You are on page 1of 21

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Self-leadership and team and performance
members’ work role performance
Kristina Hauschildt
HIS-Institute for Research on Higher Education (HIS-HF), 497
Higher Education Information System, Hanover, Germany, and
Udo Konradt Received December 2010
Revised July 2011
Institute of Psychology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany December 2011
January 2012
Accepted January 2012
Purpose – The purpose of this present study is to extend previous research on self-leadership by
investigating the relationship between self-leadership and work role performance of team members,
including individual task and team member proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. Moreover, it aims
to examine the moderating role of collectivism.
Design/methodology/approach – Organizational team members’ self-ratings of self-leadership
and six work role performance dimensions (i.e. individual task and team member proficiency,
adaptivity, and proactivity, respectively) were collected in a cross-sectional study and were analyzed
using partial least squares modeling.
Findings – Results indicate positive relationships between self-leadership and proficiency,
adaptivity and proactivity directed both at the individual task and the team. Results also suggest
that collectivism moderated the relation between self-leadership and team member proficiency.
Practical implications – Managerial implications for personnel selection, leadership, training, and
organizational development efforts are provided.
Originality/value – Previous research is extended by providing first evidence of self-leadership’s
relationship with a differentiated set of individual task and team member work roles including
adaptive and proactive performance aspects.
Keywords Self-leadership, Team member performance, Proficiency, Adaptivity, Proactivity,
Collectivism, Self development, Team performance, Teamworking
Paper type Research paper

Over the past two decades, self-leadership has been advocated as an effective means to
positively influence employee performance (Manz, 1986; Neck and Houghton, 2006).
Self-leadership refers to a process of self-influence concerned with “leading oneself
toward performance of naturally motivating tasks as well as managing oneself to do
work that must be done but is not naturally motivating” (Manz, 1986, p. 599). Previous
research has demonstrated positive relationships between self-leadership and
employee motivation and task performance (see Neck and Houghton, 2006, for a
review). Moreover, self-leadership training has been shown to increase self-efficacy
perceptions (Neck, 1996; Neck and Manz, 1996) and self-leadership was also positively
related to students’ course performance and individual performance of team members
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 5, 2012
This research was supported by a grant to the first author who was part of the Graduate School pp. 497-517
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
“Business Aspects of Loosely Coupled Systems and Electronic Business’” (GRK 517) at the 0268-3946
University of Kiel funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). DOI 10.1108/02683941211235409

JMP (Konradt et al., 2009; Prussia et al., 1998). The latter studies also found evidence for the
27,5 mediating role of self-efficacy and instrumentality, indicating the motivating function
of self-leadership. Self-leadership therefore appears to be technique, which is positively
related to employees’ job performance.
Job performance is a multidimensional concept (Campbell et al., 1993). Models of
workplace performance (e.g. Crant, 2000; Griffin et al., 2007; Pulakos et al., 2000) have
498 emphasized that besides task performance, adaptive and proactive behaviors are
important aspects of the performance concept. As suggested by Griffin et al. (2007) and
Ryan and Pulakos (2007) adaptive and proactive behaviors in particular reflect the
demands of changing and uncertain work contexts. Self-leadership theory has long
propagated positive effects of self-leadership on such behaviors that go beyond
individual task proficiency (see Neck and Houghton, 2006, for a review). Studies have
demonstrated that self-leadership is positively related to individual employees’
proactive, initiative-taking behaviors (Carmeli et al., 2006; Curral and
Marques-Quinteiro, 2009; Stewart et al., 1996). The relationship of self-leadership
and adaptive performance aspects, however, has not received much empirical
consideration. Whereas suggested to be related to self-leadership theoretically
(Lovelace et al., 2007), adaptive aspects of performance could empirically only be
connected with thought self-leadership (Neck, 1996). A comprehensive simultaneous
investigation of self-leadership’s relationship with all relevant work role performance
aspects is therefore called for.
Additionally, organizations are increasingly implementing teams as operational
units (Goodwin et al., 2008; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). A team context creates an
additional work role for employees, including coordinating their work with others
(Griffin et al., 2007). Moreover, proactivity and adaptivity are specifically relevant
within empowered teams (Kirkman and Rosen, 1997) in which team members are
enabled to make comprehensive work-related decisions and required to continuously
reflect and adapt processes and results. The relevance notwithstanding, self-leadership
in teams has so far hardly been examined, although initial evidence derived from a
study by Konradt et al. (2009), who demonstrated that self-leadership is positively
related to individual task performance of team members. However, neither self-leading
team members’ cooperative behaviors, nor the adaptive and proactive components of
their work role performance in a team context have yet been investigated.
The first goal of the present study is therefore to integrate self-leadership theory
and empirical research by providing a more comprehensive investigation of individual
self-leadership than previous studies by using a differentiated set of work role
performance (Griffin et al., 2007) and investigating the relationship between
self-leadership and both task as well as adaptive and proactive performance. The
second goal is to extend previous studies by investigating the relationship between
self-leadership and team member work role performance. Moreover, whereas evidence
exists that conscientiousness, as an individual variable, is a moderator of the
self-leadership-performance relationship with regard to individual performance
(Stewart et al., 1996), relevant individual-difference variables influencing
self-leadership’s relationship with team member performance have yet to be
identified. We thus examine psychological collectivism (Wagner and Moch, 1986) as
a moderator of the self-leadership – team member performance relationship. Drawing
on previous research which has shown that collectivism is predictive of a number of

which focuses on behavioral reinforcement (Manz and Sims. 1980. In giving employees active control over their behavior. 1975. and natural reward strategies. goals (self-goal setting). in turn. 1998). Rather than relying on an external leader for guidance. Theoretical justification is provided by social cognitive theory (Bandura. monitor their own performance. e. their pursuit (self-observation and self-cueing) and the final evaluation of their attainment and administration of consequences (self-reward and self-punishment). self-leaders set their own goals. 1975) and constructive thinking (Ellis. Self-leadership broadens the self-management concept. 1985). Neck and Manz. we expect that less collectivistic team members would profit more from self-leadership strategies regarding team member role performance. motivate. by introducing elements of intrinsic motivation (Deci. control theory (Carver and Scheier. 1991). 1985). Manz and Neck. 2006). 1986). imagining positive outcomes. dysfunctional cognitions and thought patterns such as “all-or-nothing thinking” can be recognized and changed through the three first-order strategies of self-analysis. 1986.e. i. 2006). opportunity thinking (Manz and Neck. and positive self-talk and beliefs. 1986. The second factor of self-leadership strategies. 2004).g. Behavior-focused strategies are closely related to self-management strategies (Manz and Sims. In this way. see Neck and Houghton. 1992.. 1997). and. constructive thought pattern strategies. Neck and Manz. thus lie with the self-leader himself (Manz. self-leadership claims its place as a leadership technique in its own right. shaping. 1977. self-punishment and self-cueing. when successful. Moorman and and performance Blakely. Neck et al. Neck and Houghton. 1992) to improve individuals’ self-regulation and self-direction (for a further distinction between self-management and self-leadership. 2006). self-observation. and intrinsic motivation theory (Deci. and evaluation of one’s own behavior. including task performance. Behavioral change. 1985). 1991) and intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan.. organizational Self-leadership citizenship behavior. is designed to facilitate the management of behavior by enabling the self-leader to take control of his or her cognitive processes. Finally. self-reward. Specifically. and withdrawal behavior (Jackson et al.job performance aspects of team members. 2006. Through consciously focusing on the existing pleasant aspects of the . 1995). reward themselves. 1980) and involve the observation. Neck and Houghton. 2006). Drawing from these theories’ insights and findings on the mechanisms of the self-regulatory process. Deci and Ryan. 2004. this construct comprises the five first-order strategies of self-goal setting. Self-leadership is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct with three secondary factors: behavior-focused strategies. self-leadership theory provides guidelines for effective self-regulation and is thus a normative theory (Neck and Houghton. and thus. Self-leadership theory assumes that self-leadership strategies heighten individuals’ perceptions of self-efficacy (Bandura. constructive thought pattern strategies. natural reward strategies as the third second-order construct of self-leadership refer to the inherent pleasurable aspects of an activity (Deci and Ryan. 1980) by stressing the importance of individual’s future-oriented self-direction (Manz. positively influence their behavior (Manz. Theoretical background and hypotheses Self-leadership 499 Self-leadership theory extends previous concepts of self-management (Manz and Sims.

