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

rchive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Journal of
Managerial The revised self-leadership
Psychology
17,8
questionnaire
Testing a hierarchical factor structure
672 for self-leadership
Received July 2001
Revised May 2002
Jeffery D. Houghton
Accepted July 2002 Department of Management, Lipscomb University, Nashville,
Tennessee, USA and
Christopher P. Neck
Department of Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Keywords Leadership, Measurement, Self-efficiency, Factor analysis, Models
Abstract Despite the popularity and potential of self-leadership strategies in modern
organizations, no acceptably valid and reliable self-leadership assessment scale has heretofore
been developed. The present study tests the reliability and construct validity of a revised self-
leadership measurement scale created on the basis of existing measures of self-leadership. Results
from an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) demonstrate significantly better reliability and factor
stability for the revised scale in comparison to existing instruments. Further, results from a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing structural equation modeling techniques
demonstrate superior fit for a higher order factor model of self-leadership, thus providing
evidence that the revised scale is measuring self-leadership in a way that is harmonious with self-
leadership theory. Based on these results, the revised scale appears to be a reasonably reliable and
valid instrument for the measurement of self-leadership skills, behaviors, and cognitions.
Implications for future empirical self-leadership research are discussed.

Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 17 No. 8, 2002, pp. 672-691.
# MCB UP Limited, 0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940210450484
Self-leadership (Manz, 1983, 1986, 1992; Manz and Neck, 1999; Manz and Sims,
2001) is a process through which people influence themselves to achieve the
self-direction and self-motivation necessary to behave and perform in desirable
ways. Self-leadership is rooted in several related theories of self-influence
including self-regulation (Kanfer, 1970; Carver and Scheier, 1981), self-control
(Cautela, 1969; Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978, 1979; Thoresen and Mahoney,
1974), and self-management (Andrasik and Heimberg, 1982; Luthans and
Davis, 1979; Manz and Sims, 1980). Self-leadership is generally portrayed as a
broader concept of self-influence that subsumes the behavior-focused strategies
of self-regulation, self-control, and self-management, and then specifies
additional sets of cognitive-oriented strategies derived from intrinsic
motivation theories (e.g. Deci, 1975; Deci and Ryan, 1985), social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1991), and positive cognitive psychology (Beck et
al., 1979; Burns, 1980; Ellis, 1977; Seligman, 1991). Thus, drawing from these
well-established theoretical foundations, self-leadership comprises specific sets
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA.
of behavioral and cognitive strategies designed to shape individual Revised self-
performance outcomes. leadership
Self-leadership strategies may be divided into three general categories: questionnaire
behavior-focused strategies, natural reward strategies, and constructive
thought pattern strategies (Anderson and Prussia, 1997; Manz and Neck, 1999;
Prussia et al., 1998). Behavior-focused strategies are aimed at increasing self-
awareness, leading to the management of behaviors involving necessary but 673
perhaps unpleasant tasks (Manz, 1992; Manz and Neck, 1999). These strategies
include self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward, self-correcting feedback,
and practice. Self-observation of one’s own behavior can lead to an awareness
of when and why one engages in certain behaviors. This heightening of self-
awareness can, in turn, lead to the identification of specific behaviors that
should be changed, enhanced, or eliminated (Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978, 1979;
Manz and Sims, 1980; Manz and Neck, 1999). Based on this foundation of self-
assessment, the individual can effectively set personal goals that may lead to
improved performance (Manz, 1986; Manz and Neck, 1999; Manz and Sims,
1980). A multitude of research has shown that the act of setting and accepting
challenging and specific goals can have a dramatic effect in motivating
individual performance (Locke and Latham, 1990). In addition, self-rewards can
be effectively used to reinforce desirable behaviors and goal attainments
(Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1978, 1979; Manz and Sims, 1980; Manz and Neck,
1999). Self-rewards can be something tangible, like a nice restaurant meal or a
weekend vacation following the completion of a difficult project at work, or
self-rewards can be something abstract and simple such as congratulating
oneself or mentally visualizing a favorite place or experience. Like self-rewards,
self-correcting feedback can also be used to shape desirable behaviors
effectively. An introspective yet positively framed examination of negative
behaviors or performance failures can be more effective in correcting
performance than excessive self-punishment based on habitual guilt and self-
criticism (Manz and Sims, 2001). Finally, the rehearsal or practice of desired
behaviors before actual performance can allow for the correction of problems
and the avoidance of costly miscues (Manz, 1992; Manz and Neck, 1999; Manz
and Sims, 1980; Thoresen and Mahoney, 1974). In short, behavior-focused self-
leadership strategies are designed to encourage positive, desirable behaviors
that lead to successful outcomes, while suppressing negative, undesirable
