No Plagiarism Please!!!No Plagiarism Please!!!
Self-Leadership: A Multile\fel Re\fiew
Gre\b L. Stewart
Stephen H. Courtri\bht
University of Iowa
Charles C. Manz
University of Massachusetts\f Amherst
Over the \bast 30 years substantial research has focused on the conce\bt of self-leadershi\b. The
authors ado\bt a multilevel \bers\bective to review this research at both individual and team levels
of analysis. At the individual level\f studies consistently show that increased self-leadershi\b cor-
res\bonds with better affective res\bonses and im\broved work \berformance. Findings are not as
consistent at the team level. Relationshi\bs between team-level self-leadershi\b and both affective
and \berformance outcomes a\b\bear to be moderated by contextual factors. The authors also identify
internal and external forces that influence self-leadershi\b. Among these forces\f external leader-
shi\b is \barticularly im\bortant\f as self-leadershi\b is not a com\blete substitute for external leader-
shi\b. S\becifically\f external leadershi\b in the forms of em\bowering leadershi\b and shared
leadershi\b facilitate self-leadershi\b of individuals and teams. The authors also identify a number
of cross-level research questions that illustrate how future research can benefit from ex\bloring
ways that self-leadershi\b at the individual level interacts with self-leadershi\b at the team level.
Keywords:
s
elf-leadershi\b; teams; self-management; self-managing teams; multilevel analysis
Mana\bement research places a \breat deal of emphasis on understandin\b leadership. The
primary focus has historically been on explorin\b how super\fisors and leaders influence fol-
lowers. A different perspecti\fe, which was introduced to the mana\bement literature 30 years
a\bo (Manz & Sims, 1980), takes an alternati\fe approach by focusin\b on how people mana\be
and lead themsel\fes. Self-leadership posits that e\fen thou\bh beha\fior is often supported by
external forces such as a leader, actions are ultimately controlled by internal rather than external
185
Corres\bonding author: Greg L. Stewart\f De\bartment of Management and Organizations\f Ti\b\bie College of
Business\f University of Iowa\f Iowa City\f IA 52242-1994
E-mail: [email protected]\uu
Journal of Mana\bement
Vol. 37 No. 1, January 2011 185-222 DOI: 10.1177/01492063103839\t11 © The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sa\bepub.com/journals\tPermissions.na\f 186 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
forces (Manz, 1986). Three decades of studies combined with increasin\b interest in internal
re\bulation (Boekaer\tts, Pintrich, & Zeid\tner, 2000; Brockner\t & Hi\b\bins, 2001; K\tanfer, Chen,
& Pritchard, 2008) create a need for a re\fiew of self-leadership research.
A particular area of contribution for a self-leadership re\fiew is the inte\bration of research
findin\bs across le\fels of analysis. Althou\bh initially de\feloped in terms of indi\fidual employ-
ees leadin\b themsel\fes, the concept of self-leadership has been extended to the \broup le\fel
of analysis (Campion, Medsker, & Hi\b\bs, 1993; Cummin\bs, 1978; Hackman, 1987). Collecti\fe
\broups of employees are seen as ha\fin\b the capacity to re\bulate their beha\fior internally.
Self-leadership is thus a concept that spans or\banizational le\fels and ties to\bether research
at indi\fidual and \broup le\fels of analysis. Yet, most research on self-leadership has not taken
into account the multile\fel implications of self-leadership. We thus belie\fe that some of the
most interestin\b and no\fel conclusions about self-leadership, as well as a\fenues for future
work, can be identified only by lookin\b across le\fels. Indeed, assessin\b how internal control
at one le\fel affects the process of internal control at the other le\fel can offer unique insi\bhts. A major focus of this re\fiew is an emphasis on multile\fel aspects of self-leadership. We
accomplish this by first definin\b self-leadership and re\fiewin\b its historical pro\bression. We
then re\fiew measurement issues. We next examine outcomes that ha\fe been linked to self-
leadership at both indi\fidual and team le\fels. We then pro\fide a comprehensi\fe re\fiew of
internal forces that influence self-leadership at both le\fels, followed by a similar re\fiew of
external forces. A subsequent section explores cross-le\fel issues that are be\binnin\b to emer\be.
Construct Definition and Historical Context
A theoretical framework for self-leadership presented by Manz (1986) is shown in Fi\bure 1
and is lar\bely \brounded in the broader concept of control theory (Car\fer & Scheier, 1982).
From this perspecti\fe, an entity (e.\b., indi\fidual or team) self-re\bulates by first percei\fin\b
the situation and comparin\b its current state with identified standards. Next, a \bap between
the entity’s current state and desired state is addressed by en\ba\bin\b in beha\fior to reduce the
discrepancy from standards. The impact of new beha\fior is then assessed and incorporated
as feedback into a perception of the situation, which be\bins the self-re\bulation cycle anew.
In essence, self-leadership occurs when teams and indi\fiduals percei\fe a situation, choose
to en\ba\be in beha\fior to ali\bn actions with standards, monitor acti\fities and co\bnitions to
encoura\be the desired beha\fior, and then assess how the beha\fior influences the situation
(Manz, 1986). The extent of self-leadership increases to the de\bree that indi\fiduals and teams
not only re\bulate compliance with external standards but also internally establish those stan-
dards. In order to clearly define self-leadership, and to place the construct in its proper his-
torical perspecti\fe, we re\fiew research at both the indi\fidual and team le\fels of analysis.
Self-Leadershi\b for Individuals
A classic definition of self-control (alternati\fely referred to as self-management) was
offered se\feral decades a\bo in the clinical psycholo\by literature by Thoresen and Mahoney Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 187
(1974): “A person displays self-control when in the relati\fe absence of immediate external
constraints he or she en\ba\bes in beha\fior whose pre\fious probability has been less than that
of alternati\fely a\failable beha\fiors” (p. 12). The o\ferridin\b concern of much of the related
research and writin\b was on discipline-oriented application of primarily beha\fiorally focused
self-influence strate\bies to reduce or eliminate undesired beha\fiors (e.\b., smokin\b, o\fereat-
in\b) and increase alternati\fe desired beha\fiors (e.\b., exercise, dietin\b).The notion of self-influence subsequently recei\fed si\bnificant attention in the or\baniza-
tion literature (cf. Andrasik & Heimber\b, 1982; Cohen, Chan\b, & Ledford, 1997; Luthans &
Da\fis, 1979; Manz, 1986; Manz & Sims, 1980, 1987). Early work drew from social learnin\b
and beha\fioral modification theories (Bandura, 1986; Luthans & Kreitner, 1985) and espe-
cially focused on the self-management of en\fironmental antecedents and consequences of
beha\fior (Cohen et al., 1997; Manz & Sims, 1987; Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998). More specifi-
cally, it examined t\the de\felopment and \tpractice of a \fariety\t of strate\bies for i\tndi\fidual self-
influence (Andrasik & Heimber\b, 1982; Hackman, 1986; Luthans & Da\fis, 1979; Manz,
1986; Manz & Sims, 1980; Neck & Manz, 2010). These strate\bies include self-obser\fation,
self-mana\bement of cues, self–\boal settin\b, self-reward/criticism\t, and rehearsal. Self-obser\fation fosters awareness of when certain beha\fiors occur and why they are
chosen. This enhanced self-knowled\be can pro\fide information about beha\fiors that need to
be stren\bthened, eliminated, or chan\bed (Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1979). Self-awareness \buides
other self-leadership beha\fiors such as self–\boal settin\b (Manz, 1986; Manz & Sims, 1980;
Neck & Manz, 2010). Si\bnificant research has supported the role of settin\b and acceptin\b
Fi\fure 1
Theoretical Fra\bework for Self-Leadership
Comparison to
External/Internal Standards \fcognition)
\bction to Reduce
Discrepancy from S\dtandards \fbehavior)
Impact on Situatio\dn\fenvironment)
Perception of Situa\dtion \fcognition)
Fi\bure adapted from Manz (1986). 188 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
specific, challen\bin\b, but achie\fable \boals for facilitatin\b moti\fation to increase indi\fidual
performance (Locke & Latham, 1990), and writin\bs on self-leadership reco\bnize that indi-
\fiduals can set their own \boals to promote performance (Manz & Sims, 1980, 1990). In addi-
tion, self-reward can support and pro\fide incenti\fes for desired beha\fiors and \boal attainment
(Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1979; Manz & Sims, 1980; Neck & Manz, 2010). Self-rewards can
\fary from self-applied tan\bible incenti\fes, such as a \facation or a meal at a fa\forite restau-
rant, or more co\bniti\fely based rewards, such as positi\fe mental ima\bes or self-praise for
completin\b challen\bin\b tasks. Self-criticism is an additional strate\by for self-influence of
beha\fior. Howe\fer, self-criticism, especially when it is in the form of habitual self-punishment
and \built, has \benerally recei\fed mixed to ne\bati\fe support as a self-leadership strate\by
(Manz & Sims, 2001). Finally, beha\fioral rehearsal (or practice) prior to actual performance can
promote refinement, impro\fement, and correcti\fe adjustments for \breater indi\fidual effecti\fe-
ness with less costly errors (Manz, 1992; Manz & Sims, 1980; Thoresen & Mahoney, 1974).
More recently the concept of self-leadershi\b has been introduced at least partly to distin-
\buish between different le\fels of self-influence and to pro\fide a broader, more encompassin\b
perspecti\fe that inclu\tdes but looks beyon\td a primarily disci\tpline and beha\fiora\tlly \brounded
self-mana\bement process. Consistent with the perspecti\fe we take in this re\fiew, Neck and
Manz (2010, p. 4) broadly define self-leadership as “the process of influencin\b oneself.”
Manz (1986), who ori\binally introduced the concept (see e.\b., Manz, 1983), described self-
leadership as “a comprehensi\fe self-influence perspecti\fe that concerns leadin\b oneself
toward performance of naturally moti\fatin\b tasks as well as mana\bin\b oneself to do work
that must be done but is not naturally moti\fatin\b” (p. 589). He also went on to point out that
the self-leadership concept is distin\buished from other related concepts such as self-control
or self-mana\bement by allowin\b for addressin\b hi\bher le\fel standards that \bo\fern self-
influence, more fully incorporatin\b intrinsic moti\fation, and pro\fidin\b for a wider ran\be of
self-influence strate\bies (beha\fioral, co\bniti\fe, and intrinsically moti\fatin\b). Specific self-
leadership strate\bies include buildin\b natural rewards into tasks, self-mana\bement of beliefs/
assumptions/mental \tima\bes, self-dialo\bue, and thou\bht patterns (Neck & Hou\bhton, 2006). Manz (1991) further clarified the distinctness of self-leadership from self-mana\bement
by usin\b three underlyin\b questions: “What?” “Why?” and “How?” He specifically described
self-mana\bement as
a self-influence process and set of strate\bies that primarily address how work is performed to
help meet standards and objecti\fes that are typically externally set
.
.
.
[it]
tends to rely on
extrinsic moti\fation and to focus on beha\fior. (p. 17)
Alternati\fely, he described self-leadership as
a self-influence process and set of strate\bies that address what is to be done (e.\b., standards and
objecti\fes) and why (e.\b., strate\bic analysis) as well as how it is to be done
.
.
.
[it]
incorporates
intrinsic moti\fation and has an increased focus on co\bniti\fe processes. (p. 17)
Amon\b other thin\bs, this emphasizes that self-mana\bement processes are dependent on extrinsic
incenti\fes (e.\b., pay and other external rewards for an employee performin\b autonomous work) Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 189
whereas self-leadership is less dri\fen by external forces, thou\bh still allows for influences
such as the empowerin\b actions of a leader who creates intrinsic reward opportunities as well
as external incenti\fes. As will be discussed in more detail, there is somewhat of a paradox
in that external leadership (focused on empowerin\b and facilitatin\b indi\fidual and team self-
leadership) can not only be consistent with but is usually a necessary component of effecti\fe
self-leadership in practice (Manz, 1991; Manz & Sims, 1987, 1990, 1991).
Self-Leadershi\b for Teams
The concepts of self-mana\bement and self-leadership ha\fe both been extended to the
team le\fel of analysis. The roots of team-le\fel self-influence can be traced to work desi\bn
theories such as job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and socio-technical
systems theory (Cummin\bs, 1978). These work desi\bn theories operate under the premise
that teams, rather than indi\fiduals, are the rele\fant unit of analysis. Unlike traditionally man-
a\bed teams where members ha\fe little autonomy and limited decision-makin\b authority,
workers in self-mana\bin\b or self-leadin\b teams are \bi\fen authority o\fer work processes and
are allowed to re\bulate their own beha\fior. For example, such teams \benerally ha\fe the
authority to select and terminate workers, set their own work schedules, determine bud\bets,
order materials needed for production, and monitor product quality (Barker, 1993; Stewart,
Manz, & Sims, 1999). Howe\fer, as \broup-le\fel self-mana\bement was emer\bin\b as an important concept in the
teams literature, some researchers raised questions about the extent to which employees were
actually self-mana\bed in so-called self-mana\bin\b contexts (Dunbar, 1981; Mills, 1983;
Perlmutter & Monty, 1977). As one example, in a study of an insurance firm it was found
that “self-mana\bin\b” teams were introduced by the CEO to reduce the personal control of
pre\fiously hi\bhly autonomous sales people (Manz & An\ble, 1986). Another study con-
cluded that an “iron ca\be” of new controls was created that resulted in employees bein\b more
closely controlled than prior to the introduction of “self-mana\bement” (Barker, 1993). Thus,
while some researchers ha\fe \fiewed the terms self-managing and self-leading teams as bein\b
synonymous, Manz (1990, 1991, 1992) and his collea\bues (e.\b., Neck and Manz, 2010) ha\fe
clearly distin\buished the two in terms of the amount of self-influence they actually allow for
or\banization members. Makin\b such distinctions is consistent with the work of other researchers who ha\fe
addressed similar questions. For example, Hackman (1986) distin\buished between teams dif-
ferin\b in the de\bree of responsibility and authority allowed members in the areas of work per
-
f
ormance, monitorin\b and mana\bin\b the work, desi\bnin\b and modifyin\b the work unit and
its context, and pro\fidin\b o\ferall direction for the unit’s efforts. His resultin\b cate\bories of
teams, ran\bin\b from less to more o\ferall self-influence, included externally mana\bed, self-
mana\bed, self-desi\bnin\b, and self-\bo\fernin\b teams. Parallel kinds of distinctions ha\fe also
been made by other scholars, includin\b Lawler (1986, 1988) and Walton (1985). Manz and
Stewart (1997) also contrasted Total Quality Mana\bement (TQM) with a Sociotechnical Systems
(STS) perspecti\fe and su\b\bested that STS \boes beyond the TQM notion of \fariance reduc-
tion and standardization to focus on de\fiation amplification and \breater internal autonomy. 190 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Ultimately, Manz (1990, 1991, 1992) assessed de\bree of team self-leadership in a way that
is consistent with distinctions made at the indi\fidual le\fel: for example, dependin\b on the
de\bree that teams were allowed to exercise self-influence o\fer the what (standards and objec-
ti\fes), why (\falues and strate\bic reasons for the objecti\fes), and how (the actual performance
of the work) of work team performance.
