979) Discovering free will and persona

responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Schank, R. C , & Abelson, R. P. (1977) Scripts, plans, goaand understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Schelling, T. C . (1980) The intimate con test for self-comm anThe Public Interest, No. 60, 94-118 .

599


16/17

Schneider, B. (1975) Organizational climates: An essay.Personal Psychology. 28, 447-479.Scott, W. E., Jr. (1975) The effects of extrinsic r ew ard s on intrin-sic motivation: A critique. Organizafionai Behavior andHuman Performance, 15, 117-129.Selye, H. (1974) Stress without distress. New York: Signet.Sims, H. P., Jr., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. (1975) The mea-surem ent of job characteristics. Academy of ManagementJournal, 19, 195-212.Staw, B. M. (1975) Attribution of the "causes " of p>erformance:A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectionalresearch on organizations. Organizafionai Behavior andHuman Performance, 13, 414 432.Sullivan, J. G. (1983) A critique of theory Z. Acad emy of Man-agement feview, 8, 132-142.

Taylor, M. S., Fisher, CD.. 8c gen , D. R. (1984) Indireactions to performanc e feedback in organizations:trol theory persp^ective. In K. Rowland & G. FerrisResearch in personnel and hum an resources mament. (Vol. 2, pp. 81-124). JAI Press.Taylor, S. E., & Crock er, J. (1981) Schem atic ba se s ofinformation proce ssing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. H ermM. P. Zanna (Eds.), Sociai cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 89Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Tannenbaum, A. (1962) Control in organizations: Indi

adjustment and organizational p>erformance. Adtrative Science Quarterly, 1, 236257.Thoresen, C. E., & Mahon ey, M. J. (1974) eha vioracontrol. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.White, R. W. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concompetence. Psychology Review. 66, 297333.

Charles C. Manz is Assistant Professor of Manage-ment in the Department of Strategic Managem ent andOrganization, School of Managem ent, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis.

600


17/17

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Self Leadership Content Server