behaviors that lead to unsuccessful outcomes.
Natural reward strategies emphasize the enjoyable aspects of a given task or
activity. Natural or intrinsic rewards result when incentives are built into the
task itself and a person is motivated or rewarded by the task itself (Manz, 1992;
Manz and Neck, 1999). Naturally rewarding activities tend to foster feelings of
increased competence, self-control, and purpose (Manz, 1986, Manz and Neck,
1999). Natural reward strategies include efforts to incorporate more pleasant
and enjoyable features into a given task or activity and efforts to change
perceptions of an activity by focusing on the task’s inherently rewarding
aspects (Manz and Neck, 1999). For instance, a person might attempt to create a
Journal of more enjoyable work environment by playing soft music, hanging pictures, or
Managerial adding other personal touches. Alternatively, a person could shift attention
Psychology toward job features that they particularly enjoy, such as working outdoors or
engaging customers in conversation. Through natural reward strategies such
17,8 as these, an individual can increase performance levels by focusing on the
pleasant aspects of the job or task.
674 Constructive thought pattern strategies involve the creation and maintenance
of functional patterns of habitual thinking (Manz and Neck, 1991, 1999; Neck
and Manz, 1992, 1996). Specific thought-oriented strategies include the
evaluation and challenging of irrational beliefs and assumptions, mental
imagery of successful future performance, and positive self-talk. Dysfunctional
thought processes, a common and serious hindrance to individual performance,
generally result from underlying dysfunctional beliefs and assumptions that
are often triggered by stressful or troubling situations (Burns, 1980; Ellis, 1977).
Through a process of self-analysis, individuals may identify, confront, and
replace dysfunctional beliefs and assumptions with more rational ones (Burns,
1980; Ellis, 1977; Manz and Neck, 1999; Neck and Manz, 1992). In a similar
manner, negative and destructive self-talk should be replaced by more positive
and constructive self-dialogues. Self-talk is defined as what we covertly tell
ourselves (Ellis, 1962; Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996). Self-dialogues usually take
place at unobservable levels as individuals evaluate, instruct, and mentally
react to themselves (Ellis, 1962, 1977; Manz and Neck, 1991; Neck and Manz,
1992). Through an analysis and evaluation of self-talk patterns, an individual
can learn to suppress and discourage negative and pessimistic self-talk while
fostering and encouraging optimistic self-dialogues (Seligman, 1991).
Finally, mental imagery is generally defined as the symbolic, covert, mental
invention or rehearsal of an experience or task in the absence of actual, overt
physical muscular movement (see Driskell et al., 1994; Finke, 1989). Through
the use of mental imagery it may be possible to create and symbolically
experience behavioral outcomes prior to actual performance (Manz and Neck,
1991; Neck and Manz, 1992, 1996). This technique has also been variously
referred to as imaginary practice (Perry, 1939), covert rehearsal (Corbin, 1967),
symbolic rehearsal (Sackett, 1934), and mental practice (Corbin, 1972). Those
individuals who envision the successful performance of a task or activity
beforehand are much more likely to perform successfully when faced with the
actual situation (Manz and Neck, 1999). Empirical research evidence provides
support for this assertion. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of 35 empirical studies
(Driskell et al., 1994), suggests that mental practice generally has both a
positive and significant effect on individual performance outcomes.
In recent years, self-leadership concepts have gained considerable
popularity as evidenced by the large number of practitioner-oriented books and
articles on the subject (e.g. Blanchard, 1995; Cashman, 1995; Manz, 1991; Manz
and Neck, 1999; Manz and Sims, 2001; Sims and Manz, 1996; Waitley, 1995) and
by coverage in an increasing number of management and leadership textbooks
(e.g. Ivancevich and Matteson, 1999; Kreitner and Kinicki, 2001; McShane and
Von Glinow, 2000; Nahavandi, 2000). Given the popularity of self-leadership Revised self-
concepts and the recent emphasis on employee empowerment (e.g. Conger and leadership
Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) and self-managing work teams questionnaire
(e.g. Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Hackman, 1986), self-leadership appears to have
impressive potential for application in today’s dynamic organizations. Indeed,
self-leadership has often been presented as a primary mechanism in both
empowerment (e.g. Anderson and Prussia, 1997; Manz, 1992; Prussia et al., 675
1998; Shipper and Manz, 1992) and the successful implementation of self-
managing work teams (e.g. Neck et al., 1996; Manz and Sims, 1986, 1987).
While a plethora of conceptual (non-empirical) self-leadership research
exists, a sparse amount of empirical research has examined self-leadership
theory and its application in organizational settings (Anderson and Prussia,
1997). One possible explanation for this lack of empirical research is that no
valid scale of self-leadership has heretofore been developed. The lack of a
proven scale for the assessment of self-leadership skills makes it difficult to
advance empirical research in this promising area. Until self-leadership and its
component dimensions can be effectively measured, empirical research efforts
in the area of self-leadership will remain scarce. Indeed, Markham and
Markham (1995, 1998), in offering an agenda for future self-leadership research,
call for the construction and validation of self-leadership scales.