Summary
It is clear from both the indi\fidual- and team-le\fel perspecti\fes that self-leadership is not
a discrete construct. Rather, as depicted in Fi\bure 2, self-leadership falls alon\b a continuum
ran\bin\b from low for beha\fior that is externally \bo\ferned to hi\bh for indi\fiduals or teams who
determine not only how to carry out tasks but also what those tasks are and why they should
be done (Manz, 1992). Between external control and self-leadership lies self-mana\bement,
which as noted earlier, entails indi\fiduals and teams determinin\b primarily how to carry out
tasks but not what the tasks are and why they should be done. Thus, the lower end of the
self-leadership continuum would be described as an indi\fidual or team whose work stan-
dards are established solely by upper mana\bement. Indi\fiduals or teams mo\fe further up the
continuum when they also address what the standards and objecti\fes are and why they ha\fe
been chosen. That said, the continuous nature of the self-leadership construct has often been i\bnored,
particularly at the team le\fel. Indeed, e\fen thou\bh studies in the literature often refer to teams
bein\b studied as self-mana\bin\b or self-leadin\b, this i\bnores the fact that the construct is
continuous rather than discrete (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson,
2004). For instance, it is possible that a so-called self-mana\bin\b team could in fact be on the
far ri\bht of the self-leadership continuum, but because team-le\fel studies ha\fe lar\bely disre-
\barded the continuous nature of the self-leadership construct, the de\bree of internal control
within the teams bein\b studied is not readily apparent. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, in
this re\fiew we use the broader term of self-leadershi\b to refer to any indi\fiduals and teams
that are somewhere alon\b the self-leadership continuum beyond external control and include
studies that indicated the indi\fiduals or teams under examination had at least some de\bree
of internal control.
Fi\fure 2
Continuu\b of Self-Leadership at Individual and Tea\b Levels
Externally managed
No influence over What, How, an\f Why of Work
De\ben\fent only on extrinsic incentives Self-management
Influence over How of work
Mainly \fe\ben\fent on extrinsic incentives Self-leadershi\f
Influence over What,
How, an\f Why of work
De\ben\fent on intrinsic
an\f extrinsic incentives Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 191
Measure\bent of Self-Leadership
Measurement at the Individual Level
Scales ha\fe been de\feloped specifically to measure self-leadership at the indi\fidual
le\fel. Manz (1993a, 1993b, 1993c) de\feloped a set of initial items desi\bned to capture ele-
ments of both self-mana\bement and self-leadership. Self-mana\bement was conceptualized
as strate\bies for \bettin\b oneself to complete difficult but necessary tasks and was assessed
by scales capturin\b self-obser\fation, cuein\b strate\bies, self–\boal settin\b, self-reward, self-
punishment, and practice. Self-leadership was conceptualized as more intrinsically moti-
\fated and included scales that captured distin\buishin\b natural rewards, buildin\b natural
rewards into work, choosin\b pleasant surroundin\bs, buildin\b naturally rewardin\b acti\fities
into work, focusin\b on pleasant aspects of work, and focusin\b on natural rewards rather than
external rewards. Subsequently, Anderson and Prussia (1997) subjected the Manz scales to content \falida-
tion. Raters placed the ori\binal 90 items into three cate\bories: beha\fiorally focused strate-
\bies, natural reward strate\bies, and creatin\b constructi\fe thou\bht pattern strate\bies. Of the
items, 50 demonstrated a le\fel of rater a\breement sufficient to support content \falidation.
These 50 items were completed by a different sample of participants and subjected to explor-
atory factor analysis. As a result, 10 underlyin\b factors were unco\fered, includin\b self-
obser\fation, self–\boal settin\b, self-cuein\b, self-reward, self-withholdin\b, self-punishment,
focusin\b thou\bhts on natural rewards, e\faluatin\b beliefs and assumptions, self-talk, and
\fisualizin\b successful performance. Each of the 10 scales exhibited adequate reliability. Yet,
the con\fer\bent and discriminant \falidity of the scales was questionable as relationships across
the three broad cate\bories were similar in ma\bnitude to relationships within each cate\bory
(a\fera\be r both of .20). A subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (Prussia, Anderson, &
Manz, 1998) was, howe\fer, consistent with three broad factors underlyin\b the self-leadership
measure. Hou\bhton and Neck (2002) further refined the Anderson and Prussia (1997) measures.
They deleted items with lar\be cross-loadin\bs, reworded some items, and added new items.
Confirmatory factor analysis supported a nine-factor structure for the 35-item scale with
self-obser\fation, self–\boal settin\b, self-cuein\b, self–self-reward, and self-punishment repre-
sentin\b beha\fior-focused strate\bies; focusin\b thou\bhts on natural rewards as a sin\ble indica-
tor of representin\b natural rewards strate\bies; and \fisualizin\b successful performance,
self-talk, and e\faluatin\b beliefs and assumptions representin\b constructi\fe thou\bht strate-
\bies. Sample items include “I establish specific \boals for my own performance,” “I use writ-
ten notes to remind myself of what I need to accomplish,” “I try to surround myself with
objects and people that brin\b out my desirable beha\fiors,” and “I use my ima\bination to
picture myself performin\b well on important tasks.” The factors loaded on a second-order
factor, demonstratin\b the hierarchical nature of the construct. The Hou\bhton and Neck scales
thus offer an empirically supported measurement instrument that captures different aspects
of self-leadership ran\bin\b from beha\fioral aspects of self-mana\bement to more ad\fanced
strate\bies related to co\bniti\fe aspects of true internal control. 192 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Measurement at the Team Level
Self-leadership at the team le\fel has been assessed broadly by capturin\b beha\fiors that
are undertaken internally within the team rather than by an external super\fisor. The notion
of transferrin\b leadership acti\fities from external super\fisors to teams themsel\fes was
ad\fanced by Manz and Sims (1987) and is consistent with the substitutes for leadership
perspecti\fe (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Qualitati\fe and quantitati\fe work by Manz and Sims
(1984, 1987) identified a number of beha\fiors that represent team self-leadership. Teams
exhibit self-leadership when they apply self-control to production mana\bement acti\fities by
initiatin\b beha\fiors such as repairin\b equipment, obtainin\b production materials, performin\b
quality control inspections, preparin\b bud\bets, recommendin\b en\bineerin\b chan\bes, and
shuttin\b down assembly processes if quality is wron\b. Self-leadership also encompasses the
application of self-control principles to coordinate interpersonal interactions. For instance,
teams conduct \broup meetin\bs, establish break schedules, and make specific work assi\bn-
ments. Moreo\fer, self-leadin\b teams perform human resource acti\fities such as selectin\b new
employees, trainin\b each other, keepin\b records of hours worked, e\faluatin\b members for
pay raises, and dismissin\b low performers. In one of the few attempts to actually assess de\bree of self-leadership at the team le\fel,
Stewart and Barrick (2000) asked whether the team or an external leader completed 20 dif-
ferent tasks such as conductin\b meetin\bs, chan\bin\b work processes, and determinin\b o\ferall
business strate\by. They used responses to create a quantitati\fe measure of team self-leadership
and found the measure to adequately capture differences in team-le\fel self-leadership. Teams
performin\b more self-\bo\fernin\b acti\fities were assi\bned a hi\bher le\fel of collecti\fe self-
leadership. Howe\fer, \fery little work has been done to capture \fariation in self-leadership
for teams. Teams are often simply described as self-mana\bin\b, which, as described earlier,
disre\bards the fact that the construct is continuous rather than discrete (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996; Kirkman et al., 2004). Additional work is thus needed to better capture where teams
fall alon\b a continuum from externally led to truly self-leadin\b. Measures of team-le\fel autonomy (e.\b., Campion et al., 1993) can direct efforts to better
capture team self-leadership. Unfortunately most autonomy measures do not address whether
teams internally establish standards and objecti\fes. Yet, a step toward better measurin\b
collecti\fe self-leadership mi\bht be adaptin\b the Work Desi\bn Questionnaire de\feloped by
Mor\beson and Humphrey (2006). Althou\bh tar\beted at indi\fiduals rather than \broups, the
questionnaire assesses three types of autonomy: work schedulin\b, work methods, and deci-
sion makin\b. These concepts seem to fall alon\b a continuum similar to self-leadership in that
autonomy o\fer work schedulin\b and work methods is similar to determinin\b how to complete
tasks, whereas autonomy o\fer decision makin\b \bets closer to determinin\b what to do and why.
Summary
The Hou\bhton and Neck (2002) scales represent a \falidated measure of self-leadership at
the indi\fidual le\fel. The scales seem adequate for capturin\b different facets of self-influence
and are consistent with a conceptualization of self-leadership as a continuous construct that Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 193
ran\bes from external control to more ad\fanced forms of self-control. Measurement is not,
howe\fer, as well de\feloped at the team le\fel of analysis. Additional work is needed to estab-
lish a reliable and \falid measure of the extent to which teams en\ba\be in self-leadership.
Self-Leadership and Associated Outco\bes
Outcomes of Individual Self-Leadershi\b
Considerable research has re\fealed positi\fe effects of self-leadership on work-related
outcomes. These studies ha\fe been conducted in a \fariety of circumstances such as indi\fidual
members in team contexts (Cohen et al., 1997; Manz & Sims, 1987; Uhl-Bien & Graen,
1998), for employee trainees (Frayne & Gerin\ber, 2000; Frayne & Latham, 1987), colle\be
students (Prussia et al., 1998), and employees whose or\banization had experienced bankruptcy
(Neck & Manz, 1996). Table 1 summarizes key results from these studies. A recent study of 308 companies o\fer a 22-year period found increasin\b indi\fidual self-
control to be one of the most effecti\fe methods for impro\fin\b employee producti\fity (Birdi
et al., 2008). Specifically, employee beha\fioral control was found to be more effecti\fe than
alternati\fe mana\bement strate\bies such as lean production. In order to isolate the effects
of employee beha\fioral control, a number of studies ha\fe specifically examined how self-
leadership trainin\b influences employees. These studies (Frayne & Gerin\ber, 2000; Frayne
& Latham, 1987; Godat & Bri\bham, 1999; Latham & Frayne, 1989; Neck & Manz, 1996)
pro\fide support for self-leadership as a set of control strate\bies that can be tau\bht to increase
self-leadership practice and subsequent employee producti\fity. Self-leadership has been shown to result in \breater career success for indi\fiduals (Murphy
& Ensher, 2001; Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007). Greater internal control has been specifically
linked to fa\forable internal states and beliefs such as reduced stress and anxiety (Saks &
Ashforth, 1996) and increased self-efficacy (Latham & Frayne, 1989; Prussia et al., 1998).
Self-leadin\b employees are better adjusted and more confident, which increases the likeli-
hood that they will be successful (Stajko\fic & Luthans, 1998). Increased self-leadership has
also been linked with \breater job satisfaction (Neck & Manz, 1996; Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998)
and reduced absenteeism (Frayne & Latham, 1987; Latham & Frayne, 1989).
Outcomes of Team Self-Leadershi\b
At the team le\fel, research has \benerally compared the effecti\feness of self-mana\bin\b
teams with traditional teams. Table 1 presents a summary of rele\fant studies. The effects of
self-leadership on performance outcomes at the team le\fel are not clear-cut. On the positi\fe
side, the adoption of self-leadin\b teams has been found in some studies to impro\fe team-
le\fel producti\fity relati\fe to traditionally mana\bed teams (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Cordery,
Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997; Fredendall & Emery, 2003; Stewart &
Barrick, 2000; Trist, Susman, & Brown, 1977; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Cle\b\b, 1986). De Dreu
and West (2001) also concluded that teams are most creati\fe when they ha\fe indi\fiduals 194 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Table 1
Literature Review on Outco\bes of Self-Leadership Behavior at Individual and Tea\b Levels
Outcomes Indi\fidual-le\fel
findin\bs Examples of studies Team-le\fel
findin\bs Examples of studies
Producti\fity/quality (+) + Birdi et al. (2008)
+ Frayne and Gerin\ber
(2000) (+, Ø)
+ Stewart and Barrick (2000)
+ Cohen and Ledford (1994)
+ Millikin, Hom, and Manz
(in press)
Ø De\faro (2006)
Creati\fity * * No studies a\failable (+) + DeDreu and West (2001)
Self-efficacy (+)+ Prussia, Anderson,
and Manz (1998)
+ Latham and Frayne (1989) (+)
+ Kirkman and Rosen (1999)
Psycholo\bical empowerment * * No studies a\failable (+)
+ Kirkman and Rosen (1999)
Job satisfaction (+)+ Uhl-Bien and Graen
(1998)
+ Neck and Manz (1996) (+, Ø, –)
+ Wall, Kemp, Jackson, and
Cle\b\b (1986)
Ø Cohen, Chan\b, and Ledford (1997)
– Mueller and Cordery (1992)
Or\banizational
commitment * * No studies a\failable (+, Ø, –)
+ Cordery, Mueller, and
Smith (1991)
Ø Kemp, Wall, Cle\b\b, and Cordery (1983)
– Mueller and Cordery (1992)
Absenteeism (–) – Frayne and Latham
(1987)
– Latham and Frayne (1989) (+, Ø, –)
+ Cordery et al. (1991)
Ø Cohen and Ledford (1994)
– Barker (1993)
Turno\fer * * No studies a\failable (+, –) + Wall et al. (1986)
– Seers, Petty, and Cashman
(1995)
Stress/anxiety (–) – Saks and Ashforth
(1996) (+, –)
+ \fan Mierlo, Rutte, Seinen,
and Kompier (2001)
– Melin, Lundber\b, Soderlund, and Granq\fist
(1999)
Career success (+)+ Murphy and Ensher
(2001)
+ Raabe, Frese, and Beehr (2007) n/a
n/a
Notes: + = studies show increased le\fels of the \fariable (e.\b., hi\bher job satisfaction, hi\bher turno\fer) resultin\b from
self-leadership; Ø = zero difference in le\fel of \fariable resultin\b from self-leadership; – = decreased le\fels of the
\fariable resultin\b from self-leadership (e.\b., lower job satisfaction, lower turno\fer).
who pro\fide ideas and solutions that dissent from the majority consensus, but that such dis-
sent is only helpful when the team has enou\bh internal control to truly mana\be its decision-
makin\b process. Similarly, Gilson and Shalley (2004) found that teams with shared \boals Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 195
and participati\fe decision makin\b had hi\bher le\fels of creati\fity. Research has also tended
to support the relationship between team self-leadership and impro\fed quality (e.\b., Batt &
Applebaum, 1995; De Jon\b, Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2006; Elmuti & Kathawala, 1997).Other studies, howe\fer, do not paint such a uni\fersally “rosy” picture for the effects of
team self-leadership on team performance outcomes. DeVaro (2006) found, for instance,
that closely super\fised teams had output equi\falent to teams with hi\bh internal control.
Furthermore, a meta-analysis on hi\bh-performance work practices by Combs, Liu, Hall, and
Ketchen (2006) re\fealed, based on results from ei\bht studies, that only a modest relationship
(ρ = .06) exists between the adoption of self-leadin\b teams and or\banizational performance.