e. Proficiency. 2008. As the most salient work roles for team members are likely to be those of an individual and of a team member (Riketta and Van Dick.e. Neck and Houghton.e. Prussia et al. These behaviors represent to what extent the employee fulfils his or her role as a team member. adaptivity and proactivity (Griffin et al. Team members’ individual self-leadership will be positively related to individual task proficiency. i. cooperation and information exchange.. in 500 addition to their role as job incumbent (Griffin et al. i. p. 2006... p. In a team context. 2006). 2007). proficiency. employees must fulfill not only the role prescribed by their individual task.. representing how the team as a whole acts. 1998). 2009.. . which propagates a positive effect of self-leadership strategies on performance.. Task performance can therefore be understood as the proficiency with which an employee fulfills his individual task work role. 1998).. 2006). 2007. i. as well as behavior that is not strictly part of the job description. 2007). Information exchange refers to sharing and communicating task-related information between team members. Self-leadership and work role performance in teams Work role approaches to performance recognize the fact that employees take on and enact multiple organizational roles. 2009). we chose these two as central for the present study and thus investigate six dimension of work role performance. but is nonetheless potentially beneficial for the organization.. i. This is in line with findings on the positive relationship between self-leadership and individual task performance that has been shown outside of the team context (e.g.e. 2007). individual contributions to teamwork have recently received increasing attention (Sonnentag and Volmer. 2005). 330). Coordination means integrating other team members’ actions and contributions for the sake of synchronized completion of a task within a given time frame. Building on self-leadership theory (Manz. e.. Welbourne et al. Tasa et al. the work itself becomes 27. 1978).5 rewarding (Manz and Neck.g. 2007. and empirical findings (Konradt et al. 2009. Work roles encompass both behavior that is central for the job. Previous research on self-leaders’ individual task proficiency in a team context has indicated a positive relationship between team members’ individual self-leadership and supervisors’ ratings of their individual task performance (Konradt et al. 1998). Cross-classifying roles (individual/team member/organization member) and behaviors proficiency/adaptivity/proactivity) results in nine dimensions of work role performance (Griffin et al. 2007). 1986. 2006). 2001. Whereas collaborative behaviors have often been investigated at the team-level.. Marks et al.. 551).. Neck and Houghton.JMP work or by introducing more enjoyable features to the task. i. proficiency refers to the extent to which an employee “fulfills the prescribed or predictable requirements of the role” (Griffin et al. but also take on their role as team members (Griffin et al. we concordantly hypothesize: H1. team member proficiency. individual task proficiency (Griffin et al.. A crucial role for team success is ascribed to task-related collaborative behavior (LePine et al. From a work role performance perspective (Katz and Kahn.. team member or organization member. Prussia et al. coordination. 2004.e... Rousseau et al. 2007). Cooperation is aimed at mutual facilitation and is defined as “the act of working together during task execution” (Rousseau et al.

individual contributions cannot be identified in this study. and.. Griffin et al. 2007) or cope with changes affecting their roles as team members (“team member adaptivity”.. roles and responsibilities are unpredictable and variable. Neck and Manz. Behavior-focused strategies . Previous research. They suggest that when increased levels of self-leadership strategies are utilized within a team.. this positively affects team interactions. adaptivity. i. 2009). 2007). We therefore assume: H2. 2007. 2010). Due to aggregation to team level data. Uhl-Bien and Graen (1998) found a positive relationship between an aggregated measure of team members’ self-management strategies (a construct almost identical to self-leadership’s behavior-focused strategies) to be positively related to supervisors’ ratings of team effectiveness for functional (but not cross-functional) teams. Building on similar arguments. DeShon et al. Whereas Bligh et al. An effective use of resources in the pursuit of individual goals through the use of self-leadership strategies can free team members from time and resource constrictions (Kanfer and Ackermann. 2004). 1989) that otherwise might hinder individuals from contributing to the team. has focused primarily on the relationship of Self-leadership self-leadership and aspects of individual role performance rather than its relationship and performance with individuals’ team member proficiency. empirical evidence is sparse. Pulakos et al. Environmental uncertainty is related to the degree to which tasks. The other two self-leadership strategies can also support team members in dealing with changes to their work roles. are efficient in their expenditure of resources due to their enhanced self-regulatory effectiveness in the pursuit of individual goals (Neck and Houghton. 1998. Empowered or autonomous employees or teams have long been advocated as a way to deal with uncertain environments (Cordery et al. self-leadership can be an effective way to help employees cope with change in their work environment. Similarly. as noted above. in turn. Therefore. Team members who. 2000). Work role performance in an interdependent team context can basically be understood as a process of self-regulation with regard to multiple goals (Carver and Scheier. has become an important requirement (Griffin et al. and higher commitment. 2006) should have more excess resources that they can direct at the team. Adaptivity Both individual task and team member work roles are subject to change. beliefs that 501 the team will be able to accomplish its goals. through the use of self-leadership strategies. 1996.. however. This provides support for the usefulness of constructive thought pattern strategies in helping employees cope with and adapt to change. Empirical studies have indeed shown that thought self-leadership training of employees facing changes due to bankruptcy of the organization was effective in increasing positive and job satisfaction and reduce negative affect as well as negative perceptions of the situation (Neck.. Griffin et al.e. In a team context. high individual performance of managers could be shown to be a predictor of team-directed effort (Sonnentag and Volmer. (2006) have provided theoretical suggestions that individual team members’ self-leadership can benefit team functioning. the degree to which employees constructively react to changes in their work environment. Team members’ individual self-leadership will be positively related to team member proficiency. individual team members may have to adapt to changes affecting either their individual work roles (“individual task adaptivity”. resulting in the development of higher trust among members. 1996)..