Self-leadership measurement
While no psychometrically-sound self-leadership measurement scale has
previously been developed, two noteworthy preliminary attempts have been
made to develop a self-leadership questionnaire (SLQ). Both of these efforts
utilized a prototype created by Manz and Sims and rooted in the self-leadership
literature (Manz, 1986, 1992; Manz and Sims, 1987, 1991) as a basis for the
development of a more advanced instrument. Cox (1993) developed and
assessed a 34-item SLQ. Unrestricted factor analysis led to an eight-factor
solution with factors labeled as: self-problem solving initiative, efficacy,
teamwork, self-reward, self-goal setting, natural rewards, opportunity thought,
and self-observation/evaluation. Alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) for the
Cox (1993) SLQ sub-scales ranged from 0.69 to 0.93. Mean James coefficients
(assessing interrater consensus; James et al., 1984) of 0.82 or better were
obtained for all eight SLQ behavior dimensions. Based on these assessments,
Cox’s (1993) SLQ has shown some preliminary potential as a self-leadership
assessment scale. Indeed, Roberts and Foti (1998) recently employed the Cox
scale as a measure of self-leadership in a field study. They reported a coefficient
alpha of 0.91 for the Cox SLQ, thus providing additional preliminary evidence
of the scale’s psychometric properties.
More recently, Anderson and Prussia (1997) have presented an alternative
preliminary effort toward the developmentof a self-leadership scale. In this study,
a 90-item SLQ prototype, based on earlier work by Manz (1992) and Manz and
Sims (1991), was reduced to 50 items through a sorting process that assessed the
agreement of 18 category judges. The 50-item SLQ was then administered to a
Journal of sample of 194 students. Factor analysis of the resulting data yielded ten unique
Managerial factors. Six factors (self-goal setting, self-reward, self-punishment, self-
Psychology observation, self-cueing, and self-withholding) assess self-leadership’s behavior
focused strategies, one factor (focusing thoughts on natural rewards) represents
17,8 self-leadership’s natural reward strategies, and three factors (visualizing
successful performance, self-talk, and evaluating beliefs and assumption)
676 evaluate self-leadership’s constructive thought pattern strategies. Alpha
coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) ranged from 0.69 to 0.91 for each of the ten scale
sub-dimensions. However, several items loaded on the wrong factor and/or
demonstrated minimally acceptable factor loadings (greater than 0.30) on more
than one factor. The Anderson and Prussia (1997) SLQ was then administered to a
second sample to further assess the construct validity of the scale. In the second
administration, one sub-scale (i.e. focusing thoughts on natural rewards) dropped
below Nunnally’s (1978) recommended scale reliability threshold of 0.70 to an
alpha of 0.62, thus indicating significant instability across samples for this
dimension of the SLQ factor structure (Anderson and Prussia, 1997). Another sub-
scale (i.e. self-observation) was marginal with an alpha of 0.70. While the efforts of
Cox (1993) and Anderson and Prussia (1997) represent significant and valuable
progress in the development of a valid self-leadership scale, these efforts are
clearly preliminary. Further development of a psychometrically acceptable self-
leadership scale is a pressing concern in the advancement of self-leadership
research.
The purpose of the present study is to test the construct validity of a revised
self-leadership measurement scale, created on the basis of the two existing
measures of self-leadership (i.e. Anderson and Prussia, 1997; Cox, 1993). In short,
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to examine to the factor structure of
the revised scale and to facilitate comparisons with existing measures of self-
leadership, while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing structural equation
modeling techniques was used to examine the extent to which the revised scale
fit a hierarchical model of self-leadership as specified by self-leadership theory.