Barker (1993) also obser\fed that self-leadin\b teams can become dysfunctional o\fer time if
team norms become o\ferly ri\bid. Thus, research related to the outcomes of self-leadership
beha\fior for teams su\b\bests that it may not ha\fe a uni\fersally positi\fe effect on producti\fity
and performance. Research on the effects of team self-leadership on job attitudes and withdrawal beha\fiors
also su\b\bests a mixed situation with potentially moderated relationships. On one hand, se\f-
eral studies ha\fe shown that workers in self-leadin\b teams tend to ha\fe hi\bher le\fels of job
satisfaction (Batt & Applebaum, 1995; Cohen et al., 1997; Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Kemp,
Wall, Cle\b\b, & Cordery, 1983; Pearson, 1992; Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995; Wall & Cle\b\b,
1981; Wall et al., 1986; Weisman, Gordon, Cassard, Ber\bner, & Won\b, 1993) and or\bani-
zational commitment (Batt & Applebaum, 1995; Cohen et al., 1997; Cordery et al., 1991)
than members of traditionally mana\bed teams. Elmuti and Kathawala (1997) showed that team
self-leadership im\tpro\fed team members\t’ quality of work l\tife perceptions. Mel\tin, Lundber\b,
Soderlund, and Granq\fist (1999) also found that self-leadership at the team le\fel induced
less employee stress than traditional work desi\bns. Other studies show no difference in le\fels of job satisfaction (Boonstra, 1998; Cohen
et al., 1997) and or\banizational commitment (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Kemp et al., 1993;
Wall et al., 1986) between workers in self-leadin\b \fersus traditional teams, whereas some
studies ha\fe found that self-leadin\b teams can lead to lower le\fels of satisfaction and com-
mitment (e.\b., Mueller & Cordery, 1992) and hi\bher le\fels of absenteeism and turno\fer
(e.\b., Cordery et al., 1991; Wall et al., 1986). A few studies also show that self-leadin\b teams
can induce more stress and burnout than traditional teams (Barker, 1993; Batt & Applebaum,
1995; \fan Mierlo, Rutte, Seinen, & Kompier, 2001). In addition, the effects of self-leadin\b
teams on job attitudes may be time dependent. For instance, Cordery et al. (1991) found that
self-leadership was initially associated with more fa\forable attitudes than traditional leader-
ship, but that this difference diminished about 20 months after the introduction of self-leadin\b
teams. Finally, Batt (2004) found that while participation in self-leadin\b teams was associ-
ated with hi\bher satisfaction for workers, it had the opposite effect on super\fisors.
Summary and Research Guidance
The \beneral pattern of results related to outcomes su\b\bests that self-leadership is \bener-
ally beneficial at the indi\fidual le\fel but context dependent at the team le\fel. Ha\fin\b indi-
\fiduals re\bulate their own actions is consistently helpful both to them personally and to the 196 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
or\banization. Self-leadin\b employees ha\fe more positi\fe affect at work. They also tend to
ha\fe hi\bher producti\fity and more fulfillin\b careers. In contrast, self-re\bulation at the team
le\fel may not be beneficial and in fact may be harmful in certain contexts. This moderated
relationship exists for both affecti\fe and performance outcomes. One potential moderator is
task type. Team-le\fel self-leadership appears to consistently impro\fe creati\fity. The benefit
of increased creati\fity (De Dreu & West, 2001; Gilson & Shalley, 2004) combined with the
results of Stewart and Barrick (2000), who found relationships with team self-leadership to
be positi\fe for creati\fe tasks but ne\bati\fe for mundane tasks, hi\bhli\bhts task differences.
Self-leadership in teams seems to be most helpful when there is a need for adaptation and
creati\fity. Other potential moderators at the team le\fel will be identified as we re\fiew internal
and external antecedents.
Re\fiewin\b differences in outcomes at the indi\fidual and team le\fels also re\feals some
areas for future study. Althou\bh there is e\fidence of self-leadership impro\fin\b creati\fity for
teams, we could not identify studies examinin\b creati\fity at the indi\fidual le\fel. Many aspects
of self-leadership seemin\bly encoura\be creati\fity. Mental ima\bery should lead to more di\ferse
inputs, and seein\b problems as opportunities rather than obstacles should help increase the
persistence necessary for implementin\b creati\fe ideas (Neck & Manz, 2010). Future work
should thus explore creati\fity for indi\fiduals. We also failed to identify studies related to
or\banizational commitment and turno\fer at the indi\fidual le\fel. This \bap is interestin\b, as
truly self-leadin\b indi\fiduals would lo\bically be expected to be \buided by internal rather
than external standards. It thus seems possible that self-leadin\b indi\fiduals may be less com-
mitted to or\banizations and more likely to lea\fe if the or\banization does not share their
standards. Future work is thus needed to determine if increased self-leadership reduces or\ba-
nizational commitment and increases employee turno\fer. Findin\bs like this would be inter-
estin\b \bi\fen that the research on indi\fidual self-leadership has so far pro\fen to be o\ferwhelmin\bly
positi\fe. Another obser\fation is that e\fen thou\bh the distinction between self-mana\bement and
self-leadership has been ad\fanced theoretically, research does not appear to ha\fe explored
questions about the optimal le\fel of self-leadership at either the indi\fidual or team le\fel.
More studies are needed to determine whether relationships with self-leadership are linear.
Is more self-leadership always better, or can too much internal control e\fentually become
problematic? Can some of the inconsistent findin\bs at the team le\fel be explained by differ-
ences in le\fel of self-leadership? We discuss the possibility of \breater self-leadership not
always bein\b better across le\fels when we look specifically at cross-le\fel issues. Ne\fertheless,
more empirical work is needed to clarify the form of relationships between self-leadership
and outcomes.
Internal Forces
Individual Level
The self-leadership literature has expanded beyond beha\fiorally focused considerations
and external processes to examine internal forces. In particular, the literature has focused on Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 197
the role of intrinsic or natural rewards and the self-influence of thou\bhts (cf. Manz, 1986;
Neck & Manz, 2010). There is also emer\bin\b work in the area of emotion re\bulation.Natural reward. Drawin\b from self-determination \t theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), self-
leadership emphasizes the role of “natural rewards,” or intrinsic rewards deri\fed from perform-
in\b acti\fities themsel\fes, as an important internal force of self-leadership (Manz, 1986).
Specifically, co\bniti\fe self-leadership ad\focates that indi\fiduals can adopt “natural reward
strate\bies” (Neck & Hou\bhton, 2006) to moti\fate themsel\fes by embeddin\b tasks with
intrinsic rewards. Furthermore, they can purposely focus thinkin\b on the natural rewards that
are part of task performance and thereby co\bniti\fely experience intrinsic moti\fation without
necessarily alterin\b the physical nature of tasks (Hou\bhton, Neck, & Manz, 2003; Manz &
Sims, 2001). As an example, nurses can more fa\forably connect with tasks that lack natural
moti\fation, such as bathin\b patients, by focusin\b on how such tasks promote patient comfort
(Ga\bné & Deci, 2005). Thus, by embeddin\b tasks with natural rewards, indi\fiduals are ar\bued
to experience \breater perceptions of control o\fer their work (Manz, 1986). The efficacy of
this natural reward–based self-leadership approach has been discussed and supported. For
example, Il\ben and Hollenbeck (1991) pointed out that most jobs consist of “emer\bent” tasks
that can be redefined by employees to intrinsically enrich the work. Wrzesniewski and
Dutton (2001) supported this assertion, indicatin\b that occupational identities can be crafted
in an upliftin\b manner by some menial laborers throu\bh injectin\b meanin\b into their work
and expandin\b their duties. The importance of intrinsic rewards for self-leadership has been
further emphasized in writin\bs on personal initiati\fe and proacti\fe personality by re\fealin\b
that action-oriented, persistent, self-startin\b persons tend to initiate and adapt work situations
to foster and moti\fate their own hi\bher performance (Frese & Frey, 2001; Seibert, Crant, &
Kraimer, 1999).
Thought self-leadershi\b . Beyond the natural rewards focus, research has examined a \fari-
ety of other specific strate\bies for “thou\bht self-leadership” as a means for indi\fiduals to
mana\be their own thinkin\b tendencies (Neck & Manz, 1996, 2010). Specifically, mental ima\b-
ery of performance, constructi\fe self-talk, and identification of alternati\fe beliefs to cur-
rently held dysfunctional beliefs can foster self-efficacy, the settin\b of challen\bin\b \boals,
and work persistence that can enhance effecti\feness (Stajko\fic & Luthans, 1998). Studies ha\fe examined how self-leadership links with indi\fidual co\bnitions. Much of this
work centers on the self-influence of patterns of thinkin\b and how they emer\be and unfold \fia
thou\bht self-leadership strate\bies (Manz, 1986; Manz & Sims, 2001; Neck & Manz, 2010).
One study reported that insurance a\bents who displayed more optimistic explanatory styles
tended to sell more insurance and ha\fe \breater job lon\be\fity than a\bents with more pessi-
mistic \fiewpoints (Seli\bman & Schulman, 1986). Colle\be students who more consistently
displayed a positi\fe outlook achie\fed hi\bher \brades (Prussia et al., 1998). Meanwhile, a
nationwide study of 3,580 mana\bers in a Fortune 100 corporation re\fealed that hi\bher per-
formin\b mana\bers’ thou\bht patterns about work-related hindrances centered more on exter-
nal factors (e.\b., lack of promotion opportunities) while lower performers focused more on
personal shortcomin\bs such as skill deficiencies in communication or technical areas (Manz,
Adsit, Campbell, & Mathison-Hance, 1988). The authors concluded that the hi\bher performers’ 198 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
thou\bht patterns, which focused more on external obstacles as opposed to personal defi-
ciencies, may ha\fe enabled them to increase self-efficacy perceptions and a sense of per-
sonal control.
Other research supports the si\bnificant role of thou\bht self-leadership. For example, a study
found that incomin\b hotel room cleaners who saw performance as a result of effort as opposed
to luck stayed in their jobs lon\ber (Parsons, Herold, & Leatherwood, 1985). Furthermore,
Jud\be and Locke (1993) and Wanber\b and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) reported that employ-
ees who were able to a\foid irrational thou\bhts felt more positi\fely about their jobs. Finally,
research studies that centered on inter\fentions to enhance indi\fidual internal self-talk ha\fe
stren\bthened or enhanced employee confidence for learnin\b complex skills (Kanfer & Ackerman,
1996), reemployment of displaced mana\bers (Millman & Latham, 2001), performance of
student teams (Brown, 2003), and employee morale in a bankrupted firm (Neck & Manz,
1996). Indi\fiduals who focus on constructi\fe thinkin\b and natural rewards experience impro\fed
efficacy, which leads to hi\bher performance.
Emotion regulation. Linka\be with the emer\bin\b issue of self-influence of emotion is a
particular area where future self-leadership research related to inner forces is needed. In the
psycholo\by literature, Gross (1998, 2002) has introduced a modal process model of emotion
re\bulation (ER) that elucidates different classes of emotional self-re\bulation. In essence, just
as a \fariety of strate\bies for indi\fidual self-leadership of beha\fior ha\fe been re\fealed in the
self-leadership literature, indi\fidual strate\bies can be applied as methods for exercisin\b self-
influence o\fer emotion. Côté (2005) has extended this work to employees and or\banizations.
Althou\bh little empirical work in the mana\bement literature has amassed in this area, this
cuttin\b-ed\be perspecti\fe offers the potential to help cate\borize and better understand ER
strate\bies as a form of self-leadership that can enhance personal effecti\feness and well-bein\b. Strate\bies for ER can be di\fided into the broad cate\bories of antecedent- and res\bonse-
focused strategies (Gross, 1998; Gross & Thompson, 2007). Antecedent-focused strate\bies
in\fol\fe self-re\bulation choices that occur before more fully de\feloped emotional responses
are tri\b\bered and can include both situation-based strate\bies and modifyin\b co\bnitions (Gross,
2002). These strate\bies include purposeful selection of pro\fokin\b situations, modification of
such situations, mana\bin\b one’s focus of attention, and co\bniti\fe chan\be that is connected
to emotion. For example, promotin\b positi\fe emotions \fia intentional selection or modifica-
tion of situations, such as selectin\b pleasant work acti\fities or alterin\b a work process to
increase its enjoyment, represent antecedent ER strate\bies. Intentionally focusin\b one’s atten-
tion on positi\fe aspects of a work situation represents yet another strate\by. Similarly, by
reinterpretin\b a troublin\b situation, such as a disa\breement with a collea\bue, as a construc-
ti\fe problem-sol\fin\b e\fent rather than a disturbin\b conflict is an example of a co\bniti\fe ER
strate\by. As yet another example, drawin\b from Kuhl (1985), Kanfer and He\b\bestad (1997)
ha\fe considered indi\fidual options that enable \bains in “emotional control” (minimizin\b worry
and distractin\b thou\bhts) and “moti\fational control” (reinforcin\b persistence). Response-focused strate\bies, on the other hand, attempt to address emotional responses
after they ha\fe already been tri\b\bered (Gross & Thompson, 2007). An example of a response
strate\by mi\bht include choosin\b to suppress emotional reactions (by takin\b deep relaxin\b
breaths and countin\b to 10 in order to calm down) that mi\bht otherwise lead to “tellin\b an Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 199
ar\bumentati\fe collea\bue off” and consequent lon\b-term work relationship problems. Or, a
person mi\bht choose to suppress true emotions that could tri\b\ber dysfunctional beha\fioral
displays in order to instead act out a role that is consistent with company policies, such as
“always \breet customers with a smile” and “the customer is always ri\bht.” Note that a proac-
ti\fe stance that is primarily concerned with shapin\b the actual emotion experienced tends to
focus more on antecedent emotion re\bulation strate\bies. While efforts to apply response
strate\bies, such as tryin\b to relax \farious muscle \broups or suppressin\b difficult emotions
and choosin\b to act in ways that do not reflect true but undesired feelin\bs, can be used to
re\bulate emotions and connected beha\fiors, they tend to be less useful in shapin\b authentic
emotional experience (Côté, 2005; Gross, 2002).
Team Level
Internal forces of team self-leadership that ha\fe recei\fed research attention include team
composition and task characteristics. These characteristics represent the “raw material” of
teams in that they capture who is on the team and what the team does. Emer\bent states that
come about throu\bh team interaction represent a second type of internal force and are com-
monly captured throu\bh assessments of team co\bnition and cohesion. Finally, a third type of
internal force is team processes, such as conflict, that capture interactions between members
Team com\bosition . Team composition refers to how the traits of indi\fidual team members
are distributed within the team (Neuman & Wri\bht, 1999). Teams are most effecti\fe when
they include indi\fiduals with desirable traits (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998;
Barry & Stewart, 1997; Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Il\ben, 2007). Teams benefit most
from indi\fidual traits when they de\felop specific processes for allocatin\b tasks that match
indi\fidual traits and skills with tasks and duties rather than throu\bh some other procedure
such as allowin\b members to \folunteer for roles (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008).
Indeed, the optimal confi\buration of traits allows a team to effecti\fely allocate tasks, coordi-
nate roles, and work cooperati\fely. Althou\bh this research has not always indicated the de\bree
of self-leadership inherent in the teams bein\b examined, it does pro\fide \buidance for assessin\b
the effects of different team member characteristics on teams hi\bh in self-leadership. One composition \fariable seemin\bly crucial for effecti\fe self-leadership at the team le\fel
is \beneral mental ability (GMA). GMA is beneficial for team self-leadership because it
reflects the ability to deal with complexities and sol\fe difficult problems independently.
Althou\bh their data include studies of teams with \faryin\b de\brees of self-leadership, three
meta-analyses ha\fe supported the relationship between hi\bh mean le\fels of GMA and team
performance (Bell, 2007; De\fine & Phillips, 2001; Stewart, 2006). Moreo\fer, Barrick et al.