JMP assist the employee in planning. via the self-setting of goals. Neck and Houghton. For this reason.e. “individual task proactivity”. Specifically. whereas the use of natural reward strategies. for a review). 2007). Griffin et al. the relationship between self-leadership and proactive behavior has not been empirically investigated. Thus. Carmeli et al. rewarding intermediate steps. 2006). 1996). Team members’ individual self-leadership will be positively related to team member adaptivity. 2010.. Team members’ individual self-leadership will be positively related to individual task adaptivity.e.. 1998). like self-leadership. 2007). Proactivity Whereas adaptivity is reactive in its nature. proactivity refers to the active initiation of change (see Grant and Ashford. motivate and execute proactive work role performance in teams. which. as they can guide behavior. 2008. 2006). 2008). Proactive behavior can be seen as the end result of a process involving anticipation of future requirements and planning (Grant and Ashford. monitoring and implementing the actual adaptation 27.. can increase intrinsic motivation (Manz.. and initiative taking (Stewart et al. in all steps of this process. scholars have long advocated self-leadership as a means of fostering active. This is in line with self-leadership theory. As with adaptive behaviors.. i.g. 1986). Behavior-oriented strategies should be especially of use in the planning phase.. 2009). or making plans. 2010). focusing on the pleasurable aspects of the new experience. which proposed that self-leadership explicitly encompasses the questioning of existing structures and routines (Manz. Studies have indeed demonstrated positive relationships between self-leadership and proactive performance aspects including self-and supervisor-rated innovative behaviors (Carmeli et al. we anticipate that: . 1986). Proactive behavior is defined as self-starting.. 1998.e. Self-leadership theory postulates positive relations to proactivity. 1993. Anthony et al. emphasizes the employee’s active role in the workplace. Appealing possibilities for change that increase intrinsic motivation can be identified with the help of natural reward strategies (Manz. work role innovation (Curral and Marques-Quinteiro. or to the way their team as a whole operates (i. Bindl and Parker. H4.5 behavior. 2006). self-leadership provides employees with the necessary skills to prepare. Proactive team members may suggest or make changes to the way they perform their core tasks (i. Thus: 502 H3. future oriented action with the aim to change the situation and/or oneself (Belschak and Den Hartog. 1986. “team member proactivity”. In a team context. 2005). creative approach to arising questions are thus an integral part of self-leadership (Neck et al. however. empowered employees who proactively shape and influence their work environment in the process of creating new standards and effective procedures (Neck et al. Proactively shaping and influencing the work environment and an innovative. Therefore.. Self-leadership strategies can be used by the employees. all three self-leadership strategies should improve the individual’s capability and motivation to adapt to changes in their work roles in the team environment. Griffin et al. constructive thought pattern strategies like mental imagery give support to the required thinking ahead and imagination of future outcomes and behaviors (e. Pearce and Manz.

Participants were members of teams who took part in the study in exchange for feedback on our results. 2006. which participants could access with a personal password and complete in their own time over the course of two weeks. and performance Psychological collectivism as a moderator Wagner and Moch (1986) pointed out that people are inclined towards group work in different degrees. 1985). task performance. Moorman and Blakely. The relationship between self-leadership and team member proficiency will be moderated by psychological collectivism so that the relationship is stronger for team members low in collectivism. indicating that participants were members of actual interdependent teams.g. The .98 on a five-point scale ðSD ¼ 0:92Þ. the following hypotheses are offered: H7a. should profit more from self-leadership strategies in a team context as self-leadership supports them in focusing on and pursuing the team goal.e. Self-leadership H6.e. i. 1996. Williams. extraversion) will profit the most from self-leadership interventions outside of the team context as the training provides them with skills to refrain from inefficient behaviors (Stewart et al. collectivism) refers to the degree to which individuals prefer working in groups. The relationship between self-leadership and team member adaptivity will be moderated by psychological collectivism so that the relationship is stronger for team members low in collectivism. and orient themselves towards the group goal ( Jackson et al. H7c. Psychological collectivism (namely. H5.. Method Participants and procedure German companies of different industries were contacted and asked to take part in this study. 1991) was 3. are motivated by the norms of the groups. H7b. as collectivism has been shown to predict several job performance aspects of team members. those not inherently oriented towards the team) to show a stronger relationship between self-leadership and team member work role behavior. 2006. The relationship between self-leadership and team member proactivity will be moderated by psychological collectivism so that the relationship is stronger for team members low in collectivism. This reasoning is similar to the finding that employees low on specific traits (e. Less collectivistic team members. We therefore expect less collectivistic team members (i. As such.. 1997). and organizational citizenship behavior as well as counterproductive and withdrawal behavior (Jackson et al. All measures were administered via an online questionnaire.. Relatively stable individual-differences have been identified as a 503 factor influencing preference for group over individual work (Triandis et al. 1986). Highly collectivistic team members should fulfill their team member role better than less collectivistic team members without the need to actively influence their self-regulation. however. The mean of interdependence ratings for the participants’ teams (rated by the team leader with three items of the reciprocal interdependence scale by Pearce and Gregersen. Wagner and Moch. Self-leadership will be positively related to team member proactivity. conscientiousness.. Self-leadership will be positively related to individual task proactivity. 1995).

the three constructive thought pattern strategies of visualizing successful performance.02 (Schafer. Houghton and Neck. 2007).5 than 30 percent non-responded items ðN ¼ 11Þ as well as two participants for whom no team leader rating was available were excluded from the study (cf. and “When I have the choice. 2000). “Carried out the core parts of your job well” . An example item is “I preferred to work in those groups rather than working alone”. in our study. (2006) demonstrated that collectivism is positively related to group member task performance ðr ¼ 0:32Þ and citizenship behavior ðr ¼ 0:20Þ and significantly negatively related to group member counterproductive behavior ðr ¼ 20:31Þ and withdrawal behavior ðr ¼ 20:23Þ: Although. construct validity and criterion validity (Andressen and Konradt. self-talk. I try to do my work in a way that I enjoy rather than just trying to get it over with” for natural rewards. Schafer and Graham. reliance on group members. evaluating beliefs and assumptions and natural rewards) were measured with three items each. Work role performance was measured using scales developed by Griffin et al. e. Construct validity for all measures was assessed within the main model (see next for results). Self-leadership was measured with a 27-item version of the Revised Self-leadership Questionnaire (RSLQ. (2006).e. answers were given on five-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Of the 81 team members. We followed the standard translation back-translation procedure (Brislin. Griffin et al.7 percent) was handled by the EM algorithm in NORM 2. self-cueing. indicating satisfactory reliability of questionnaire items. 2002). self-punishment. “I visualize myself successfully performing a task before I do it. for Cronbach’s alpha of parceled variables. The response rate is therefore 75 percent. They had been members of their teams for averagely 32 months ðSD ¼ 33Þ: Measures Unless otherwise indicated. and 37 in project teams.” (visualizing successful performance).g. Cronbach’s alpha in the following refers to scales with all items. the five behavioral strategies of self-goal setting. (2007). 1980) to translate all the items into German. The scale’s 15 statements regard preference for working in groups.JMP initial data set consisted of 94 participants. and goal priority. 2002) that has been shown to possess good internal consistency. Collectivism was measured with items developed by Jackson et al. 31 were male and 49 female (one 504 person did not indicate their gender) with a mean age of M ¼ 33:40 years ðSD ¼ 8:67Þ: In total. Remaining missing data (1. multivariate analyses using parcels shows a composite reliability of CR ¼ 0:96 (see Table I). 44 indicated working in permanent teams. Data sets with a missing data rate of more 27. The nine subscales (i. Internal consistency for the overall scale was good (a ¼ 0. Jackson et al. self-observation. internal consistency for the overall scale was under traditional cutoff limits at ða ¼ 0:63Þ. (2007) demonstrated construct validity of this measure in three independent samples and have shown aggregated groups ratings of the team member proactivity subdimension to be significantly positively related to expert ratings of group proactivity ðr ¼ 0:37Þ and the suggestion rate in the group ðr ¼ 0:36Þ: Team members were asked to indicate the extent to which they had carried out the respective behavior over the past two weeks. concern for group members. self-reward.80). the completion rate is 65 percent. Example items include “I work towards specific goals I have set for myself” (self-goal setting). norm acceptance.