Method
Sample and procedure
The data were collected from two independent samples of students in two
introductory management courses at a large southeastern university in the
USA (Sample 1: n = 477; Sample 2: n = 381; 60 percent male, 40 percent female,
mean age = 21.12 across both samples). Listwise deletion for missing data
resulted in final sample sizes of 442 and 357 for Samples 1 and 2, respectively.
As part of a class lecture on individual differences, students completed the
revised self-leadership instrument. The questionnaires were completed
anonymously and participation was voluntary.

Instrumentation
Self-leadership was measured using the revised self-leadership questionnaire
(RSLQ). The RSLQ (shown in the Appendix) consists of 35 items in nine
distinct sub-scales representing the three primary self-leadership dimensions. Revised self-
Table I provides a summary of the relationships between the nine RSLQ sub- leadership
scales and the three self-leadership dimensions. The behavior-focused questionnaire
dimension is represented by five sub-scales labeled:
(1) self-goal setting (five items);
(2) self-reward (three items); 677
(3) self-punishment (four items);
(4) self-observation (four items); and
(5) self-cueing (two items).
A single sub-scale consisting of five items represents the natural rewards
dimension. The constructive thought dimension is represented by three sub-
scales labeled:
(1) visualizing successful performance (five items);
(2) self-talk (three items); and
(3) evaluating beliefs and assumptions (four items).
The RSLQ was developed by building on the previous versions of self-
leadership questionnaires (e.g. Anderson and Prussia, 1997; Cox, 1993)
described above. Anderson and Prussia’s (1997) 50-item SLQ served as the
primary basis for the RSLQ. To create the RSLQ, 17 ambiguous items were
deleted from the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale and two items were added
from the Cox (1993) instrument. Specifically, items with primary loadings on an
incorrect factor (i.e. loading on a dimension the item was not intended to
represent), items with low primary factor loadings on the correct factor, and/or
items with high cross-factor loadings (i.e. high secondary loadings on an
incorrect factor) were dropped from the scale. For example, the item ``I try to
build activities into my work that I like doing’’ was intended to assess the
``focusing on natural rewards’’ dimension. However, in an earlier EFA, this item
demonstrated a primary loading of 0.59 on the ``visualizing successful