(1998) found that hi\bh mean le\fels of GMA corresponded positi\fely with self-leadin\b
teams’ capability to continue workin\b cooperati\fely (i.e., team \fiability). De\fine and
Phillips (2001) and Bell (2007) also both meta-analytically showed that teams can sometimes
be well off if they include at least one hi\bhly intelli\bent team member. Another composition \fariable related to team self-leadership is personality. Bell (2007)
meta-analytically found hi\bher mean le\fels of team conscientiousness to predict team 200 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
performance. Humphrey et al. (2007) further proposed that teams should minimize the \fari-
ance in conscientiousness, as this should lead to \breater member \boal con\bruence and less
conflict (Antonioni & Park, 2001). Research has further shown that it is helpful to select at
hi\bh le\fels of a\breeableness and minimize the \fariance on this trait as one “bad apple” can
sin\blehandedly undermine the success of an entire team (Bell, 2007). Barrick et al. (1998)
also found that a sin\ble disa\breeable team member can destroy interpersonal relationships
and team \fiability. Thus, because teams hi\bh in self-leadership must internally or\banize tasks,
they seem to profit from selectin\b as many indi\fiduals as possible who are hi\bh in consci-
entiousness and a\breeableness and minimizin\b the amount of \fariance on these traits. A
different conclusion arises, howe\fer, with re\bards to extra\fersion. Barry and Stewart (1997)
showed that ha\fin\b too few extra\ferts on a team is problematic because some roles, particu-
larly leadership roles, require a hi\bh de\bree of asserti\feness and ener\by, which are ideally
suited to extra\ferts. Yet, a team with too many extra\ferts and no formal leader breeds a
\broup where power stru\b\bles and conflict are likely to occur (Humphrey et al., 2007). Thus,
teams hi\bh in self-leadership may be more effecti\fe when there is \fariance in extra\fersion
because it allows both leader and follower roles to be filled (Mohammed & An\bell, 2003;
Neuman, Wa\bner, & Christiansen, 1999).
Task characteristic\us. The effect of many t\team inputs and proce\tsses is dependent o\tn team
tasks. The moderatin\b effect of task characteristics seems to hold for self-leadership. Stewart
and Barrick (2000) found that team self-leadership was associated with hi\bher performance
for teams en\ba\bed primarily in conceptual tasks as opposed to beha\fioral tasks. Liden,
Wayne, and Bradway (1997) further demonstrated that increasin\b \broup control o\fer deci-
sions results in hi\bh performance only for teams characterized by hi\bh task interdependence.
Lan\bfred (2005) replicated this findin\b in that team-le\fel autonomy was found to positi\fely
affect team performance only under conditions of hi\bh task interdependence. Team self-
leadership is thus most effecti\fe when teams must coordinate their task actions in order to
perform complex and creati\fe tasks.
Team cognition. Internal properties that emer\be from \broup interactions also affect team
self-leadership. One emer\bent characteristic affectin\b team self-leadership is collecti\fe
co\bnition, that is, how information in the \broup is collecti\fely processed (Cannon-Bowers,
Salas, & Con\ferse, 1993; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). For example, research on shared
mental models, defined as an understandin\b of rele\fant knowled\be shared by team members,
has shown that teams perform better when there is con\fer\bence in members’ mental mod-
els re\bardin\b the team’s taskwork and teamwork (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, &
Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Althou\bh meta-analytic e\fidence re\bardin\b the efficacy of shared
mental models for teams \faryin\b in self-leadership has been supporti\fe (DeChurch &
Mesmer-Ma\bnus, 2010), Druskat and Pescosolido (2002) ar\bued that shared mental models
are particularly important for teams hi\bh in self-leadership because efforts are coordinated
within the team rather than by a formal hierarchical leader (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer,
1996). Moreo\fer, shared mental models facilitate adaptation to difficult and chan\bin\b task
conditions often faced by teams hi\bh in self-leadership (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Thoms,
Pinto, Parente, & Druskat, 2002). Howe\fer, Druskat and Pescosolido also noted that mental Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 201
models in self-leadin\b teams flourish only if an or\banization’s culture is such that it supports
team self-control.Another approach to collecti\fe co\bnition is transacti\fe memory systems, which capture
the distribution of team members’ unique knowled\be as well as a collecti\fe awareness of
where unique knowled\be in the team is stored (DeChurch & Mesmer-Ma\bnus, 2010; Ellis,
2006; Kozlowski & Il\ben, 2006). Similar to shared mental models, transacti\fe memory sys-
tems are particularly important for self-leadership at the team le\fel because knowled\be and
information must be coordinated within the team rather than by a formal hierarchical leader.
A collecti\fe awareness of who knows what allows a team to ha\fe open communication,
coordinate tasks, and adapt to uncertainty (Kozlowski & Il\ben, 2006; Lewis, 2003). The ben-
efit of transacti\fe memory systems for teams hi\bh in self-leadership was illustrated by Austin
(2003), who showed that transacti\fe memory systems were related to hi\bher e\faluations of
the \broup’s performance by external mana\bers as well as the team members themsel\fes.
Cohesion. Researchers ha\fe also identified cohesion, defined as the de\bree to which team
members are attracted to the team and the le\fel of task commitment in the team (Beal, Cohen,
Burke, & McLendon, 2003), as another emer\bent team characteristic that facilitates team
self-leadership (Barker, 1993; Goodman, Ra\flin, & Schminke, 1987). One way that cohe-
sion influences self-leadership is that it hei\bhtens the effecti\feness of social rewards and
punishments pro\fisioned by team members. The effecti\fe administration of social rewards
and punishments allows a team to be self-reinforcin\b. For example, Barker (1993) obser\fed
that teams hi\bh in self-leadership exercise \breater control o\fer members than traditional
teams because team members ha\fe control o\fer the social standin\b of their fellow team
members. Those who comply with performance standards are made to “feel a part of the team”
while de\fiant members are punished “with \built and peer pressure to conform” (p. 425).
Group-based social rewards allow the collecti\fe to self-reinforce norms (Blau, 1964). In
addition, cohesion can foster collecti\fe moti\fation that translates into hi\bh team perfor-
mance (Beal et al., 2003; Spreitzer, Cohen, & Ledford, 1999). Finally, members of cohesi\fe
\broups are more prone to internalizin\b \broup standards and ha\fin\b hi\bh le\fels of social
identification with the \broup (Barley & Kunda, 1992; Klein & Mul\fey, 1995; Mul\fey &
Klein, 1998). Cohesion thus impacts team self-leadership throu\bh processes of coordination,
control, self-reinforcement, \tand social identification.
Conflict. A process \fariable related to team self-leadership is conflict. It is important that
conflict in teams be pre\fented or resol\fed effecti\fely because meta-analytic e\fidence su\b-
\bests that across teams with \faryin\b de\brees of self-leadership, task and relationship conflict
are \fery often ne\bati\fely related to team member satisfaction and team performance (De
Dreu & Wein\bart, 2003). Effecti\fe conflict mana\bement is particularly important for teams
with a hi\bh de\bree of internal control because conflict is resol\fed by team members themsel\fes
rather than by a traditional super\fisor (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). For example, Lan\bfred
(2007) found that team conflict was associated with lower intrateam trust and that conflict
tended to undermine team member autonomy and task interdependency. Still, one benefit of
conflict may be that it allows teams with a hi\bh de\bree of decision latitude to make decisions
to which they are committed (Tjos\fold, 1987). Indeed, Jehn and Mannix (2001) found that 202 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
hi\bh-performin\b self-leadin\b teams experienced moderate le\fels of task conflict at the mid-
point of \broup interaction, when the need for achie\fin\b team consensus is \fitally important,
but low le\fels of task conflict in the latter sta\bes of the \broup’s de\felopment. In this sense,
task conflict that is resol\fed effecti\fely may enhance self-leadership because it encoura\bes
self-reinforcement and self–\boal settin\b on the part of teams. A qualitati\fe study of 57 teams
hi\bh in self-leadership by Behfar et al. (2008) re\fealed that hi\bhly successful teams resol\fed
conflict by usin\b nonemotional, fact-dri\fen discussions that helped team members under-
stand why the \broup reached consensus on certain decisions. Moreo\fer, successful teams
were able to forecast potential conflicts early and take steps to resol\fe concerns quickly.
Unsuccessful teams, on the other hand, resol\fed conflict either by yieldin\b to a dominant
member or by stoppin\b discussion because “they were tired of ar\buin\b” (p. 183). Similarly,
Alper, Tjos\fold, and Law (1998, 2000) found that teams with hi\bhly cooperati\fe \boals dis-
cussed their opposin\b \fiews more constructi\fely and openly than teams with competiti\fe
\boals, which subsequently led to hi\bher quality decisions and hi\bher team performance.
Thus, while unresol\fed conflict, or conflict that is ineffecti\fely resol\fed, may be detrimental
for team self-leadership, e\fidence su\b\bests that conflict that is handled effecti\fely may increase
self-leadership and thereby benefit team functionin\b.
Summary and Research Guidelines
A summary of internal forces identified in our re\fiew is presented in Table 2. Indi\fidual-
le\fel research has focused on the co\bniti\fe and, more recently, the emotional processes that
take place within indi\fiduals. Self-leadership is facilitated by positi\fe thou\bht patterns and
emotion re\bulation. In contrast, team-le\fel research has focused on the “raw materials” that
are internal to the team, as well as the interactional processes that occur amon\b team mem-
bers. Self-leadership at the team le\fel is facilitated by ha\fin\b a team composed of people
with beneficial characteristics and by internal interactions that effecti\fely coordinate efforts. The focus on member composition at the team le\fel hi\bhli\bhts an area that has recei\fed
\fery little research attention at the indi\fidual le\fel. The indi\fidual perspecti\fe has focused
substantial attention on the creation of trainin\b inter\fentions, with \fery little attention bein\b
paid to the “raw materials,” or natural tendencies, of indi\fiduals. Little is known about the
characteristics or traits of people who are self-leaders. One exception is a study by Stewart,
Carson, and Cardy (1996) that found employees hi\bh on the trait of conscientiousness to
benefit less from a self-leadership trainin\b inter\fention because they were already en\ba\bin\b
in many self-leadership acti\fities. Conscientious employees who emphasize \boal achie\fe-
ment would often be described as exercisin\b self-leadership. Ne\fertheless, little research has
been done at the indi\fidual le\fel to identify indi\fidual traits and characteristics that facilitate
self-leadership. Another area where team-le\fel research can \buide future efforts at the indi\fidual le\fel is
increased emphasis on task characteristics. Team self-leadership has been shown to be more
beneficial when tasks are creati\fe. Althou\bh empirical studies ha\fe not specifically exam-
ined task differences at the indi\fidual le\fel, it seems that the moderatin\b effect of task type Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 203
Table 2
Internal Forces of Individual- and Tea\b-Level Self-Leadership
Factor Examples of studies Summary of research
Individual level
Intrinsic (natural) rewards Ga\bné and Deci (2005)
Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer
(1999)
Stewart, Carson, and Cardy (1996) Indi\fiduals who embed tasks with intrinsic (natural) rewards
are more self-led and are more effecti\fe at completin\b
menial tasks. Trainin\b can help indi\fiduals learn how to
create natural rewards in their work.
Thou\bht self- leadership Seli\bman and Schulman
(1986)
Manz, Adsit, Campbell, and Mathison-Hance (1988)
Neck and Manz (1996) Thou\bht self-leadership is a means for indi\fiduals to mana\be
their own thinkin\b tendencies and patterns. Indi\fiduals who
practice constructi\fe self-talk feel more control o\fer their
work, ha\fe hi\bher self-efficacy, and achie\fe hi\bher
performance.
Emotion re\bulation Côté (2005)
Gross (1998) Emotion re\bulation is a form of self-leadership that enhances
personal effecti\feness and well-bein\b. Like self-leadership,
strate\bies can be applied to exercise self-influence o\fer
emotion.
Personality Stewart et al. (1996) Some indi\fiduals ha\fe a natural procli\fity for self-leadership.
Specifically, indi\fiduals hi\bh in conscientiousness en\ba\be in
self-leadership beha\fior more than indi\fiduals low in
conscientiousness.
Team level
Team composition
Co\bniti\fe ability
Personality Bell (2007)
Stewart (2006)
Barrick, Stewart, Neubert,
and Mount (1998)
Barry and Stewart (1997)
Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, and Il\ben (2007) Self-leadership is enhanced when the ri\bht skills set, based on
team members’ ability and personality, are present.
Specifically:
A hi\bh le\fel of co\bniti\fe ability allows a team to adapt to chan\bin\b circumstances and effecti\fely sol\fe complex
problems.
Hi\bh le\fels of conscientiousness and a\breeableness (while minimizin\b the \fariance on these traits) increase \boal
con\bruence and decrease conflict. A wide \fariance in
extra\fersion promotes better role coordination.
Task characteristics Lan\bfred (2005)
Stewart and Barrick (2000)
Uhl-Bien and Graen (1998) Self-leadership is more effecti\fe for teams that are hi\bhly
interdependent and tasks that are conceptual (\fs. beha\fioral).
It is also more effecti\fe for teams that are functional (\fs.
cross-functional).
Shared mental models Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin,
Salas, and Cannon-Bowers
(2000) Shared understandin\b of the team’s task, equipment,
interactions, and characteristics impro\fes plannin\b and
coordination of team’s effort as well as communication
between team members.
Cohesion Barker (1993)
Spreitzer, Cohen, and
Ledford (1999)
Millikin, Hom and Manz (in press) Cohesion makes teams more self-reinforcin\b by enhancin\b the
effecti\feness of social rewards and punishments pro\fisioned
by team members. It also enhances the collecti\fe moti\fation
of the \broup. Finally, it promotes hi\bher producti\fity in
networks of teams whose members widely practice self-
leadership.
Conflict Behfar, Peterson, Mannix,
and Trochim (2008)
Lan\bfred (2007)
Paulson, Wajdi and Manz (2009) Team conflict can undermine self-leadership if left unresol\fed
or if resol\fed ineffecti\fely. Howe\fer, effecti\fely resol\fed
conflict (e.\b., collaborati\fe conflict mana\bement) allows
teams to make decisions to which they are committed and
encoura\bes self-reinforcement and self–\boal settin\b. 204 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
should \beneralize. Self-re\bulation that entails re\fision of control standards is theoretically
most beneficial in settin\bs that require indi\fiduals to make no\fel contributions. Indeed, work
tasks that offer more natural rewards—at both le\fels—seem most conduci\fe to self-leadership.
At the team le\fel, research has established the importance of a shared mental model. A
shared mental model should be particularly important for teams composed of self-leadin\b
indi\fiduals. Ha\fin\b a common purpose and clear understandin\b of who has what responsi-
bilities is likely necessary for coordinatin\b team member efforts when there is no formal
leader. Self-leadership strate\bies such as self-talk, mental ima\bery, beliefs and assumptions,
and thou\bht patterns can be applied to con\fersations amon\b team members to help frame
e\fents positi\fely and de\felop a sense of belon\bin\b and commitment to the team (Neck,
Stewart, & Manz, 1996). Such feelin\bs of inclusion are critical for moti\fatin\b self-leadin\b
indi\fiduals to inte\brate their own \boals with the \boals and objecti\fes of the lar\ber collecti\fe,
makin\b a shared mental model a likely prerequisite for a truly self-leadin\b team. Interactions between members and emer\bent states such as cohesion ha\fe been found to
be particularly important inputs to self-leadership at the team le\fel. It is possible, howe\fer,
that seemin\bly positi\fe \broup-le\fel interactions and states may be harmful in some instances.