26 0.26 0.20 0.25 0.21 Iada2 0.45 0.31 0.45 0.32 0.73 Composite scale reliability 0.38 0.39 0.05 0. Tproac ¼ Team member proactivity.18 0.41 0.46 0.33 SL_P2 0.11 0.86 0.85 0.43 0.50 0.86 0.07 0.11 0.25 0.44 0. Tprof ¼ Team member proficiency.36 0.29 0.27 0.41 0.11 0.81 0.35 0.58 Iproac2 0.94 0.14 0.53 0.96 0.21 Tada1 0.26 0.22 0.57 0.32 0.30 0.92 0.46 0.20 0.29 0.14 Tprof2 0.10 0.94 0. average reliabilities composite scale variance extracted.27 0.43 0.40 0.39 0.89 SL_P1 0.11 0.24 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.96 0.18 Coll_P3 0.52 0.49 0.32 0.46 0.18 Iprof2 0.09 0.37 0.24 0.17 Iprof1 0.23 0.40 0.66 0.12 0.28 0.75 0.43 0.27 0.80 0.27 0.25 0.45 0.32 0. and Loadings and 505 Table I.47 0.83 0.04 Iprof3 0.35 0.15 0.30 0. Iproac ¼ Individual task proactivity.11 0.44 0.41 0.14 0.59 0.12 0.28 0.93 0.14 0.14 0. Individual Individual Individual Team Self.59 Tprof1 0.95 0.86 0.44 0.85 0. task task task Team member member Team member leadership Collectivism proficiency adaptivity proactivity proficiency adaptivity proactivity Average variance Extracted 0.23 0.29 0.41 0.89 Notes: SL_P ¼ Self-leadership parcel.40 0.38 0.14 0.02 Iproac1 0. Iprof ¼ Individual task proficiency. .11 Tprof3 0.85 Tproac3 0.87 0.21 0.13 0.83 0.30 0.27 0.23 0.16 0. Tada ¼ Team member adaptivity.70 0.90 0.42 Tproac1 0.18 0.65 0.37 0.18 0.82 Tproac2 0.11 0.96 0.07 0.67 0.35 0. Iada ¼ Individual task adaptivity.14 0.46 0.82 0.86 0.24 0.53 Tada3 0.90 0.53 0.15 0.52 0.35 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.18 0. The largest factor loading for each item is italicized Self-leadership and performance cross-loadings.97 0.18 0.38 0.41 0.18 0.54 0.35 0.21 0. Coll_P ¼ Collectivism parcel.05 0.36 0.18 0.68 0.43 Tada2 0.47 0.34 0.64 Iproac3 0.15 Coll_P2 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.93 0.48 0.85 0.25 Coll_P1 0.18 0.28 0.41 0.45 0.07 0.02 0.91 0.96 0.89 0.47 0.23 0.32 0.28 SL_P3 0.36 0.18 0.16 Iada1 0.34 0.39 0.09 0.89 0.

1999). modeling the hypothesized relationships between latent variables. 2008). and 0. We incorporated age and sex as control variables that may influence self-leadership and collectivism. collectivism.82. such as psychological collectivism (Hofstede.88. “Developed new and improved methods to help your work unit perform better” (team member proactivity). Our sample size is therefore adequate to produce reasonable and stable parameter estimates. 2009). First the measurement model should display high loadings of indicators (items or parcels) on their reflective latent variables to ensure item reliability.e. 1999. Furthermore. the average variance extracted (AVE) or shared by a construct with its measures should be greater than the variance shared with other latent variables in the model (Fornell and Larcker. Sosik et al. modeling the relationships between indicators (items) and the latent variables. Responses were indicated on a scale ranging from “very little” (1) to “a great deal” (5). For reasons of internal consistency.73. Each of the six performance aspects was measured with three items. 0. For PLS analyses that include reflective measures only (as is the case in our analysis. 1986. Theoretical and empirical basis exist for a relation of gender on cultural and personal value orientations. age and gender have an influence on many outcome variables including organizational citizenship behavior. Evaluation of a PLS model is done in several steps (Hulland. which uses a component-based approach to estimation.5 (team member proficiency). “Provided help to coworkers when asked. Fornell and Bookstein. 2008. using the SmartPLS software package (Ringle et al. 0.78. respectively).76. . age and sex). 0. thereby requiring a sample size of 50. Specifically.. In our model. only two items of the ‘individual task adaptivity’ scale were retained. Moreover. Chin and Newsted (1999) suggest a sample size ten times the largest number of structural paths leading to a latent variable. interaction term. the squared loadings or communalities indicate the amount of variance of the indicator due to the presumed latent factor. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability provide evidence for internal consistency. Internal consistency for the scales 506 was satisfactory ða ¼ 0:77. Finally. To assess discriminant validity. 1981. On the latent variable level. The sample size needed for PLS modeling is considerably smaller than those required for covariance-based SEM techniques. as described below). PLS can deal with non-normal and strongly collinear input data and small sample sizes and is an accepted method in a wide array of research areas such as management and leadership contexts (cf. including possible nonlinear relationships (Ng and Feldman. 1999). Hulland. 2005). Wanxian and Weiwu.JMP (individual task proficiency). Data analyses Models and sample size. A PLS model consists of a measurement model. or needed” 27. employees’ age and extent gender have shown to be antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior and in-role orientation (Ng and Feldman. meta-analytic evidence suggests that job performance varies – at least to some extent – as a function of age and gender (Waldman and Avolio. 1989). 2007). and a structural model. the greatest number was 5 (i. Analyses were conducted with structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques with partial least squares (PLS). McEvoy and Cascio. 1996).. Lohmoller. Controls. 1989). placing minimal demands on sample size and residual distributions (Chin and Newsted. the latent variables of team member work roles showing paths from self-leadership. Evaluation of the model. PLS (Wold. 1985) is a variance-based SEM technique. 1982. 0.