Factor
Dimensions Sub-scales Scale items number

Behavior-focused Self-goal setting 2, 11, 20, 28, 34 2

strategies Self-reward 4, 13, 22 4
Self-punishment 6, 15, 24, 30 6
Self-observation 7, 16, 25, 31 7
Self-cueing 9, 18 9
Natural reward Focusing thoughts on natural
strategies rewards 8, 17, 26, 32, 35 8
Constructive thought Visualizing successful performance 1, 10, 19, 27, 33 1
pattern strategies Self-talk 3, 12, 21 3 Table I.
Evaluating beliefs and assumptions 5, 14, 23, 29 5 RSLQ sub-scales
Journal of performance’’ factor, while showing a secondary loading of 0.36 on the
Managerial ``focusing on natural rewards’’ factor (Anderson and Prussia, 1997). Clearly, this
Psychology item is loading on the wrong factor. Ambiguous items such as this were deleted
from the revised scale. Further, the two items comprising the ``self-withholding’’
17,8 factor were dropped from the revised scale. This dimension does not appear to
effectively represent self-leadership theory. Indeed, the idea of ``self-
678 withholding’’ is not a primary concept within self-leadership (see Manz and
Neck, 1999).
In addition, five items from the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale were
reworded to better reflect self-leadership theory. For instance, the phrase ``I
often physically rehearse . . .’’ was changed to ``I often mentally rehearse . . .’’ to
better reflect the ``visualizing successful performance’’ dimension. Along the
same lines, the wording of the three items representing the ``self-talk’’
dimension was changed from ``talk out loud to myself’’ to ``talk to myself (out
loud or in my head)’’ to better reflect self-leadership’s conceptualization of
internalized self-talk. Finally, two items from the Cox (1993) scale were added
to represent the ``focusing thoughts on natural rewards’’ dimension in an effort
to increase the reliability of this sub-scale. As mentioned above, this sub-scale
showed the poorest reliability estimates (¬ = 0.69 and 0.62) of any of the
dimensions in the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale.

Analysis
The data were analyzed in two primary stages. First, in order to make a fair
and consistent comparison between the psychometric properties of the RSLQ
and the Anderson and Prussia (1997) SLQ, an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) with principle components extraction and varimax rotation was applied
to the data from Sample 1. Consistent with Anderson and Prussia (1997), a
critical value of 0.35 was chosen as the cut-off point in determining whether an
item defined a factor. In addition, the ``eigenvalue greater than one test’’ and the
scree test were used to define factors (Gorsuch, 1974). Second, in an effort to
examine the extent to which the RSLQ effectively represents self-leadership
theory, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model of self-
leadership (see Figure 1) was tested on the data from Sample 2 through an
analysis of covariance structures using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993).
Established item-parceling procedures (e.g. Collins and Gleaves, 1998) were
utilized to create composite indicators. Items in each of the sub-scales were
summed and averaged to create five composite indicators for the behavior-
focused dimension and three composite indicators for the constructive thought
dimension. Three single items served as indicators for the natural reward
dimension.
In order to assess the relative fit of the theoretically-based hierarchical model
of self-leadership (Figure 1), a one-factor model (i.e., all indicators loading on a
single factor; see Figure 2) and a three uncorrelated factors model (see Figure 3)
were tested for comparison. In accordance with the recommendations of Hoyle
and Panter (1995), the following fit indexes were used to assess the fit of the
 Revised self-
leadership
questionnaire

679

Figure 1.
Second order factor
model of self-leadership
and its primary
dimensions with
standardized parameter
estimates (all parameter
loadings were
significant at the ¬ =
0.05 level)

three models: Chi-square (À2, e.g. Bollen, 1989a), the goodness-of-fit-index (GFI,
Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1981), the non-normed fit index (NNFI, Bentler and
Bonnett, 1980), the incremental fit index (IFI, Bollen, 1989b), and the
comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990). The use of multiple fit indexes is
generally advisable in order to provide convergent evidence of model fit. The
values of GFI, NNFI, IFI, and CFI range from 0 to 1.0, with values closer to 1.0
indicating a well-fitting model (Bentler and Bonnett, 1980; Hoyle and Panter,
1995).