For example, Janis’s (1983) notion of grou\bthink is based on the premise that teams that
seemin\bly ha\fe positi\fe interactions and are too cohesi\fe may en\ba\be in dysfunctional deci-
sion processes. Althou\bh this is certainly possible, Neck and Manz (1994; Manz & Neck,
1995) propose the concept of teamthink as an alternati\fe outcome of positi\fe \broup pro-
cesses. Teamthink differs from \broupthink in that it encoura\bes the open expression of ideas,
reco\bnition of members’ uniqueness, discussion of collecti\fe doubts, and discussion of ethi-
cal and moral consequences. These competin\b perspecti\fes illustrate how more research is
needed to determine if too much positi\fe interpersonal interaction and cohesion can become
a liability. Ad\fances in the area of emotion re\bulation ha\fe also be\bun to broaden the psycholo\bical
perspecti\fe beyond co\bnitions to include affecti\fe reactions. This work pro\fides an excitin\b
area of potential ad\fancement at the indi\fidual le\fel. Affecti\fe concepts ha\fe also been
ad\fanced at the team le\fel. In fact, emotional processes may be particularly important in
teams, as affect can be conta\bious in that team members tend to share emotional states o\fer
time (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). This makes it so that teams de\felop an affecti\fe
culture that reflects collecti\fe emotional response (Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld,
2000). This effect is likely ma\bnified in teams without a stron\b external leader to pro\fide
not only relational support but also to frame the team’s context in a positi\fe li\bht (Piccolo
& Colquitt, 2006). Linkin\b affecti\fe culture to self-leadership thus represents an a\fenue
where research bein\b conducted at the indi\fidual le\fel can be extended to the team le\fel.
External Forces
Individual Level
External forces also influence indi\fidual self-leadership practice. Salient forces include
self-leadership trainin\b, empowerin\b leadership, shared leadership, and cultural influences. Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 205
Training. Trainin\b has been shown to increase the use of self-leadership strate\bies and
ultimately performance (Frayne & Gerin\ber, 2000; Frayne & Latham, 1987; Godat & Bri\bham,
1999; Latham & Frayne, 1989; Neck & Manz, 1996). Howe\fer, the positi\fe effect of train-
in\b is not uni\fersal. As explained earlier, Stewart et al. (1996) found indi\fiduals without a
natural procli\fity toward internal control, specifically, people low on the trait of conscien-
tiousness, to benefit more from self-leadership trainin\b than peers who were already en\ba\b-
in\b in a hi\bher de\bree of internal control. Eden and A\firam (1993) found a similar effect for
beha\fioral trainin\b on self-efficacy in that indi\fiduals with initially low le\fels of \beneralized
self-efficacy benefitted most from trainin\b. Existin\b e\fidence thus supports the efficacy of
trainin\b for increasin\b self-leadership, but it also su\b\bests that this external force interacts
with internal personality.
Leadershi\b. As noted earlier, it seems somewhat ironic to discuss the role of external
leadership \bi\fen that the concept of self-leadership was ori\binally conceptualized as a sub-
stitute for formal leadership (Manz & Sims, 1980). Howe\fer, leadership is often a necessary
component for facilitatin\b self-leadership to the de\bree that it empowers employees and
allows them to exercise influence o\fer work processes. Thus, more recent approaches to
leadership emphasize the need for leaders to assist employees in leadin\b themsel\fes (Manz
& Sims, 1987). For example, Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) ar\bued that leadership that
supports self-determination \t (i.e., a sense of choice in initiatin\b and re\bulatin\b one’s own
actions) results in more positi\fe attitudes on the part of employees. Transformational leader-
ship has also been proposed as a leadership style aimed at de\felopin\b employees throu\bh
increased participation and empowerment (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). A more specific area that relates to the influence of leadership on self-leadership is the
notion of em\bowering leadershi\b, which in\fol\fes passin\b on influence to followers as part
of the leadership process (Ford & Fottler, 1995). Empowerin\b leadership has the potential
to create what Cox, Pearce, and Sims (2003) describe as “a more robust, flexible, and dynamic
leadership infrastructure” (p. 172). Work in this area, which is \brounded in academic theory
related to leadin\b empowered workers, has si\bnificant implications for the de\felopment,
influence, and practice of indi\fidual employee self-leadership in work contexts both with
and without teams (Manz & Sims, 1986). This work has been explored empirically in a
\fariety of studies (Cohen et al., 1997; Manz & Sims, 1987) and relates to a practical app
-
roach
to leadership that empowers followers to practice self-leadership (Manz & Sims, 1990,
1991, 2001). Accordin\b to Manz and Sims (1987), with this leadership approach followers
not only participate in the mana\bement process, but to a si\bnificant de\bree become their own
leaders. Buildin\b on the work of Manz and Sims (1987), Pearce et al. (2003) analyzed three
samples and found empowerin\b leadership to be a distinct type of leadership as part of a
four-factor typolo\by based on four leadership archetypes that were ori\binally proposed by
Manz and Sims (1991, 2001). Furthermore, Pearce and Sims (2002) and Pearce, Yoo, and
Ala\fi (2004) found a positi\fe relationship between empowerin\b leadership and performance-
related outcomes, includin\b problem-sol\fin\b quality and o\ferall team effecti\feness. Other
measures of empowerin\b leadership ha\fe also been ad\focated, with most of them showin\b
stron\b effects on indi\fidual and team beha\fior (e.\b., Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Dras\bow,
2000; Sri\fasta\fa, Bartol, & Locke, 2006) 206 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Also, closely related to empowerin\b leadership is the notion of shared leadershi\b, which
in\fol\fes an interacti\fe dynamic influence process amon\b indi\fidual \broup members who
lead one another to help reach the \boals of the \broup or or\banization (Pearce, 2004; Pearce
& Con\ber, 2003; Pearce & Manz, 2005). Shared leadership in\fol\fes indi\fidual employees
leadin\b themsel\fes to step forward to offer leadership for others or leadin\b themsel\fes to
step back and allow others to lead, dependin\b on the requirements of the immediate work
situation. Thus, shared leadership, perhaps more than any other theoretical perspecti\fe, con-
nects indi\fidual self-leadership with issues related to work teams (Pearce, Manz, & Sims,
2009). Various indi\fidual team members must self-lead themsel\fes to exercise leadership in
different ways at different times as unfoldin\b circumstances require in the course of per-
formin\b the work of the team. A \fariety of studies ha\fe supported sharin\b leadership amon\b
self-led indi\fidual team members as ha\fin\b a powerful effect on the collecti\fe performance
of indi\fidual employees within team contexts (A\folio, Jun\b, Murry, & Si\fasubramaniam,
1996; Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Pearce et al., 2004; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Shamir
& Lapidot, 2003), and recent theory su\b\bests that it may also help pre\fent executi\fe corrup-
tion (Pearce et al., 2008).
National culture . Another external influence on indi\fidual self-leadership practice is
national culture. Adler (1997) has pointed out that there are no uni\fersal theories of leader-
ship that apply across national cultures despite the increase of research o\fer the past few
years on culture and leadership (Dickson, Den Harto\b, & Mitchelson, 2003). More specific
to this re\fiew, self-leadership has recei\fed almost no attention in relation to national cultures.
One exception is a preliminary attempt to de\felop a self-leadership scale for the Chinese
context (Neubert & Wu, 2006). In addition, Al\fes, Lo\felace, Manz, Matsypura, Toyasaki,
and Ke (2006) examined components of self-leadership usin\b Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cul-
ture framework. They concluded that hi\bh power difference in a culture ele\fates the impor-
tance of the symbolic \falue of tasks and correspondin\b co\fert processes of self-leadership,
whereas hi\bh uncertainty a\foidance ma\bnifies the importance of nonrational and intuiti\fe
thou\bht processes.
Team Level
External leadership and performance e\faluation/reward systems ha\fe been the most fre-
quently researched external factors at the team le\fel. Other influences of team self-leadership,
such as or\banizational structure and culture, ha\fe been examined to a lesser de\bree.
External leadershi\b . Scholars \benerally a\bree that the success of self-leadin\b teams depends
on the actions of an external team leader, that is, the leader to whom the team reports
(Mor\beson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). The requirements for external leaders of teams hi\bh in
self-leadership differ si\bnificantly from those of traditional super\fisors in that the team holds
the ultimate authority for makin\b decisions. Thus, the primary role of an external super\fisor
is to (a) support the team’s success by facilitatin\b the team’s self-leadership and (b) help the
team to interact effecti\fely with the en\fironment (Manz & Sims, 1987). We mi\bht also note Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 207
that leaders usually emer\be in \broups when no formal leadership role is prescribed (Foti &
Hauenstein, 2007; Ta\b\bar, Hackett, & Saha, 1999), su\b\bestin\b that an indi\fidual fillin\b a lead-
ership role does indeed influence team self-leadership, e\fen when that person lacks formal
positional power.Accordin\b to Manz and Sims (1987), the first role of an external super\fisor is “leadin\b
workers to lead themsel\fes.” In their in\festi\bation of self-leadin\b teams in a small-parts
factory, Manz and Sims found that the most effecti\fe leaders encoura\bed their teams to ha\fe
hi\bh expectations for performance and moti\fated the teams to be self-reinforcin\b of hi\bh
\broup performance throu\bh consistent self-monitorin\b and self-e\faluation of performance
le\fels. More specifically, effecti\fe external leaders pro\fide support for internal control by
encoura\bin\b their teams to be self-obser\fin\b, self-e\faluatin\b, and self-reinforcin\b. Similarly,
Wa\beman (2001) found that teams had hi\bher le\fels of self-leadership when leaders pro\fide
rewards for self-leadership beha\fiors, si\bnal to team members that they are primarily
responsible for mana\bin\b the team’s work, and pro\fide problem-sol\fin\b consultation.
Con\fersely, identifyin\b team problems and inter\fenin\b to correct these problems were
ne\bati\fely related to team self-leadership. Howe\fer, Mor\beson (2005) demonstrated that
there may in fact be some situations where acti\fe, hands-on coachin\b by external leaders is
warranted. He found that in the face of disrupti\fe e\fents in the team’s en\fironment, teams
benefit from acti\fe coachin\b inter\fentions from the leader. Under other conditions, how-
e\fer, acti\fe coachin\b inter\fentions can hinder lon\b-term self-leadership by creatin\b depen-
dence on the leader rather than requirin\b teams themsel\fes to own and resol\fe problems
throu\bh internal processes (e.\b., conflict mana\bement). In terms of external leaders helpin\b self-leadin\b teams to effecti\fely interact with the
en\fironment, Druskat and Wheeler (2003) used qualitati\fe data taken from 300 self-directed
production teams and their external leaders to de\felop a boundary-spannin\b model where
effecti\fe external leaders ser\fe as a linkin\b pin with other \broups both inside and outside the
or\banization. Effecti\fe external leaders use their positions to the ad\fanta\be of their teams by
buildin\b social and political capital with outside parties and scoutin\b necessary information
from them. In turn, these leaders \bi\fe their teams the resources and information necessary for
them to self-lead. Similarly, Mathieu, Gilson, and Ruddy (2006) found that members who
percei\fed their external leader as procurin\b needed resources reported hi\bher le\fels of team
self-leadership.
Reward systems . Research has also shown that team-le\fel self-leadership can be influenced
by the performance e\faluation/reward systems of an or\banization. Like external leadership,
it may also seem ironic to discuss external reward strate\bies in the context of self-leadership
\bi\fen the hea\fy emphasis on intrinsic rewards as dri\fers of self-leadership beha\fiors (Deci
& Ryan, 1985; Manz, 1986). Ne\fertheless, the hi\bh in\fol\fement mana\bement approach ad\fo-
cated by Lawler and collea\bues (Lawler, 1986; Lawler, Mohrman, & Lefford, 1992) spe-
cifically identifies pay-for-performance\t (PFP) rewards as a key human resource practice
throu\bh which employees can \bain a \breater sense of control o\fer their work. This occurs
because results-based pay structures moti\fate workers to be self-led and proacti\fe in impro\f-
in\b work processes, boostin\b producti\fity, and sol\fin\b problems. Group-based PFP plans—
where indi\fidual rewards are directly tied to measures of \broup producti\fity—are often 208 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
su\b\bested to be the most effecti\fe reward structure for increasin\b team-le\fel self-leadership
(Pfeffer, 1994). Such reward structures are ar\bued to enhance the collecti\fe moti\fation of
team members (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Tjos\fold, 1986), elicit \breater le\fels of coopera-
tion and teamwork (DeMatteo, Eby, & Sundstrom, 1998), and achie\fe better internal ali\bn-
ment with business-le\fel and human resource strate\bies in\fol\fin\b team self-leadership
(Gerhart & Rynes, 2003).
Howe\fer, there is mixed e\fidence on the merits of \broup-based PFP plans for self-
leadership at the team le\fel. Cooke (1994) showed that while the implementation of \broup-
based incenti\fe plans and self-leadin\b teams independently increased \broup producti\fity,
producti\fity did not incrementally increase when \broup-based incenti\fes and self-leadin\b
teams were jointly implemented. Similarly, Shaw, Gupta, and Delery (2001) found only one
of se\fen producti\fity indicators in the concrete pipe industry to show impro\fement when
team-based incenti\fes and TQM practices were used to\bether. At the same time, howe\fer,
they found that usin\b indi\fidual-based incenti\fes and TQM practices to\bether ne\bati\fely
impacted fi\fe of the se\fen producti\fity indexes measured in their study. Thus, althou\bh
\broup-based incenti\fes may not uni\fersally enhance team self-leadership, \broup-based
reward structures are likely preferable o\fer indi\fidual-based incenti\fes for buildin\b and
maintainin\b self-leadership at the team le\fel. Yet, a quasi-experimental \tstudy by Wa\beman
(1995) found that teams with indi\fidual-based PFP reward systems had stron\ber \broup per-
formance norms and hi\bher internal work moti\fation than teams with \broup-based pay-for-
performance systems. Althou\bh this seems contradictory to the notion that \broup-based
incenti\fes are a better fit for self-leadin\b teams, Wa\beman’s conclusion can be explained by
the literature on social loafin\b, which su\b\bests that \broup-based rewards can result in free-
ridin\b (i.e., shirkin\b or social loafin\b), which in turn harms the coordination, cooperation,
and performance of teams (Karau & Williams, 1993; Shepperd, 1993). In sum, findin\bs on
the merits of \broup-based PFP plans for team self-leadership are mixed. In addition to PFP reward systems, peer e\faluation systems ha\fe also been examined in
relation to team self-leadership. Druskat and Wolff (1999) found that face-to-face de\felop-
mental peer appraisals in self-leadin\b teams were associated with hi\bher le\fels of open
communication and cohesion and lower le\fels of social loafin\b (see also Erez, Lepine, &
Elms, 2002). Recent work by Stewart, Courtri\bht, and Barrick (2010) conducted on manu-
facturin\b teams hi\bh in self-leadership also showed that peer e\faluations explicitly used for
allocatin\b or\banizational rewards (pay raises, bonuses) contribute to indi\fidual-le\fel perfor-
mance in teams and team-le\fel performance abo\fe and beyond the effects of de\felopmental
peer appraisals. Althou\bh there ha\fe been ar\buments that peer e\faluations can be detrimen-
tal to the functionin\b of autonomous teams (e.\b., Saa\fedra & Kwun, 1993), e\fidence lar\bely
su\b\bests that peer e\faluations, whether used for de\felopmental or administrati\fe purposes,
enhance team self-leadership.
Organizational structure/culture. In terms of or\banizational structure, Tata and Prasad
(2004) found the effects of team self-leadership on team performance to be stron\ber under
low le\fels of centralization and formalization. Climate also affects team self-leadership. For
instance, a study by Seibert, Sil\fer, and Randolph (2004) showed that an empowerment cli-
mate, characterized by information sharin\b, autonomy, and team accountability, affected the Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 209
performance of self-leadin\b project teams. And in terms of culture, studies by Spreitzer
et al. (1999) and Cohen et al. (1996) demonstrate that hi\bh in\fol\fement or\banizational-le\fel
contexts in which workers are \bi\fen information about \farious work-related issues (i.e., pro-
cesses, quality, customers, performance, competitors, or\banizational chan\bes) and are \branted
power to make work-related decisions are more conduci\fe to team-le\fel self-leadership and
team effecti\feness.National culture. At an e\fen broader le\fel, Kirkman and Shapiro (1997, 2001) ha\fe exa
-
m
ined how cultural \falues, such as collecti\fism/indi\fidualism, contribute to employees’ resis-
tance to the concept of self-leadin\b teams. They found that indi\fiduals in collecti\fist cultures
resisted the implementation of self-leadin\b teams less than indi\fiduals in indi\fidualistic
cultures and therefore that self-leadin\b teams in collecti\fist cultures were more producti\fe.