Wold. each latent variable shares more variance with its indicators than with other variables because the square root of the AVE in the diagonal exceeds the correlation with other latent variables. Following suggestions of Liang et al.. multiplied. indicating that common method bias is not a concern for this study (see Table II). In a second step.70 (Hulland. the following analyses were conducted without controlling for common method variance.. Efron and Tibshirani. Besides the amount of variance Self-leadership that is explained by the model (R 2). indicating convergent and discriminant validity. 2002). the structural model is evaluated. Little et al. 1999). 2007) with regard to the amount of variance attributable to method and substantive construct revealed that only 1 percent of variance in the manifest indicators is due to a common factor whereas the proposed factors explain 75 percent of the variance. All previously manifest variables were specified to load on their construct of interest (the second-order variables) as well as on a latent variable representing the common method. cf. 2003. we added an unmeasured latent method factor (Podsakoff et al. To assess whether common method bias was present in our model.. for a review). 1982).. Common method bias. 1997). we used the product-indicator approach in which all indicators of predictor and moderator are standardized. Additionally. common method variance is a possible concern. 1994). Construct reliabilities for all variables as indicated by composite reliabilities are above the suggested cutoff of 0.. Table I shows that this is the case for each indicator. each manifest indicator must load highly on its corresponding factor and show lower loadings on non-hypothesized factors. To test the moderation hypotheses. as shown in Table III. all manifest variables (items or parcels) in the model were transformed into latent variables and the latent variables were transformed into second-order variables. We used parceling to reduce the large number of indicators for the self-leadership and collectivism scales (cf. the analysis assessed the significance of the path and performance coefficients in path modeling using Bootstrapping resampling (number of iterations: 500. see Liang et al. 2003). Due to the nature of our data (questionnaire data acquired from the same source). Results Measurement model To ensure construct validity. and subsequently entered into the model as indicators of a latent interaction variable (Chin et al. 2003). Parceling and moderation analysis. If variance in the data is due to the common measurement method rather than true variance in latent variables. 2009. who adapted this approach to PLS modeling. following the recommended domain-representative approach for multidimensional constructs (Kishton and Widaman.. and all indicator loadings exceed the . (2007). For each latent variable. Therefore. Common method variance can occur when all variables in the model are measured by the same method rather than obtained from different sources (see Podsakoff et al. An inspection of path coefficients (in this case conceptually equal to factor loadings. this can bias the results. three parcels were created that contained one item from each 507 sub-construct. Identification of these second-order variables in PLS was ensured using the repeated indicator approach (Wetzels et al. All other latent variables were created by permitting the relevant items to load directly on the latent variables.

p . 0. In summary.85 2 0.03 0.60 (cf.. Iada ¼ Individual task adaptivity. Sosik et al.92 0.01. results indicate that the measurement model is reliable and valid.65 0.95 0. tð499Þ ¼ 3:67.01 Individual task proactivity Iproac1 0.00 Tadama2 0.94 0. tð499Þ ¼ 4:44.78 0. and b ¼ 0:29. Coll_P ¼ Collectivism parcel. 0.92 2 0.04 0. respectively).01 Tadama3 0.50 0.00 Tprof2 0. p .10 0.93 0.91 0. both hypotheses were supported ðb ¼ 0:45. H3 and H4 proposed a positive relationship between self-leadership and individual task and team member adaptivity.001.79 0.66 0.81 0.04 0. p .01 Tprof3 0.75 0.80 2 0.86 2 0. Structural model Means.01.00 0.01 Iadama2 0.01 Table II.68 0. As indicated by path coefficients. p .89 0. the hypothesized positive relationships between self-leadership and individual task and team member proactivity posited in H5 and H6 were also supported ðb ¼ 0:25.001.98 2 0. standard deviations.04 0. p .00 508 Coll_P2 0.86 0.84 2 0.001.42 0. H1 and H2 suggested that self-leadership is positively related to team members’ self-ratings of individual task proficiency and team member proficiency.12 0.77 0.92 0. Iproac ¼ Individual task proactivity.00 Iprofma2 0.59 0.17 0.00 Sl_P2 0. The results for the structural model of the hypothesized relationships between the latent variables are illustratively presented in Figure 1.03 0.88 0.00 0.89 2 0.82 0. t ð499Þ ¼ 2:46.82 0.001. Tprof ¼ Team method bias analyses member proficiency.70 2 0.08 0.JMP Substantive factor Method factor 27.00 Team member proficiency Tprof1 0. Notes: SL_P ¼ Self-leadership parcel.05 0.00 Sl_P3 0. 0.92 0.95 0. and b ¼ 0:32.00 Team member adaptivity Tadama1 0.67 0.07 0.00 Coll_P3 0.77 0. tð499Þ ¼ 4:29.90 2 0. and b ¼ 0:34.00 Tproac3 0.00 Iproac3 0.86 0.88 0.07 0.81 2 0.84 0. 0.02 0.14 0.90 0. t ð499Þ ¼ 2:89. respectively).96 0.00 Collectivism Coll_P1 0.00 Iproac2 0. and bivariate correlations are presented in Table III.02 Team member proactivity Tproac1 0.08 0. respectively. tð499Þ ¼ 3:49. These hypotheses also received support ðb ¼ 0:38. Tproac ¼ Team member proactivity recommended value of 0.00 Tproac2 0. Tada ¼ Team member adaptivity.04 0.10 0. 0.74 2 0.02 0.05 0. p . respectively). with R 2 values indicating that the .00 Average 0.85 0.99 0.86 0.03 0.93 0. 2009).05 0.90 0. Similarly.03 Iprofma3 0.5 Latent variable Indicator loading (R1) R1 2 loading (R2) R2 2 Self-leadership Sl_P1 0.01 Individual task adaptivity Iadama1 0.01 0. Iprof ¼ Individual task Results of common proficiency.71 0. 0. The predictive validity for the model is substantial.00 Individual task proficiency Iprofma1 0.

Individual task adaptivity 2 4.19 7. Self-leadership 27/ 3 3.16 0.30 * * (0.69 * * * 0.01.61 * * * (0.37 * * * 0.30 * * 2.01 0.78 0.67 * * * 6. 0.81) 0.16 0.55 * * * 0.16 0.57 * * * (0.14 0.54 0. of Variable items/parcels M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.50 * * * (0. No.82) 0.19 (0.37 * * * 0.27 * * 0.45 * * * 0. 0.13 0.73 0. and study variables intercorrelations among Table III.73 0.21 0.56 * * * 8.70 0.33 * * 0.67 0.15 5.18 0.95 (0. 509 .05. Coefficients below the diagonal represent scales in which all items are weighed equally.50 * * * (0.78 0. Data in parentheses along the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted from the latent variable by PLS analysis.33 * * 0.34 * * * 0.47 * * * 0. standard deviations.26 0.17 0. Coefficients above the diagonal are between latent variables created by PLS Self-leadership and performance Means.94 0. * * *p .49 * * * 0.55 0.40 * * * 0.96) 0. Team member adaptivity 3 3.33 * * 0.48 * * * 0.41 * * * 0.50 0.23 * 0.41 * * 0.20 0.30 * * 0.82) 0.90) 0.33 * * 0.67 0.34 * * 0.61 * * * 0.16 4.13 0.46 0.23 * 0. Individual task proactivity 3 3.08 0.76 0.77 0.82 0.30 0.30 * * 0.44 * * * 0.51 * * * 0.14 (0.94) 0.55 * * * 0.37 * * * 0.88 0. alphas.17 0. 0.18 3.63 0.90) 0.34 * * * 0. Team member proficiency 3 4. Collectivism 15/ 3 3. Individual task proficiency 3 4. Team member proactivity 3 3.001 (one-sided).85) Notes: N ¼ 81: *p .13 0.52 * * * 0. * *p .55 0.24 * 0.31 * * 0.