Results
Exploratory factor analysis: Sample 1
Based on this sample, the RSLQ demonstrated significantly better reliability
and factor stability in comparison to the Anderson and Prussia (1997)
instrument. Coefficient alphas for each of the nine RSLQ sub-scales are shown
in Table II. For comparison purposes, coefficient alphas from the Anderson and
Prussia (1997) instrument are also shown in parentheses. As demonstrated in
the table, alphas for the RSLQ either remained relatively unchanged or showed
Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
17,8

680

Figure 2.
One-factor model of self-
leadership with
standardized parameter
estimates (all parameter
loadings were
significant at the
¬ = 0.05 level)

significant increases in comparison to the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale.

For instance, the alpha for the self-observation sub-scale (Factor 7) increased
from 0.73 to 0.82, while the alpha for the self-talk sub-scale (Factor 3) raised
from 0.84 to 0.92. These results indicate greater reliability of measurement for
the RSLQ as compared to the Anderson and Prussia (1997) SLQ.
In addition, EFA results indicated an impressively stable factor structure for
the RSLQ, as shown in Table II. As anticipated, the ``eigenvalues greater than
one’’ test and the scree test (Gorsuch, 1974) indicated nine interpretable factors.
Furthermore, all factor loadings exceeded 0.35 and all items loaded
unambiguously on the correct factors with virtually no cross-factor loadings
greater than 0.35. Finally, the factor structure of the RSLQ boasted unusually
high factor loadings, many in excess of 0.70.

Confirmatory factor analysis: Sample 2

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among indicator variables are
presented in Table III. Reliability estimates for the nine sub-scales remained
 Revised self-
leadership
questionnaire

681

Figure 3.
Three uncorrelated
factors model of self-
leadership (all parameter
loadings were
significant at the
¬ = 0.05 level

fairly stable in Sample 2 relative to the reliability estimates reported for

Sample 1, demonstrating only negligible fluctuations across the two samples.
Fit indexes for the covariance structure models tested are shown in Table IV.
The standardized solutions for the three models tested are shown in Figures 1-3
with measurement error effects omitted for clarity. As anticipated, the second
order factor model fit the data fairly well (À2 [41, N = 357] = 128.49, GFI = 0.94,
NNFI = 0.88, IFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91), demonstrating the best fit of the three
models tested. By way of comparison, the one-factor model demonstrated
significantly worse fit (À2 [44, N = 357] = 191.67, GFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.81,
IFI = 0.85, CFI = 0.85) than the hierarchical model, while the three uncorrelated
factors model proved to be the worst fitting model (À2 [44, N = 357] = 427.68,
GFI = 0.82, NNFI = 0.50, IFI = 0.61, CFI = 0.60). In addition, À2 difference tests
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bollen, 1989a) indicated statistically significant
À2 differences between each of the three models. Accordingly, the second order
factor model (Figure 1) was retained as the best fitting model. In harmony with
self-leadership theory, this model suggests that the behavior focused, natural
Journal of Factor loadings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Managerial
Psychology Factor 1: visualizing successful performance (scale ¬ = 0.85 (0.85))
1. I use my imagination to picture
17,8 myself performing well on
important tasks 0.763
10. I visualize myself successfully
682 performing a task before I do it 0.815
19. Sometimes I picture in my mind a
successful performance before I
actually do a task 0.814
27. I purposefully visualize myself
overcoming the challenges I face 0.686
33. I often mentally rehearse the way
I plan to deal with a challenge
before I actually face the challenge 0.512

Factor 2: self-goal setting (scale ¬ = 0.84 (0.85))

2. I establish specific goals for my own
performance 0.737
11. I consciously have goals in mind for my
work efforts 0.690
20. I work toward specific goals I have
set for myself 0.767
28. I think about the goals that I intend
to achieve in the future 0.667
34. I write specific goals for my own
performance. 0.567

Factor 3: self-talk (scale ¬ = 0.92 (0.84))