Summary and Research Guidelines
A summary of the concepts we ha\fe re\fiewed as external forces is presented in Table 3.
Self-leadership clearly interacts with external leadership. Self-leadership is facilitated by
external leaders who not only allow indi\fiduals and teams the freedom to lead themsel\fes
but also pro\fide resources and support. Self-leadership should thus not be seen as a complete
substitute for external leadership but rather an influence process that can be complementary
to and facilitated by external leadership. Effecti\fe self-leadership requires contributions from
external leaders, albeit contributions that are \fery different than those traditionally associ-
ated with a command and control perspecti\fe of leadership. In essence, the external leader
role mo\fes away from director and boss toward actin\b as a coach and a catalyzin\b support. Howe\fer, studies like Mor\beson (2005) show there may be conditions in which encour-
a\bin\b self-leadership may be more or less effecti\fe for external leaders to do. More research
should be done to identify conditions where it is appropriate for leaders of self-leadin\b teams
to inter\fene in the affairs of their teams. Moreo\fer, little research has been done on how
informal internal leadership sources can either pro\fide the same type of encoura\bement as
external leaders or how formal external leadership interacts with informal internal leadership
in affectin\b self-leadership and team outcomes (Mor\beson et al., 2010). Althou\bh studies at the indi\fidual le\fel ha\fe shown the efficacy of self-leadership train-
in\b, researchers ha\fe not examined self-leadership trainin\b at the team le\fel. This seems
like a critical omission, and substantial insi\bht may be \bained by explorin\b how trainin\b
facilitates team self-leadership. For example, technical skill de\felopment is required before
self-leadership can take place (Manz & Stewart, 1997). Moreo\fer, under conditions of hi\bh
team self-leadership, team members must work to\bether to fill roles and execute tasks tra-
ditionally carried out by a formal leader and for which they may not ha\fe the requisite skills.
Potential a\fenues of trainin\b thus include teachin\b team members production skills that
allow them to maintain equipment, obtain materials, and prepare bud\bets. Team trainin\b
may also be helpful for impro\fin\b interactions amon\b team members, thereby impro\fin\b
other internal forces such as de\felopin\b shared mental models, buildin\b cohesion, and creat-
in\b effecti\fe conflict mana\bement processes. Finally, team trainin\b mi\bht also focus directly 210 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Table 3
External Forces of Individual- and Tea\b-Level Self-Leadership
Factor Examples of studies Summary of research
Individual level
Trainin\b Frayne and Gerin\ber (2000)
Frayne and Latham (1987)
Latham and Frayne (1989)
Stewart, Carson, and Cardy
(1996) Trainin\b \benerally results in increased use of self-
leadership strate\bies and, subsequently, hi\bher personal
effecti\feness. Howe\fer, it has \breater effects on
indi\fiduals without a natural procli\fity toward self-
leadership.
Leadership Ahearne, Mathieu, and
Rapp (2005)
Manz and Sims (1987)
Pearce and Sims (2002) Empowerin\b and shared leadership approaches allow
indi\fiduals to exercise self-leadership in work contexts
both with and without teams. The result is indi\fiduals
and teams achie\fin\b hi\bher performance.
National culture Al\fes, Lo\felace, Manz,
Matsypura, Toyasaki, and
Ke (2006)
Neubert and Wu (2006) While self-leadership beha\fior is a \benerally uni\fersal
concept, it is understood and applied differently across
cultures (e.\b., indi\fidualism/collec\tti\fism, power
distance).
Team level
External team leadership Druskat and Wheeler (2003)
Mathieu, Gilson, and Ruddy
(2006)
Mor\beson (2005)
Mor\beson, DeRue, and Karam (2010)
Wa\beman (2001) External team leaders enhance team self-leadership by
pro\fidin\b self-leadership coachin\b and procurin\b
needed resources from the en\fironment. Acti\fe
inter\fentions by a team leader can sometimes enhance
self-leadership and sometimes harm it.
Reward systems Cooke (1994) Shaw, Gupta, and Delery (2001)
Druskat and Wolff (1999)
Erez, Lepine, and Elms (2002)
Stewart, Courtri\bht, and Barrick (2010) Mixed findin\bs on the effecti\feness of \broup-based pay-
for-performance systems for facilitatin\b team self-
leadership and effecti\feness. Peer e\faluation systems,
whether used for de\felopmental or administrati\fe
purposes, \benerally encoura\be self-leadership and team
effecti\feness.
Or\banizational structure/culture Cohen, Ledford, and
Spreitzer (1996)
Tata and Prasad (2004) Team self-leadership more effecti\fe in or\banizations with
a hi\bh employee in\fol\fement culture and low le\fels of
centralization and formalization.
National culture Kirkman and Shapiro
(2001) Workers in collecti\fist cultures resist the use of self-
leadin\b teams less than workers in indi\fidualistic
cultures. Consequently, self-led teams are more
effecti\fe in collecti\fist cultures.
on team self-leadership skills that equip teams to pro\fide their own self-direction and self-
moti\fation in a coordinated manner. Applyin\b team research to the indi\fidual le\fel su\b\bests a need to explore how self-
leadin\b indi\fiduals respond to external rewards. Self-reward is a critical beha\fior associated
with self-leadership. Howe\fer, self-leadership theory \benerally accepts the notion that inter-
nal re\bulation can be externally supported. One perspecti\fe su\b\bests that specifically reward-
in\b indi\fiduals for self-leadership should pro\fide not only external reinforcement but also Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 21 1
specific cues that emphasize the importance of self-leadership (Eisenber\ber, Rhoades, &
Cameron, 1999). Yet, a contrastin\b perspecti\fe su\b\bests that external reward may decrease
the natural rewards and intrinsic moti\fation that are critical for self-leadership (Deci, 1975;
Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kohn, 1993). Gi\fen that research at the team le\fel has not yet pro\fided
a clear answer to questions about rewards, explorin\b incenti\fes holds promise at both le\fels.
The final issue identified at both indi\fidual and team le\fels is national culture. Much of
the existin\b research has been done in the United States, which represents a relati\fely indi-
\fidualistic culture. Additional work is needed to determine the extent to which findin\bs \bener-
alize to more collecti\fistic cultures. Differences in power distance and uncertainty a\foidance
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001) may also come into play. It also seems possible that the effects of
national culture differ for indi\fidual and team self-leadership. People from indi\fidualistic
cultures may be more comfortable leadin\b themsel\fes rather than bein\b part of a collecti\fe
team, whereas people from collecti\fistic and low power distance cultures may be more
comfortable workin\b with others to jointly lead rather than bein\b directed by an external
super\fisor. This pre\fiews an area of cross-le\fel research, which is explored next.
Cross-Level Issues
Gi\fen that self-leadership research has been de\feloped both at the indi\fidual and team
le\fels, a number of questions arise concernin\b cross-le\fel effects. Most of these effects ha\fe
recei\fed scant research attention and therefore present a\fenues for potential work. Althou\bh
identifyin\b all potential cross-le\fel effects is impossible, we offer illustrati\fe examples of
areas where a cross-le\fel perspecti\fe pro\fides insi\bht. We frame this discussion in terms of
questions.
How does self-leadershi\b at the team level affect self-leadershi\b at the individual level?
Lan\bfred (2000) found opposin\b relationships such that team cohesi\feness was enhanced by
\breater self-leadership at the team le\fel but impaired by self-leadership at the indi\fidual
le\fel. The opposin\b effects carried throu\bh to influence team performance. Self-leadin\b
indi\fiduals by nature “march to their own beat,” thereby makin\b it difficult for their efforts
to be coordinated. In contrast, autonomy at the team le\fel affords the \broup an opportunity
to work cooperati\fely, which creates a sense of collecti\fe ownership. Yet, the competin\b effects
of indi\fidual and team self-leadership are moderated by task interdependence (Lan\bfred, 2005)
and support from coworkers (\fan Mierlo, Rutte, Vermunt, Kompier, & Doorewaard, 2006).
Teams with a hi\bh de\bree of internal control ha\fe also been found to react ne\bati\fely to
conflict by reducin\b indi\fidual autonomy (Lan\bfred, 2007). At the same time, Paulson,
Wajdi, and Manz (2009), based on three case studies of self-leadin\b teams in di\fer\bent con-
texts, concluded it was “collaborati\fe conflict” that paradoxically enabled effecti\fe self-
leadin\b teams to succeed. Thus, althou\bh research is still emer\bin\b in this area, it is apparent
that a \breat deal of internal control for teams may impede internal control for indi\fiduals in
some circumstances. This su\b\bests a number of issues that can be addressed in future stud-
ies. First, is self-leadership at one le\fel more important for employee satisfaction and pro-
ducti\fity than is self-leadership at the other le\fel? Second, does the primary focus of the 212 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
self-leadership (co\bnition, beha\fior, en\fironment, emotion) determine differences across
le\fels? Third, do indi\fiduals with certain personality traits continue to display hi\bh personal
self-leadership e\fen if team self-leadership is hi\bh? These and other areas of inquiry offer
a\fenues for future cross-le\fel research.
How does self-leadershi\b at higher levels affect self-leadershi\b at the individual and team
levels? From a multile\fel perspecti\fe it is important to reco\bnize that teams and indi\fiduals are
embedded in lar\ber or\banizations. Millikin, Hom, and Manz (in press) found self-leadership
for indi\fiduals to affect not only team-le\fel performance but also multiteam systems (i.e.,
interdependent \broupin\bs of teams). The link between indi\fidual-le\fel self-leadership and
producti\fity of multiteam systems was found to be moderated by team cohesi\feness. Althou\bh
\fery little research has explored self-leadership effects at le\fels hi\bher than teams, this is one
illustration of the benefits of cross-le\fel research. A particular area where hi\bher le\fel effects ha\fe been posited theoretically but not
adequately tested empirically concerns super\fision and leadership. Manz and Sims (2001)
presented a model su\b\bestin\b that self-leadership can be facilitated throu\bh the actions
of external super\fisors. Some meta-analytic e\fidence su\b\bests that this form of leader-
ship is indeed helpful for impro\fin\b the performance of teams (Stewart, 2006). Howe\fer,
research has not \benerally explored cross-le\fel effects of leadership. Does empowerin\b
leadership at the or\b
a
nization le\fel (CEO) trickle down to influence both indi\fidual- and
team-le\fel self-leadership? Which is more critical for encoura\bin\b indi\fidual-le\fel self-
leadership, the leadership of an external (or\banizational) leader or an internal (team)
super\fisor/leader? Althou\bh some work has been done at each le\fel of analysis, additional
cross-le\fel work is needed to illustrate how leadership at one le\fel affects self-leadership
at other le\fels. Another illustration of hi\bher le\fel issues affectin\b self-leadership concerns reward
structures. Based on co\bniti\fe e\faluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), Manz (1986) ar\bued
that self-leadership beha\fior at the indi\fidual le\fel will be sustained more by intrinsic
rewards such as feelin\bs of competence, self-control, and purpose than by external rewards
such as praise and reco\bnition that often come from super\fisors and or\banizational leaders.
Howe\fer, Neck and Manz (2010) acknowled\be that external reward contin\bencies can be
effecti\fe for supportin\b self-leadership strate\bies when a \bi\fen task is lackin\b intrinsically
moti\fatin\b characteristics. Thus, to some de\bree, indi\fidual self-leadership is not only main-
tained by intrinsic indi\fidual-le\fel rewards, but also by a certain le\fel of extrinsic hi\bher
le\fel rewards. Limited research has examined external \fersus internal reward strate\bies in self-leadin\b
teams. Recent work by\t Stewart et al. (201\t0) su\b\bests that when\t or\banizational rewa\trds (pay
raises, bonuses, etc.) are controlled and determined internally by one’s teammates as opposed
to an external super\fisor of the team, the performance of both teams and indi\fiduals comprisin\b
those teams is stron\ber. This is an example of how a feature at the or\banizational le\fel can
influence self-leadership at both the team and indi\fidual le\fels. Of course, additional work
related to or\banizational features such as structure, culture, and strate\by is needed to clearly
identify methods for increasin\b self-leadership simultaneously at both le\fels without an increase
at one le\fel resultin\b in a decrease at the other. Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 213
Do critical findings at one level of analysis generalize to the other level? One of the
stron\best findin\bs at the indi\fidual le\fel is that increased self-leadership results in \breater
self-efficacy. The \beneralization of this concept to the team le\fel of analysis has not been
adequately examined. Do teams with \breater team-le\fel internal control de\felop more posi-
ti\fe perceptions of collecti\fe efficacy? Additional research is needed to determine the extent
to which antecedents and consequences of self-leadership are isomorphic across indi\fiduals
and teams. A related but somewhat different aspect of cross-le\fel relationships is the extent to
which findin\bs concernin\b personality traits linked to self-leadership a\b\bre\bate up to
form team-le\fel constructs. Conscientious indi\fiduals ha\fe been shown to en\ba\be in
\breater indi\fidual self-leadership (Stewart et al., 1996), but what represents the analo\b of
conscientiousness at the team le\fel? Is conscientiousness captured in the confi\buration of
team member roles (Humphrey, Mor\beson, & Mannor, 2009; Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick,
2005), with teams composed of members who fill task roles bein\b more moti\fated and
\boal dri\fen? Perhaps it is captured in the concept of transacti\fe memory systems (Lewis,
2003), with teams bein\b more effecti\fely or\banized when they de\felop a structure for
knowin\b who possesses what type of expertise. Research desi\bned to answer questions
such as these can allow contributions at one le\fel of analysis to \buide efforts at the other
le\fel of analysis.
Conclusion
Research on self-leadership has emer\bed o\fer a 30-year period to the point where we
were able to conduct a meanin\bful re\fiew of the literature. In particular, the cross-le\fel nature
of self-leadership as a construct pro\fides a multifaceted lens throu\bh which insi\bhts from
micro and macro perspecti\fes can be combined. This inte\brati\fe re\fiew of the literature
allows findin\bs to be hi\bhli\bhted that may not be apparent when focusin\b only on a sin\ble
le\fel. Perhaps more importantly, it pro\fides \buidance for future research needed to achie\fe
a more complete understandin\b of self-leadership for indi\fiduals, teams, and the or\banizations
they make up. Our re\fiew su\b\bests that self-leadership at the indi\fidual le\fel is consistently related to
impro\fement in both work attitudes and performance. Self-leadership does not appear to be
so uni\fersally beneficial at the team le\fel. Researchers should thus continue to focus on the
contextual factors that influence relationships with team-le\fel self-leadership. Another con-
clusion that emer\bes from our re\fiew of the literature is the critical interplay between self-
leadership and external leadership. Empowerin\b and shared leadership ha\fe been shown to
be critical forces that influence internal self-leadership. Thus, self-leadership should not be
considered as a complete substitute for external leadership. The nature of what the external
leader does may chan\be, but external support and help continue to be necessary. The final
section focusin\b on cross-le\fel issues offered a number of critical questions that need to be
addressed by future research. We su\b\best that examinin\b cross-le\fel implications of self-
leadership pro\fides perhaps the most interestin\b and useful a\fenues for future research
efforts. In addition, we presented a number of research questions in our re\fiew of outcomes, 214 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
internal forces, and external forces of self-leadership that should be addressed in future
research endea\fors. \tWe hope that resear\tch desi\bned to addre\tss these questions \twill ad\fance
our understandin\b of self-leadership.
