Search results

This study aims to investigate the relationship between shared leadership (SL) and decision quality, utilizing shared leadership theory (SLT) and behavioral decision theory (BDT). The authors will explore the mediating role of “decision comprehensiveness” in the SL–decision quality linkage. Additionally, the authors will examine how individual “self-leadership” and “debate” among team members moderate the relationship between SL and decision comprehensiveness.

The authors tested the hypothesized moderated mediation model using a sample of 506 professionals employed in 112 research and development (R&D) teams, along with their direct managers from large Italian firms. To examine the relationships, the authors employed confirmatory factor analyses and path analyses. In order to address endogeneity concerns, the authors incorporated an instrumental variable, namely delegation, into the analysis.

SL positively influences decision quality, mediated by decision comprehensiveness, where teams include comprehensive information in decision-making. The level of debate among team members positively moderates the SL–decision comprehensiveness relationship. High levels of self-leadership can harm SL by reducing decision comprehensiveness, indicating a downside. However, low or moderate levels of self-leadership do not harm decision comprehensiveness and can even benefit SL.

This is the first work to investigate the relationship between SL and decision quality, shedding light on the mechanisms underlying this association. By integrating SLT and BDT, the authors provide insights into how managers can make higher-quality decisions within self-leading teams. Moreover, this research makes a distinct contribution to the field of self-leadership by delineating its boundaries and identifying a potentially negative aspect within the self-influence process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The organisational literature suggests a plethora of techniques available to managers to enhance their managerial effectiveness (e.g., planning tools, decision‐making guidelines, etc.). However, an often‐overlooked skill that could assist managers in overcoming obstacles in their daily jobs involves the self‐management of their cognitive processes. In fact, a leading psychologist has written, “One of the most significant findings in psychology in the last twenty years is that individuals can choose the way they think,” (Seligman, 1991, p.8). It has been suggested that managers can better lead themselves and work more effectively with others by applying strategies that help them to manage or control their thoughts. More productive thinking and improved performance are the payoffs. This theory, labelled Thought Self‐Leadership (TSL), centres on employees' establishing and maintaining constructive desirable thought patterns (Neck & Manz, 1992; Manz & Neck, 1991; Neck & Milliman, 1994). This perspective suggests that just as we tend to develop behavioural habits that are both functional and dysfunctional, we also develop habits (or patterns) in our thinking that influence our perceptions, the way we process information, and the choices we make in an almost automatic way.

One major stream of organizational change research focuses on the relationship between senior level employees' cognitions and organizations' responses to change. It is argued here that the cognitive component is important towards how all members (not only top executives) of organizations react and respond to change. In this article, I examine the application of a cognitive process recently introduced into the organizational behavior literature, thought self‐leadership, to the organizational change process. Particularly, this application will focus on how thought self‐leadership can enhance employees' perceptions of specific organizational change. Additionally, a training‐based field experiment is discussed to illustrate and provide support for the arguments proposed.

In terms of the body of knowledge examining work teams, several books and articles have attempted to address the underlying causes of why work teams fail. However, a scarcity of writings has focused on the issue of work team sustainability. The dictionary defines “sustain” as “to prevent from falling, collapsing, or giving way,” and “to endure.” This definition gives rise to the following question: “What are the factors that contribute to those work teams that ‘endure’ and that do not ‘fall, collapse, or give way’ during challenging organizational experiences?” In this paper, we will take an initial step toward answering this question by presenting a cognitive model of work team sustainability based upon established cognitive principles of individual‐level effort and performance sustainability. This model is designed to provide some practical insights into the long‐term team performance sustainability issue while also serving as a possible foundation for future research efforts.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/02683949510075155. When citing the article, please cite: Charles C. Manz, Christopher P. Neck, (1995), “Teamthink: beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10 Iss: 1, pp. 7 - 15.

Seeks to examine the psychometric properties and construct validity of the Houghton and Neck Revised Self‐Leadership Questionnaire (RSLQ) in a Chinese context.

The RSLQ was administered to 559 Chinese employees of a large petroleum transportation company. Analyses included reliability assessments, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and tests of association with creativity and performance.

The RSLQ did not uniformly generalize to a Chinese context. The best fitting model included the self‐leadership dimensions of goal‐setting, visualizing successful performance, self‐talk, self‐reward, and self‐punishment. The modified RSLQ was positively associated with creativity and in‐role performance.

Although this study supports some components of self‐leadership generalizing to a Chinese context, the results suggest that further validation work is required on the RSLQ.

Managers will be well served to understand which dimensions of self‐leadership are generalizable across cultures, and how to measure the existence and development of such practices.

This research makes a significant contribution to research on self‐leadership by investigating the generalizability of the RSLQ to working adults in a non‐Western culture.

The concept of “Thought Self‐Leadership” involves individual self‐influence through cognitive strategies that focus on self‐dialogue, mental imagery, beliefs and assumptions, and thought patterns. A plethora of studies from various fields including management, counseling psychology, sports psychology, education, and communication, address the effect of these Thought Self‐Leadership cognitive strategies on cognitions and behaviors. This research provides consistent support for the relationship between constructive self‐leadership of these cognitive processes and enhanced performance. The application of these cognitive strategies to the entrepreneurship domain, however, is sparse. We propose that the application of these principles to the entrepreneurial process offers the potential to enhance individual performance and mental states for both practicing and aspiring entrepreneurs. Propositions derived from the proposed framework are developed to serve as catalysts for empirically testing the applicability of Thought Self‐Leadership to the entrepreneurship context.

The purpose of this paper is to apply an existing self‐leadership theory to goal‐setting theory in order to propose a mechanism to enhance the effectiveness of individual goal performance. An integral part of self‐leadership is the concept of thought self‐leadership (TSL). This perspective suggests that individuals can influence themselves by utilizing specific cognitive strategies. This article develops a cognitive explanation of how TSL can enhance individual goal performance.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and present a model of self‐leadership, innovation and creativity.

Drawing upon existing theoretical and empirical evidence the paper develops and presents a conceptual model of the relationships between self‐leadership, innovation, creativity, and organizational support. The paper also presents research propositions based upon the relationships suggested by the model.

The model suggests that individuals with strong self‐leadership will consider themselves to have more innovation and creativity potential than individuals who have weak self‐leadership, and that individuals who have innovation and creativity potential will be more likely to practise innovation and creativity when they perceive strong support from the workplace than individuals who perceive weak support from the workplace.

Future researchers should examine empirically the linkages suggested by this model along with other relationships asserted or implied by the creativity and self‐leadership literature as summarized in the paper.

The model suggests that organizational leaders would be well advised to encourage the practice of self‐leadership among the members of organizations while striving to build work environments that support of creativity and innovation at the group, supervisor, and organizational levels.

This paper makes a valuable contribution to both the self‐leadership and creativity literatures by being one of the first to examine the relationships between these important organizational concepts.