0. we found collectivism to moderate the relationship between self-leadership and team member proficiency ðb ¼ – 0:22. in support of H7a. Finally. the relationship between self-leadership and team member proficiency is weaker. p .JMP 27. Model and PLS results predictors explain between 8 percent and 36 percent of the variance in the dependent variables. which predicted collectivism as a moderator of the relationships between self-leadership and team . H7b and H7c. suggesting that for highly collectivistic team members. t ð499Þ ¼ 1:81.05).5 510 Figure 1.

1998). Prussia et al. our results indicate positive relationships between self-leadership and adaptivity and proactivity directed both at the individual task as well as the team. 1986. 1998). A longitudinal or experimental research design would give more confidence to the assumption that self-leadership causes changes in team members’ work role performance. tð499Þ ¼ 0:76. and performance Discussion The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of the relationship between team members’ self-leadership and individual task and team member role performance. as it is not possible to draw causal inferences of self-leadership on performance. including testing plausible reverse and reciprocal causation effects. Limitations and directions for future research We recognize that the present study is not without limitations. Uhl-Bien and Graen. Whereas previous studies did not allow conclusions about which behaviors self-leading team members actually display that may have led to enhanced team performance (e. However. 2006. ns. we see the cross-sectional design as a first cornerstone of further research on a broad set of work role performance behaviors.. team member proficiency. Another possible concern regards the use of self-ratings of work role performance. we examined collectivism as a moderator of the self-leadership-team member work role performance relationships.member adaptivity and proactivity. Additionally. Moreover. team member adaptivity.e. as ours is the first study investigating the relationship between self-leadership and a comprehensive set of work role behaviors. Our results extend previous research by providing a comprehensive investigation of self-leadership’s relationship with a differentiated set of work role performance outcomes including team member work role performance aspects. Results indicate that self-leadership is positively related to individual 511 task proficiency and team member proficiency. Konradt et al. providing new insights for self-leadership and team research. 2006). Neck and Houghton.. One plausible explanation for this result may be found in the fact that team member proficiency is perceived as the most central aspect of team member performance.g. were not supported as the relevant paths were Self-leadership non-significant ðb ¼ – 0:13. However. Less collectivistic team members may direct their effort towards the most central behaviors (proficiency) as a result of self-leadership rather than behaviors seen as less important for the attainment of team goals (adaptivity and proactivity). and b ¼ 0:10. The cross-sectional nature of the study raises some concerns regarding inferences of causality. ns). Carmeli et al. our results provide mixed evidence indicating that collectivism moderated the self-leadership-team member proficiency relation whereas the relationships between self-leadership and adaptivity as well as proactivity did not change. the present study suggests that self-leadership of team members may also have positive relationships to team-oriented behaviors (i. the results of this study are consistent with previous research and illustrate a positive relation between self-leadership and aspects of individual work role performance (e.. Additionally. Self-ratings are often criticized for bearing the danger of bias due to a common measurement method or generally biased ratings due to leniency effects (Podsakoff . 2009. t ð499Þ ¼ 1:21. Our results thus clearly confirm theoretical postulations of self-leadership’s positive relations to performance (Manz.g. and team member proactivity).

. References Andressen. seeking mutual feedback. P. and organizational development efforts. We could alleviate this concern by empirically determining that only a 27. and putting emphasis on intrinsic task characteristics. (in press) found that team members’ self-leadership is also facilitated by transformational leadership which refers to attaining alignment and commitment of people by raising common purpose. Implications for theory.JMP et al. in terms of training and organizational development efforts. It presents the first comprehensive examination of self-leadership in relation to a differentiated set of outcome variables. 1988). supervisors) would (egocentric bias. 6 No. U. and Konradt. first evidence for individual differences that are related to differential self-leadership – team member work role performance relationships was gathered. We nevertheless believe that our results are valid for several reasons. “Messung von Selbstführung: psychometrische Überprüfung der deutschsprachigen Version des Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire” (“Measuring self-leadership: psychometric validation of the German version of the Revised Self-leadership Questionnaire”). theoretically suggested relationships with adaptive and proactive performance aspects that have been demonstrated for individual work role performance were extended to the team context. Another common concern regarding self-ratings of performance is that participants’ ratings may not accurately reflect their performance. and will contribute to social and economical grow. 3. Additionally. Methodologically. Specifically. empirically. (2007). cf. Vol. the dimensionality of the work role performance items (Griffin et al. expanding self-leadership theory.. 2009). which have considerable potential value for society. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie. both theoretically. A key aspect refers to the self-reflecting and self-organizing processes involved in self-leadership which facilitate personnel and team development. and socially. Finally. 2007) requires assessment of concrete behaviors rather than overall judgments of job performance. 1996). Additionally. 2003). Andressen et al. practice and society as a whole This research makes significant contributions. reporting it more positively than other raters (peers. 117-28. We thus believe self-ratings offer an efficient and valid first step in the investigation of self-leadership in teams. thus reflecting the assumptions of self-leadership theory more extensively than previous studies. Research indicates that those measures are generally less susceptible to leniency bias (Heidemeier and Moser. giving feedback. training.5 minimal amount of variance in the data is due to a common factor. organizations and managers should actively provide training for team members’ self-leadership (Neck and Manz. which may facilitate individual and team performance. cognitive and natural rewards strategies by creating self-goal setting. Harris and Schaubroeck. pp. we 512 took care to assure participants that their ratings were anonymous and would only be used for research purposes to alleviate potential concerns regarding organizational repercussions (Heidemeier and Moser. vision and values. A major implication for society that arises from our results is that people striving for self-leadership may produce diverse and multifaceted aspects of work role performance. The results of this study also have managerial implications for leadership. 2009).. Managers should foster employees’ use of behavioral.