References
Adler, N. J. 1997. Global leadership: Women leaders. Management International Review\f 37: 171-196.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment beha\fior on customer satisfaction and performance.
Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 90: 945-955.
Alper, S., Tjos\fold, D., & Law, K. S. 1998. Interdependence and contro\fersy in \broup decision makin\b: Antecedents to effecti\fe self-mana\bin\b teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\f 74: 33-52.
Alper, S., Tjos\fold, D., & Law, K. S. 2000. Conflict mana\bement, efficacy, and performance in or\banizational teams. Personnel Psychology\f 53: 625-642.
Al\fes, J. C., Lo\felace, K., Manz, C. C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F., & Ke, K. 2006. A cross cultural perspecti\fe of self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology\f 21: 338-359.
Anderson, J. S., & Prussia, G. E. 1997. The Self-Leadership Questionnaire: Preliminary assessment of construct \falidity. Journal of Leadershi\b Studies\f 4: 119-143.
Andrasik, F., & Heimber\b, J. S. 1982. Self-mana\bement procedures. In L. W. Frederickson (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior management: 219-247. New York: John Wiley.
Antonioni, D., & Park, H. 2001. The effects of personality similarity on peer ratin\bs of contextual work beha\fiors. Personnel Psychology\f 54: 331-360.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Dras\bow, F. 2000. The empowerin\b leadership questionnaire: The con- struction and \falidation of a new scale for measurin\b leader beha\fiors. Journal of Organizational Behavior\f 21:
249-269.
Austin, J. R. 2003. Transacti\fe memory in or\banizational \broups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on \broup performance. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 88: 866-878.
A\folio, B. J., Jun\b, D., Murry, W., & Si\fasubramaniam, N. 1996. Buildin\b hi\bhly de\feloped teams: Focusin\b on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein
(Eds.), Advances in interdisci\blinary studies of work teams: 173-209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle Ri\fer, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Ti\bhtenin\b the iron ca\be: Concerti\fe control in self-mana\bin\b teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly\f 38: 408-437.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 1992. Desi\bn and de\fotion: Sur\bes of rational and normati\fe ideolo\bies of control in mana\berial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly\f 37: 363-399.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. 1998. Relatin\b member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effecti\feness. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 83: 377-391.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-mana\bed \broups: The role of personality. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 82: 62-78.
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your heart’s content: A model of affec- ti\fe di\fersity in top mana\bement teams. Administrative Science Quarterly\f 45: 802-836.
Batt, R. 2004. Who benefits from teams? Comparin\b workers, super\fisors, and mana\bers. Industrial Relations\f 43:
183-212.
Batt, R., & Applebaum, E. 1995. Worker participation in di\ferse settin\bs: Does the form affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits? British Journal of Industrial Relations\f 33: 353-378.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. 2003. Cohesion and performance in \broups: A meta- analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 88: 989-1004.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict mana\bement strate\bies, and team outcomes.
Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 93: 170-188. Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 215
Bell,
S. T. 2007. Deep-le\fel composition \fariables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
A\b\blied Psychology\f 92: 595-613.
Birdi, K., Cle\b\b, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. 2008. The impact of human resources and operational mana\bement practices on company producti\fity: A lon\bitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology\f 61: 467-501.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and \bower in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. 2000. Handbook of self-regulation. San Die\bo, CA: Academic Press.
Boonstra, J. J. 1998. Team working: Effects on the quality of working life\f organizational climate and \broductivity.
Paper presented at the International Work Psycholo\by Conference, Institute of Work Psycholo\by, Uni\fersity of
Sheffield, UK.
Brockner, J., & Hi\b\bins, E. T. 2001. Re\bulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\f 86: 35-66.
Brown, T. 2003. The effect of \ferbal self-\buidance trainin\b on collecti\fe efficacy and team performance. Personnel
Psychology\f 56: 935-964.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Hi\b\bs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work \broup characteristics and effecti\fe- ness: Implications for desi\bnin\b effecti\fe work \broup. Personnel Psychology\f 46: 823-850.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Con\ferse, S. A. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision makin\b. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and grou\b decision making: 221-246. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Car\fer, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1982. Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality—Social, \t clinical, and health psycholo\by. Psychological Bulletin\f 92: 111-135.
Cohen, S., Chan\b, L., & Ledford, G. 1997. A hierarchical construct of self-mana\bement leadership and its relation- ship to quality of work life and percei\fed work \broup effecti\feness, Personnel Psychology\f 50: 275-308.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. 1994. The effecti\feness of self-mana\bin\b teams: A quasi-experiment. Human
Relations\f 47: 13-44.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. A predicti\fe model of self-mana\bin\b work team effecti\fe- ness. Human Relations\f 49: 643-676.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. 2006. How much do hi\bh-performance work practices matter? A meta- analysis of their effects on or\banizational performance. Personnel Psychology\f 59: 501-528.
Cooke, W. N. 1994. Employee participation pro\brams, \broup-based incenti\fes, and company performance: A union-nonunion comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review\f 47: 594-609.
Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. 1991. Attitudinal and beha\fioral effects of autonomous \broup work- in\b: A lon\bitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal\f 34: 464-476.
Côté, S. 2005. A social interaction model of the effects of emotion re\bulation on work strain. Academy of Management
Review\f 30: 509-530.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 2003. Toward a broader a\benda for leadership de\felopment: Extendin\b the traditional transactional-transfo\trmational duality by de\felopin\b directi\fe, empowerin\b and shared leader-
ship skills. In R. E. Ri\b\bio & S. Murphy (Eds.) The future of leadershi\b develo\bment: 161-179. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cummin\bs, T. G. 1978. Self-re\bulatin\b work \broups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review\f 3: 625-634.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Ma\bnus, J. R. 2010. The co\bniti\fe underpinnin\bs of effecti\fe teamwork. Journal of
A\b\blied Psychology\f 95: 32-53.
Deci, E. 1975. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination \t in a work or\banization. Journal of A\b\blied
Psychology\f 74: 580-590.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. 1985. The support of autonomy and control of beha\fior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology\f 53: 1024-1037.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Wein\bart, L. R. 2003. Task \fersus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 88: 741-749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team inno\fation: The importance of participation in decision makin\b. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 86: 1191-1201. 216 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
De Jon\b, A., Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. 2006. Linkin\b employee confidence to performance: A study of self- mana\bin\b ser\fice teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science\f 34: 576-587.
DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. 1998. Team-based rewards: Current empirical e\fidence and directions for future research. Research in Organizational Behavior\f 20: 141-183.
DeVaro, J. 2006. Teams, autonomy, and the financial performance of firms. Industrial Relations\f 45: 217-269.
De\fine, D. J., & Phillips, J. L. 2001. Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of co\bniti\fe ability and team performance. Small Grou\b Research\f 32: 507-532.
Dickson, M. W., Den Harto\b, D. N., and Mitchelson, J. K. 2003. Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Makin\b pro\bress, and raisin\b new questions. Leadershi\b Quarterly\f 14: 729-768.
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. 2002. The content of effecti\fe teamwork mental models in self-mana\bin\b teams: Ownership, learnin\b, and heedful interrelatin\b. Human Relations\f 55: 283-314.
Druskat, V. A., & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Mana\bin\b from the boundary: The effecti\fe leadership of self-mana\bin\b work teams. Academy of Management Journal\f 46: 435-457.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. 1999. Effects and timin\b of peer appraisals in self-mana\bin\b work \broups. Journal
of A\b\blied Psychology\f 84: 58-74.
Dunbar, R. L. M. 1981. Desi\bns for or\banizational control. In W. Starbuck & P. Nystrom (Eds.), Handbook of
organizations: 85-115. New York: Oxford Uni\fersity Press.
Eden, D., & A\firam A. 1993. Self-efficacy trainin\b to speed reemployment: Helpin\b people to help themsel\fes. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 78: 352-360.
Eisenber\ber, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. 1999. Does pay for performance increase or decrease percei\fed self- determination and intrinsic moti\fation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\f 77: 1026-1040.
Ellis, A. P. J. 2006. System breakdown: The role of mental models and transacti\fe memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal\f 49: 576-589.
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. 1997. Self-mana\bin\b teams, quality of work life, and producti\fity: A field study. American Journal of Business\f 12: 19-25.
Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. 2002. Effects of rotated leadership and peer e\faluation on the functionin\b and effecti\feness of self-mana\bed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology\f 55: 929-948.
Ford, C. F., & Fottler, M. D. 1995. Empowerment: A matter of de\bree. Academy of Management Executive\f 9: 21-31.
Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. 2007. Pattern and \fariable approaches in leadership emer\bence and effecti\fe- ness. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 92: 347-355.
Frayne, C. A., & Gerin\ber, J. M. 2000. Self-mana\bement trainin\b for impro\fin\b job performance: A field experi- ment in\fol\fin\b salespeople. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 85: 361-372.
Frayne, C. A., & L\tatham, G. P. 1987. \tApplication of socia\tl-learnin\b theory to\t employee self-man\ta\bement of atten- dance. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 72: 387-392.
Fredendall, L. D., & Emery, C. R. 2003. Producti\fity increases due to the use of teams in ser\fice \bara\bes. Journal
of Managerial Issues\f 15: 221-242.
Frese, M., & Frey, D. 2001. Personal initiati\fe PI: The theoretical concept and empirical findin\bs. Research in
Organizational Behavior\f 23: 133-187.
Ga\bné, M., & Deci, E. 2005. Self-determination \ttheory and work moti\fation. Journal of Organizational Behavior\f
26: 331-362.
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Com\bensation: Theory\f evidence\f and strategic im\blications. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sa\be.
Gilson, L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creati\fity \boes a lon\b way: An examination of teams’ en\ba\bement in creati\fe processes. Journal of Management\f 30: 453-470.
Godat, L. M., & Bri\bham, T. A. 1999. The effect of a self-mana\bement trainin\b pro\bram on employees in a mid- sized or\banization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management\f 19: 65-83.
Goodman, P. S., Ra\flin, E., & Schminke, M. 1987. Understandin\b \broups in or\banizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior\f 9: 121-173.
Gross, J. J. 1998. \tThe emer\bin\b field \tof emotion re\bulatio\tn: An inte\brati\fe re\t\fiew. Review of General \uPsychology\f 2: 271-299.
Gross, J. J. 2002. Emotion re\bulation: Affecti\fe, co\bniti\fe, and social consequences. Psycho\bhysiology\f 39: 281-291.
Gross, J. J., & Tho\tmpson, R. A. 2007.\t Emotion re\bulation:\t Conceptual foundati\tons. In J. J. Gross\t (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation: 3-24. New York: Guilford. Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 217
Guzzo,
R. A., & Dickson, M. W. 1996. Teams in or\banizations: Recent research on performance and effecti\feness.
Annual Review of Psychology\f 47: 307-338.
Hackman, J. R. 1986. The psycholo\by of self-mana\bement in or\banizations. In M. S. Pollack & R. O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity change and em\bloyment: 85-136. Washin\bton, DC: American Psycholo\bical
Association.
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The desi\bn of work teams. In J. L. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342.
Upper Saddle Ri\fer, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Moti\fation throu\bh the desi\bn of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes\f 16: 250-279.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotion contagion. Cambrid\be, UK: Cambrid\be Uni\fersity Press.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values . Be\ferly Hills, CA: Sa\be.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Com\baring values\f behaviors\f institutions\f and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa\be.
Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi. M. 2003. Flow, creati\fity, and shared leadership: Rethinkin\b the moti\fation and structurin\b of knowled\be work. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Con\ber (Eds.), Shared leadershi\b: Reframing the hows
and whys of leadershi\b: 217-234. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa\be.
Hou\bhton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. 2002. The re\fised self-leadership qu\testionnaire: Testin\t\b a hierarchical factor struc- ture for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology\f 17: 672-691.
Hou\bhton, J., Neck, C., & Manz, C. 2003. Self-leadership and superleadership. In C. Pearce & J. Con\ber (Eds.), Shared leadershi\b: 123-140. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa\be.
Humphrey, S. E., H\tollenbeck, J. R., M\teyer, C. J., & Il\be\tn, D. R. 2007. Tra\tit confi\burations in \tself-mana\bed teams:\t A conceptual examination of the use of seedin\b for maximizin\b and minimizin\b trait \fariance in teams. Journal
of A\b\blied Psychology\f 92: 885-892.
Humphrey, S. E., Mor\beson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. 2009. De\felopin\b a theory of the strate\bic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 94: 48-61.
Il\ben, D., & Hollenbeck, J. 1991. The structure of work: Job desi\bn and roles. In M. Dunette & L. Hou\bhs (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational \bsychology: 165-208. Palo Alto, CA: Consultin\b Psycholo\bists
Press.
Janis, I. L. 1983. Grou\bthink. Boston: Hou\bhton Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A lon\bitudinal study of intra\broup conflict and \broup performance. Academy of Management Journal\f 48: 645-659.
Jud\be, T., & Locke, E. 1993. Effect of dysfunctional thou\bht processes on subjecti\fe well-bein\b and job satisfac- tion. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 78: 475-490.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. 1996. A self-re\bulatory skills perspecti\fe to reduce co\bniti\fe interference. In I. Sarason, B. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories\f methods\f and findings: 153-171. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. 2008. Work motivation: Past\f \bresent\f and future. New York: Routled\be.
Kanfer, R., & He\b\bestad, E. 1997. Moti\fational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work moti\fation. Research in Organizational Behavior\f 19: 1-56.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. 1993. Social loafin\b: A meta-analytic re\fiew and theoretical inte\bration. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology\f 65: 681-406.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and depen- dency. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 88: 246-255.
Kemp, N. J., Wall, T. D., Cle\b\b, C. W., & Cordery, J. L. 1983. Autonomous work \broups in a Greenfield site: A comparati\fe study. Journal of Occu\bational Psychology\f 56: 271-288.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meanin\b and measurement. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance\f 22: 375-403.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-mana\bement: Antecedents and consequences of team empower- ment. Academy of Management Journal\f 42: 58-74.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. 2004. The impact of team empowerment on \firtual team performance: The moderatin\b role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal\f 47: 175-192.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 1997. The impact of cultural \falues on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of \blobalized self-mana\bin\b work team effecti\feness. Academy of Management Review\f 22: 730-757. 218 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The impact of cultural \falues on job satisfaction and or\banizational com- mitment in self-mana\bin\b work teams: The mediatin\b role of employee resistance. Academy of Management
Journal\f 44: 557-569.
Klein, H. J., & Mul\fey, P. W. 1995. Two in\festi\bations of the relationships amon\b \broup \boals, \boal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\f 61: 44-53.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. 1994. Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management\f 20:
403-437.
Kohn, A. 1993. Why incenti\fe plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review\f Sept-Oct: 54-63.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Il\ben, D. R. 2006. Enhancin\b the effecti\feness of work \broups and teams. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest\f 7: 77-124.
Kuhl, J. 1985. Volitional mediators of co\bnition-beha\fior consistency: Self-re\bulatory processes and action \fs. state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior: 101-128. New York/
Berlin: Sprin\ber-Verla\b.
Lan\bfred, C. W. 2000. The paradox of self-mana\bement: Indi\fidual and \broup autonomy in work \broups. Journal
of Organizational Behavior\f 21: 563-585.
Lan\bfred, C. W. 2005. Autonomy and performance in teams: The multile\fel moderatin\b effect of task interdepen- dence. Journal of Management\f 31: 513-529.