A. 27 No. “Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work”. Carver. (Ed.. pp. 2. Vol. C. in Triandis. W. Vol. pp. Bindl. J. Carmeli. R. 43-56. Personnel Selection. New York. in Hoyle. pp. 2. NY. C.P. T. “Self-leadership and work role innovation: testing a mediation model with goal orientation and work motivation”. (1991). III. 248-87. “Proactive work behavior: forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations”. On the Self-regulation of Behavior. “The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: a longitudinal field study”..C. W. Schmidt. McCloy. Cordery. (1999). (1975). Plenum. Vol. J. Revista de psicologı́a del trabajo y de las organizaciones. 389-444. Intrinsic Motivation. Jossey-Bass. (1993). pp.N. “The importance of self. (2000). Milner. Bligh.D.C. Belschak.C.L.R. E. R.W. Deci. 2. pp. 21 No. M. Washington. Brislin.). International Journal of Manpower. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Methodology. (Ed. prosocial. Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. MA. B. R. “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials”. P. San Francisco. Journal of Organizational Behavior. and Parker. NY.L. American Psychological Association. 3. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1993). Vol. New York. (2010). 1. (2004). NY. “A theory of performance”. pp. and Borman. and Weisberg. (1997). pp. W.N. 435-62..and shared leadership in team based knowledge work”.P. Vol. DeShon. D. Vol. 567-98.K. W. 89 No. Vol. Academy of Management Executive. 296-318. “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares”.R.. and Newsted. 83 No. “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”. Curral. A. (Eds). U.A. and Marques-Quinteiro.L. pp. B. Oppler. R. Thousand Oaks. (2003). Deci. “Picturing the future: Self-leadership using mental imagery to enrich strategic environmental assessment”. Meitar.H. pp. N. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior.R. S. 165-76.M. S. and Kohles. (1980). 1035-56. “A multiple-goal. R. Vol. in Zedeck.P. and Ryan. 240-58. Kozlowski. R. multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance”. and Sager. A. D. J. Bennett. H. (2006). (2010).M. and Wiechmann. 26 No. (2009). 50 No. P. 31 Nos 2-3. pp. Cambridge University Press.. (2010)..D. M. “A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study”. Maddox. 475-98.W.L...W. 2. Chin.J. and performance Bandura. 35-70. in Schmitt. Allyn & Bacon. Vol. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. D. Chapman & Hall. Plenum.J.C.W. . K. (1998). Pearce. and Wheatley. Chin. and Tibshirani. 4. Crant. Efron. and Newsted. and Den Hartog. New York.E. and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences”. 189-217. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. R. 307-42. Morrison. Campbell. pp. “Proactive behavior in organizations”.Anthony.K. W. DC. C. 25 No. (2006). Journal of Management.L. and Wall. S. NY. R. CA. P. Journal of Managerial Psychology. pp. pp. “Pro-self-. 75-90. L. Boston. B.).. 14 No. and Lonner. CA. pp. F. 7 No. Journal of Occupational 513 and Organizational Psychology. J. Information Systems Research. Wright. S. and Scheier.H.. (Eds). E. W. J.. Vol. E. APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2. Marcolin. Sage. New York.H. 6.

(Eds). and Bookstein. (1981). and peer-supervisor ratings”. “A meta-analysis of self-supervisor. The Social Psychology of Organizations. C.W. Goodwin. D. J.D. “A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria”.M. 18 No. Harris. pp. and Ellwart.F. A. (1996). Journal of Marketing Research. (1978). “Motivational and cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition”.J.M. 28. 322-46. B. 327-47.R. Katz.P. 2. pp.E. and Widaman. Fornell. “Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: a meta-analytic test of a process model”. 1. J. 757-65. 7 No.A. Vol. 4. Vol. Vol. and Ackerman. E. 5. in Salas. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Wesson. 50 No. and Schaubroeck. M. 195-204. “Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory”. 74 No. 27.. NY. Kishton. pp. “A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”. (2009). 533-46.L. (1997). Vol. 4.5 Fornell.A.W. K.. “Gender stereotypes and partner preferences of Asian women in masculine and feminine cultures”. C. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 94 No.. JAI Press. Jackson. Colquitt. (Eds). 19 No. Vol. Andressen. (2002). pp. pp. Vol. H. pp. C. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Academy of Management Journal. Hulland. and Kahn. 77-124. Psychology Press. C. 2. M. (1977). New York.F. 657-90. and Parker. 27 No. (1982). Vol. 3-34. and Rosen. 440-52. (2007). (1999). Vol. A.J. Griffin. S. 3. The Basic Clinical Theory of Rational-emotive Therapy. “Team effectiveness in complex 514 organizations: an overview”. J. and Larcker. 2. 4.L. and Zapata-Phelan. 43-63. Journal of Applied Psychology. . 353-70. Journal of Applied Psychology... Vol. 884-99. “The revised self-leadership questionnaire: testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership”. Vol. 3. Goodwin. pp. G. Strategic Management Journal. 273-307. Hofstede. Springer. Journal of Marketing Research. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. S.S. “A model of work team empowerment”. D. G. Greenwich. and Ashford. R. 2. Mathieu. M. 1. Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches. Wildman. J. pp. Burke. 1. Houghton. Grant. J. J.L. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 41 No.A.L. pp. C. LePine. C. pp. (2006). S.JMP Ellis. pp. CT. pp. Kirkman. Vol. NY. Personnel Psychology. G. pp. C. 10. self-peer.F. pp. D. Konradt. (1988).S.. Vol. R. Kanfer. “Self-leadership in organizational teams: a multilevel analysis of moderators and mediators”. T. 3. J. B.M. “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies”. and Saul. Heidemeier. 672-91. and Ilgen. Personnel Psychology. 39-50. pp. “Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: an empirical example”. (2006).F. and Neck. Research in Organizational Change and Development. “Psychological collectivism: a measurement validation and linkage to group member performance”. and Pasmore. 17 No. and Burke. 20 No. Vol. (2008).L..R. New York. Jackson. and Moser. U. “Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams”.. P. C. NY.F. in Woodman. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”. K. Research in Organizational Behavior. (1994). F. E. W. (2008). 131-67. P. Vol. J. R. 54 No. July. (1989). 61 No. J. 3-16.J. A. 18 No. Journal of Applied Psychology. 91 No.A. Kozlowski. and Salas.K. Neal. pp. Wiley. (2008). (2009). pp.S.P. “The dynamics of proactivity at work”. Vol.. New York. R. Piccolo.. Vol.

weighing the merits”. and Blakely. R. 270-95. (1989).P. 12 No. 3. Ng.L. “Thought self-leadership: a self-regulatory approach to diversity management”. 2. 392-423. Neck. and Manz. pp. Vol.P. D. Upper Saddle River. 13 No. Manz. 5. Manz. Vol. 585-600. Structural Equation Modeling.. Latent Variable Path Modelling with Partial Least Squares. T. Journal of Managerial Psychology. C. 11 No. pp.D.P. “Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations”. MIS Quarterly. 93 No.P. 361-7. 16 No.. Ashcraft. (2006). and Feldman. pp. (1996). pp.A. 4. 374-87. 4.L. (2005). 21 No.W. C. 190-203. Academy of Management Review. Jr (1980). (1992). (1989). Shahar. (2008). C. 1 No. Vol. and Cascio. Cunningham. and Alves. Mastering Self-leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence. (2001). C. G. pp. Lovelace. Journal of Organizational Behavior. C. and Xue. “Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior”. pp. pp. and Widamann..P.. J. 34 No. McEvoy. K. Vol. “Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social learning theory perspective”. NJ. Academy of Management Review. Hu. Vol.V. 2. M.C. “The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance”. and Houghton. 1. “Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age and job performance”. pp. 9 No.D. Saraf. Vol. C. pp. 3. “Two decades of self-leadership theory and research”. 202-16. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. . Vol. 4 No. 3rd ed. 74 No. shared leadership. 17 No. Smith. R. and Neck. (2007). The International Journal of Organizational Analysis..C. Pearson Prentice Hall. pp.C. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1997).. J. 11-17.P. 2. (2004). Vol. 26 No. Vol. 7. 3. and Manz.L.P. 2. K. (1996).. 681-99. Pearce. 515 Heidelberg. “Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies training on employee cognition. 4. Manz. “Employee self-leadership: enhancing the effectiveness of nonprofits”. C. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior.C. 356-7. pp. (2007). G. (2002). pp. H. C. behavior. W. 5 No. J.H. and Vansandt. Neck. (1998). physical fitness and flow in managing demands and increasing job control”. “Thought self-leadership: a self-regulatory approach towards overcoming resistance to change”. 151-73.C. S. pp. pp. “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of Self-leadership institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”. Q. C.F. “To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question. 2. pp.. Vol.F. Neck.E.C. and Sims. and Manz. C. J. N. 3. 130-40. Neck. Mathieu. Neck. pp. 59-87. and performance Little. “A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes”. (1995). 127-42. H. W. Vol. C. C. “Work stress and leadership development: the role of self-leadership. 521-52. Journal of Applied Psychology. Physica-Verlag. (1986). Human Resource Management Review.. 31 No.J.F. G. Manz.Liang. Journal of Managerial Psychology. and Godwin. Y. C. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 445-67. “Thought self-leadership: the influence of self-talk and mental imagery on performance”. “The new silver bullets of leadership: the importance of self and shared leadership in knowledge work”. Organizational Dynamics. J. 17 No.A. Journal of Organizational Behavior. C. Neck.J. C. C. Vol.C. Lohmoller. Moorman. W. 1. Vol. T.P. Marks.C.M.H.J. Vol. and Zaccaro. and affect”.C.

“Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization research”. pp.. Riketta. E. D. A.A. Group & Organization Management. J. R.JMP Pearce.. C. 280-304. 1. “Individual self-management: analysis of professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams”. 71 No.S. “A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance”. R. and Savoie. “Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes: the role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings”. J.. “Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: convergent and discriminant validation”. Pulakos. 516 Prussia.J. Arad. 3. (2002). (1998). J. Small Group Research. 11 No. (1991). pp. J. Vol.L.B. 67 No. Uhl-Bien. 7 No. (2003). MacKenzie.L. pp. “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”. 41 No. 2. Vol. Schafer. 37-66. “Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: a test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility”. A. S. C. Journal of Applied Psychology. 27. Vol. Vol. J. Vol. and Plamondon.J. Vol.M. 49 No. Stewart. (1998). “Missing data: our view of the state of the art”. and Cardy. Academy of Management Journal.J. C. (2009). 5. S. M. Journal of Organizational Behavior. pp.A. 143-64. “Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance”. 17-27. “Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure”. Vol.M. Anderson. NORM 2. Podsakoff. pp. pp. and Gregersen. Vol. and Podsakoff. pp. and Seijts. Hamburg. G. B. (1986).smartpls. Tasa. 22.C. Triandis. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2007). and Manz. S. 340-50. S. Sosik. and Graham. Sonnentag.. 92 No. “SmartPLS (Version 2. “The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior in a service setting”. M.K. (2000).02. and Pulakos. N. and Graen. pp. Vol. “Teamwork behaviors: a review and an integration of frameworks”. 88 No.html Schafer. 395-415..W.jls/misoftwa.. (1985). F. 1. 6. 76 No. 147-77.. J. Wagner. pp. Vol. J. Psychological Methods. (2005). Vol. G. Wende. 879-903. available at: www. 33-8... G. III and Moch. Journal of Vocational Behavior.. (2009). and Clack.S. Vol. University of Hamburg. M. Vol. M. Vol. K. 540-70. pp. 4. J. Donovan. 5-36. Journal of Applied Psychology. 19 No. and Avolio. (1996). Journal of Applied Psychology. “Conducting meaningful research in a fast paced and volatile world of work: challenges and opportunities”. and Piovoso. Kahai. H. Villareal. J. pp.D. and Volmer. pp. 4. Journal of Applied Psychology.J.5 pp. 838-44.B. 1. 85 No. Journal of Research in Personality. and Van Dick.E. (2006). Waldman. Taggar.0 Beta)”. K. Journal of Applied Psychology. Aubé.psu. pp. S. “Self-leadership and performance outcomes: the mediating influence of self-efficacy”. M. E. . 612-24. “Foci of attachment in organizations: a meta-analysis comparison of the strength and correlates of work-group versus organizational commitment and identification”. M. Group & Organization Management. P.. 5.C. Ryan. 523-38. (2000). 3. 3. H. 19 No. 1. 1..stat.L. Carson. pp. Group & Organization Studies. Ringle. Vol. (2007).L. 265-90. “The development of collective efficacy in teams: a multilevel and longitudinal perspective”. K. (2005). pp. (1986). Leung. Personnel Psychology. G. 5. 34 No. 34 Rousseau. A. available at: www. Vol. 37 No. K. V. 490-510. S. and Will.

. W. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. pp. Welbourne. H. Vol. and Or visit our web site for further details: www. 225-34. Spector. pp. an institute for research on higher education. 33 No. “Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”. 46 No. “A demographic study on citizenship behavior as in-role Self-leadership orientation”.. (Eds). K. Germany. Measuring the Unmeasurable. Germany. A.W. S. “Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions”. H. Udo Konradt is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: konradt@psychologie. About the authors Kristina Hauschildt holds a doctorate in Work and Organizational Psychology from the University of Kiel. 9 No. and leadership. 1. Odekerken-Schröder. S. (2006). and Weiwu. and Wold. North Holland. Johnson. “Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”. Germany. Vol. Vol. (Eds). pp. MA.. (1998).C. 78 No.R. Prediction. Early. “Work groups and teams in organizations”.G. “Systems analysis using partial least squares”. Medsker. pp. Ilgen. “Self-leadership and transformational leadership in co-located and virtual teams: a moderation analysis”. (2001).J.emeraldinsight. Vol. L. D. 333-75. Leitner. Main topics of his research include human-computer interaction. pp. A.A.. Wold. Systems under Indirect Observation: Causality. “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”. P. (1997). Human Resource Management Review.. P. “The role-based performance scale: validity and performance analysis of a theory-based measure”. Wiley. 12. 23. M. 2. M. Personnel Psychology. London. “Personal initiative (PI): an active performance concept for work in the 21st century”. Wold. 823-50. Martinus Nijhoff. W. M. 1-54. Personality and Individual Differences. C. in Nijkamp. 2. and Bell. Germany. (1982). pp.J. pp. P. 139-55. and Neck. 540-55. and Erez.Wanxian. She is now working at HIS-HF in Hanover. in Borman. Campion. and Wrigley. and Fay. . pp. 177-95. “Complex interdependence in task-performing groups”. MIS 517 Quarterly. 2. Williams. Vol. Organizational Research Methods. Kozlowski. R. Research in Organizational Behavior. (in press). (1993). and Van Dyne. B. H. T. C. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol.S. and Klimoski. “Personality and self-leadership”. in Jöreskog. Konradt. 4. virtual teams. N. 61-72. R. Further reading Andressen. and van Oppen.E. (1985).J. He holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Bochum. (2007). U. Hingham. P.P. pp. Vol. Structure.. (2009). 7 No. D. 133-87. L. 1..A. G. Frese. pp. 221-32.C. 5. Wetzels. pp. Amsterdam. 2. Udo Konradt is Full Professor of Work. (2003). Vol. (1993). 221-52. H. Academy of Management Journal. Organizational and Consumer Psychology at the University of Kiel. 42 No. Vol. (Eds). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies (forthcoming). Saavedra. G. Vol. 41 No.uni-kiel.