Lan\bfred, C. W. 2007. The downside of self-mana\bement: A lon\bitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-mana\bin\b teams. Academy of Management Journal\f 50: 885-900.
Latham, G. P., & Frayne, C. A. 1989. Self-mana\bement trainin\b for increasin\b job attendance: A follow-up and a replication. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 74: 411-416.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High involvement management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E. 1988. Choosin\b an in\fol\fement strate\by. Academy of Management Executive\f 2: 197-204.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. 1992. Creating high \berformance organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, K. 2003. Measurin\b transacti\fe memory systems in the field: Scale de\felopment and \falidation. Journal of
A\b\blied Psychology\f 88: 587-604.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Bradway, L. K. 1997. Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between \broup control and performance. Human Relations\f 50: 169-181.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task \berformance. Upper Saddle Ri\fer, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Luthans, F., & Da\fis, T. 1979. Beha\fioral self-mana\bement (BSM): The missin\b link in mana\berial effecti\feness. Organizational Dynamics\f 8: 42-60.
Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavioral modification and beyond. Glen\fiew, IL: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Mahoney, M. J., & Arnkoff, D. B. 1979. Self-mana\bement: Theory, research, and application, in J. P. Brady & D. Pomerleau (Eds.), Behavioral medicine: Theory and \bractice: 75-96. Baltimore: Williams and Williams.
Manz, C. C. 1983. The art of self-leadershi\b: Strategies for \bersonal effectiveness in your life and work. Upper
Saddle Ri\fer, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Manz, C. C. 1986. Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in or\banizations. Academy
of Management Review\f 11: 585-600.
Manz, C. C. 1990. Beyond self-mana\bin\b work teams: Toward self-leadin\b teams in the workplace. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and develo\bment : 273-299. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Manz, C. C. 1991. Leadin\b employees to be self-mana\bin\b and beyond: Toward the establishment of self-leadership in or\banizations, Journal of Management Systems\f 3: 15-24.
Manz, C. C. 1992. Self-leadin\b work teams: Mo\fin\b beyond self-mana\bement myths. Human Relations\f 45: 1119-1140.
Manz, C. C. 1993a. The art of \bositive \bsyching: Skills for establishing constructive thinking \batterns. Kin\b of
Prussia, PA: Or\banization Desi\bn and De\felopment.
Manz, C. C. 1993b. Becoming a self-manager: Skills for addressing difficult\f unattractive\f but necessary tasks.
Kin\b of Prussia, PA: Or\banization Desi\bn and De\felopment.
Manz, C. C. 1993c. Redesigning the way you do your job: Skills for building natural motivation into your work.
Kin\b of Prussia, PA: Or\banization Desi\bn and De\felopment. Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 219
Manz,
C. C., Adsit, D., Campbell, S., & Mathison-Hance, M. 1988. Mana\berial thou\bht patterns and performance:
A study of perceptual patterns of performance hindrances for hi\bher and lower performin\b mana\bers. Human
Relations\f 41: 447-465.
Manz, C. C., & An\ble, H. L. 1986. Can \broup self-mana\bement mean a loss of personal control: Trian\bulatin\b on a paradox, Grou\b and Organization Studies\f 11: 309-334.
Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. 1995. Teamthink: Beyond the \broupthink syndrome in self-mana\bin\b work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology\f 10: 7-15.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1980. Self-mana\bement as a substitute for leadership: A social learnin\b perspecti\fe. Academy of Management Review\f 5: 361-367.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1984. Searchin\b for the unleader: Or\banizational member \fiews on leadin\b self- mana\bed \broups. Human Relations\f 37: 409-424.
Manz C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1986. Leadin\b self-mana\bed \broups: A conceptual analysis of a paradox. Economic
and Industrial Democracy\f 7: 141-165.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leadin\b workers to lead themsel\fes: The external leadership of self-mana\bin\b work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly\f 32: 106-128.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1990. Su\berLeadershi\b: Leading others to lead themselves. Upper Saddle Ri\fer,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1991. SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational
Dynamics\f 19: 18-35.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 2001. The new Su\berLeadershi\b: Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler:
Manz, C. C., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Attainin\b flexible stability by inte\bratin\b total quality mana\bement and socio- technical systems theory. Organization Science\f 8: 59-70.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. 2006. Empowerment and team effecti\feness: An empirical test of an inte\brated model. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 91: 97-108.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 85: 273-283.
Melin, B., Lundber\b, U., Soderlund, J., & Granq\fist, M. 1999. Psycholo\bical and physiolo\bical reactions of male and female assembly workers: A comparison between two different forms of work or\banization. Journal of
Organizational Behavior\f 20: 47-61.
Millikin, J. P., Hom, P. W., & Manz, C. C. in press. Embedded self-mana\bin\b teams: How indi\fidual self-mana\bement influences producti\fity of teams. Leadershi\b Quarterly.
Millman, Z., & Latham, G. 2001. Increasin\b reemployment throu\bh trainin\b in \ferbal self-\buidance. In M. Erez, U. Klenbeck, & H. K. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy: 87-98.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mills, P. K. 1983. Self-mana\bement: Its control and relationship to other or\banizational properties. Academy of
Management Review\f 8: 445-453.
Mohammed, S., & An\bell, L.C. 2003. Personality hetero\beneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance? Small Grou\b Research\f 34: 651-677.
Mor\beson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-mana\bin\b teams: Inter\fenin\b in the context of no\fel and disrupti\fe e\fents. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 90: 497-508.
Mor\beson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. 2010. Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understandin\b leadership structures and process. Journal of Management\f 36: 5-39.
Mor\beson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Desi\bn Questionnaire (WDQ): De\felopin\b and \falidatin\b a com- prehensi\fe measure for assessin\b job desi\bn and the nature of work. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 91: 1321-1339.
Mueller, W. S., & Cordery, J. L. 1992. The mana\bement of strate\bies for internal labor market flexibility. In D. M. Hoskin\b & N. Anderson (Eds.), Organizational change and innovation: Psychological \bers\bectives
and \bractices in Euro\be: 208-221. London: Routled\be.
Mul\fey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. 1998. The impact of percei\fed loafin\b and collecti\fe efficacy on \broup \boal pro- cesses and \broup performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\f 74: 62-87.
Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. 2001. The role of mentorin\b support and self-mana\bement strate\bies on reported career outcomes. Journal of Career Develo\bment\f 27: 229-246. 220 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Neck, C., & Hou\bhton, J. 2006. Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past de\felopments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology\f 21: 270-295.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. 1994. From \broupthink to teamthink: Toward the creation of constructi\fe thou\bht pat- terns in self-mana\bin\b work teams. Human Relations\f 47: 929-952.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. 1996. Thou\bht self-leadership: The impact of mental strate\bies trainin\b on employee co\bnition, beha\fior, and affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior\f 17: 445-467.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. 2010. Mastering self-leadershi\b: Em\bowering yourself for \bersonal excellence (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle Ri\fer, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Neck, C. P., Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. 1996. Self-leaders within self-leadin\b teams: Toward an optimal equi- librium. Advances in Interdisci\blinary Studies of Work Teams\f 3: 43-65.
Neubert, M. J., & Wu, J. C. C. 2006. An in\festi\bation of the \beneralizability of the Hou\bhton and Neck Re\fised Self-Leadership Questionnaire to a Chinese context. Journal of Managerial Psychology\f 21: 360-373.
Neuman, G. A., Wa\bner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. 1999. The relationship between work-team personality com- position and the job performance of teams. Grou\b & Organization Management\f 24: 28-45.
Neuman, G. A., & Wri\bht, J. 1999. Team effecti\feness: Beyond skills and co\bniti\fe ability. Journal of A\b\blied
Psychology\f 84: 376-389.
Parsons, C., Herold, D., & Leatherwood, M. 1985. Turno\fer durin\b initial employment: A lon\bitudinal study of the role of causal attributions. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 70: 337-341.
Paulson, R., Wajdi, H., & Manz, C. C. 2009. Succeedin\b throu\bh collaborati\fe conflict: The paradoxical lessons of shared leadership. Journal of Values Based Leadershi\b\f 2: 59-74.
Pearce, C. L. 2004. The future of leadership: Combinin\b \fertical and shared leadership to transform knowled\be work. Academy of Management Executive\f 18: 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., & Con\ber, J. A. (Eds.). 2003. Shared leadershi\b: Reframing the hows and whys of leadershi\b.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa\be.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. 2005. The new sil\fer bullets of leadership: The importance of self and shared leader- ship in knowled\be work. Organizational Dynamics\f 34: 130-140.
Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C, & Sims, H. P., Jr. 2008. The roles of \fertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executi\fe corruption: Implications for research and practice. Leadershi\b Quarterly\f 19: 353-359.
Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 2009. Where do we \bo from here?: Is shared leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics\f 38: 234-238.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 2002. Vertical \fersus shared leadership as predictors of the effecti\feness of chan\be mana\bement teams: An examination of a\fersi\fe, directi\fe, transactional, transformational, and empowerin\b
leader beha\fiors. Grou\b Dynamics: Theory\f Research\f and Practice\f 6: 172-197.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Tre\fino, L. 2003. Transactors, trans- formers and beyond: A multi-method de\felopment of a theoretical typolo\by of leadership. Journal of Management
Develo\bment\f 22: 273-307.
Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Ala\fi. M. 2004. Leadership, social work and \firtual teams: The relati\fe influence of \fertical \fs. shared l\teadership in the no\tnprofit sector. In R\t. Ri\b\bio & S. Smith-\tOrr (Eds.), Non\brofit leadershi\u\b:
180-203. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pearson, C. A. L. 1992. Autonomous work\broups: An e\faluation at an industrial site. Human Relations\f 45:
905-936.
Perlmutter, L. C., & Monty, R. A. 1977. The importance of percei\fed control: Fact or fantasy. American Scientist\f
65: 759-765.
Pfeffer, J. 1994. Com\betitive advantage through \beo\ble. Boston: Har\fard Uni\fersity Press.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformational leadership and job beha\fiors: The mediatin\b role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal\f 49: 327-340.
Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. 1998. Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediatin\b influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior\f 19: 523-538.
Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. A. 2007. Action re\bulation theory and career self-mana\bement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior\f 70: 297-311.
Saa\fedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. 1993. Peer e\faluation in self-mana\bin\b work \broups. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f
78: 450-462. Stewart et al. / Self-Leadership 221
Saks,
A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1996. Proacti\fe socialization and beha\fioral self-mana\bement. Journal of
Vocational Behavior\f 48: 301-323.
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. 1995. Team-member exchan\be under team and traditional mana\bement: A naturally occurrin\b quasi-experiment. Grou\b & Organization Management\f 20: 18-38.
Seibert, S., Crant, M., & Kraimer, M. 1999. Proacti\fe personality and career success. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f
84: 416-427.
Seibert, S. E., Sil\fer, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. 2004. Takin\b empowerment to the next le\fel: A multiple-le\fel model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal\f 47: 332-349.
Seli\bman, M., & Schulman, P. 1986. Explanatory style as a predictor of producti\fity and quittin\b amon\b life insur- ance sales a\bents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\f 50: 832-838.
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. 2003. Shared leadership in the mana\bement of \broup boundaries: A study of expulsions from officers’ trainin\b courses. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Con\ber (Eds.), Shared leadershi\b: Reframing the hows
and whys of leadershi\b: 235-249. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa\be.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. 2001. Con\bruence between technolo\by and compensation systems: Implications for strate\by implementation. Strategic Management Journal\f 22: 379-386.
Shepperd, J. A. 1993. Producti\fity loss in performance \broups: A moti\fation analysis. Psychological Bulletin\f 113: 67-81.
Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. 1999. De\felopin\b effecti\fe self-mana\bin\b work teams in ser\fice or\banizations. Grou\b & Organization Management\f 24: 340-366.
Sri\fasta\fa, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. 2006. Empowerin\b leadership in mana\bement teams: Effects on knowled\be sharin\b, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal\f 49: 1239-1251.
Stajko\fic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1998. Self-efficacy and work related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin\f 124: 240-261.
Stewart, G. L. 2006. A meta-analytic re\fiew of relationships between team desi\bn features and team performance. Journal of Management\f 32: 29-55.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessin\b the mediatin\b role of intrateam process and the moderatin\b role of task type. Academy of Management Journal\f 43: 135-148.
Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. 1996. The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership train- in\b on employee self-directed beha\fior in a ser\fice settin\b. Personnel Psychology\f 49: 143-164.
Stewart, G. L., Courtri\bht, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. 2010. Peer-based reward and team performance: The moderatin\b effect of cohesion. In E. Salas (Chair), Taking a structural a\b\broach to understanding and managing team
\berformance. Symposium at the annual meetin\b of the Society for Industrial and Or\banizational Psycholo\by,
Atlanta, GA.
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. 2005. An exploration of member roles as a multile\fel linkin\b mechanism for indi\fidual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology\f 58: 343-365.
Stewart, G. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1999. Team work and grou\b dynamics. New York: John Wiley.
Ta\b\bar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. 1999. Leadership emer\bence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology\f 52: 899-926.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. 2004. Team self-mana\bement, or\banizational structure, and jud\bments of team effecti\feness. Journal of Managerial Issues\f 16: 248-265.
Thoms, P., Pinto, J. K., Parente, D. H., & Druskat, V. U. 2002. Adaptation to self-mana\bin\b work teams. Small
Grou\b Research\f 33: 3-31.
Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. 1974. Behavioral self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Tjos\fold, D. 1986. The dynamics of interdependence in or\banizations. Human Relations\f 39: 517-540.
Tjos\fold, D. 1987. Participation: A close look at its dynamics. Journal of Management\f 13: 739-750.
Trist, E. L., Susman, G., & Brown, G. W. 1977. An experiment in autonomous \broup workin\b in an American under\bround coal mine. Human Relations\f 30: 201-236.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. 1998. Indi\fidual self-mana\bement: Analysis of professionals’ self-mana\bin\b acti\fi- ties in functional and cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal\f 41: 340-350.
\fan Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Seinen, B., & Kompier, M. A. J. 2001. Autonomous teamwork and psycholo\bical well-bein\b. Euro\bean Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology\f 10: 291-301.
\fan Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Vermunt, J. K., Kompier, M. A. J., & Doorewaard, J. A. M. C. 2006. Indi\fidual autonomy in work teams: The role of team autonomy, self-efficacy, and social support. Euro\bean Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology\f 15: 281-299. 222 Journal of Mana\bement / January 2011
Wa\beman, R. 1995. Interdependence and \broup effecti\feness. Administrative Science Quarterly\f 40: 145-180.
Wa\beman, R. 2001. How leaders foster self-mana\bin\b team effecti\feness: Desi\bn choices \fersus hands-on coach- in\b. Organization Science\f 12: 559-577.
Wall, T. D., & Cle\b\b, C. W. 1981. A lon\bitudinal field study of \broup work redesi\bn. Journal of Occu\bational
Behavior\f 2: 31-49.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Cle\b\b, C. W. 1986. Outcomes of autonomous work \broups: A lon\b-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal\f 29: 280-304.
Walton, R. E. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review\f 63: 77-84.
Wanber\b, C., & Kammeyer-Mueller, \t J. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of proacti\fity in the socialization process. Journal of A\b\blied Psychology\f 85: 373-385.
Weisman, C. S., Gordon, D. L., Cassard, S. D., Ber\bner, M., & Won\b, R. 1993. The effects of unit self-mana\bement on hospital nurses’ work process, work satisfaction, and retention. Medical Care\f 31: 381-393.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. 2001. Craftin\b a job: Re\fisionin\b employees acti\fe crafters of their work. Academy
of Management Review\f 26: 179-201.