3. Sometimes I find I’m talking to myself
(out loud or in my head) to help me deal
with difficult problems I face 0.907
12. Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud or
in my head) to work through difficult
situations 0.909
21. When I’m in difficult situations I will
sometimes talk to myself (out loud or in
my head) to help me get through it 0.853

Factor 4: self-reward (scale ¬ = 0.93 (0.91))

4. When I do an assignment especially well,
I like to treat myself to some thing or
activity I especially enjoy 0.908
13. When I do something well, I reward
myself with a special event such as a
good dinner, movie, shopping trip, etc. 0.908
22. When I have successfully completed a
task, I often reward myself with
something I like 0.909

Factor 5: evaluating beliefs and assumptions (scale ¬ = 0.78 (0.79))

5. I think about my own beliefs and
Table II. assumptions whenever I encounter a
Factor structure of the difficult situation 0.790
RSLQ (sample 1 data) (continued)
Factor loadings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Revised self-
leadership
14. I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy of questionnaire
my own beliefs about situations I am
having problems with 0.757
23. I openly articulate and evaluate my own
assumptions when I have a disagreement
with someone else 0.618 683
29. I think about and evaluate the beliefs
and assumptions I hold 0.650

Factor 6: self-punishment (scale ¬ = 0.86 (0.75))

6. I tend to get down on myself in my mind
when I have performed poorly 0.839
15. I tend to be tough on myself in my
thinking when I have not done well on a
task 0.857
24. I feel guilt when I perform and task
poorly 0.791
30. I sometimes openly express displeasure
with myself when I have not done well 0.783

Factor 7: self-observation (scale ¬ = 0.82 (0.73))

7. I make a point to keep track of how well
I’m doing at work (school) 0.761
16. I usually am aware of how well I’m
doing as I perform an activity 0.698
25. I pay attention to how well I am doing in
my work 0.663
31. I keep track of my progress on projects
I’m working on 0.541

Factor 8: focusing on natural rewards (scale ¬ = 0.74 (0.69))

8. I focus my thinking on the pleasant
rather than the unpleasant aspects of my
job (school) activities 0.490
17. I try to surround myself with the objects
and people that bring out my desirable
behaviors 0.376
26. When I have a choice, I try to do my
work in ways that I enjoy rather than
just trying to get it over with 0.765
32. I seek out activities in my work that I
enjoy doing 0.711
35. I find my own favorite way to get things
done 0.727

Factor 9: self-cueing (scale ¬ = 0.91 (0.82))

9. I use written notes to remind myself of
what I need to accomplish 0.919
18. I use concrete reminders (e.g. notes and
lists) to help me focus on the things I
need to accomplish 0.897
Notes: N = 442. Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method:
VARIMAX with Kaiser normalization. Coefficient alphas (¬) from the Anderson and Prussia
(1997) scale are shown in parentheses for comparison
Table II.
 17,8

684

Table III.
Journal of

deviations, and

(sample 2 data)
Managerial
Psychology

Means, standard

indicator variables
intercorrelations among
Indicator
variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. C2 3.94 0.675 –
2. C4 3.99 0.960 0.252** –
3. C6 3.81 0.862 0.288** 0.184** –
4. C7 4.04 0.637 0.577** 0.219** 0.360** –
5. C9 3.98 1.06 0.319** 0.137** 0.151** 0.124* –
6. V26 3.68 0.976 0.372** 0.235** 0.034 0.225** 0.139** –
7. V32 4.00 0.895 0.492** 0.301** 0.098 0.400** 0.241** 0.461** –
8. V35 3.87 0.917 0.445** 0.319** 0.055 0.225** 0.152** 0.454** 0.418** –
9. C1 3.62 0.816 0.492** 0.299** 0.113* 0.279** 0.143** 0.344** 0.412** 0.348** –
10. C3 4.04 0.927 0.296** 0.129* 0.145** 0.189** 0.191** 0.190** 0.183** 0.256** 0.385** –
11. C5 3.77 0.698 0.437** 0.289** 0.259** 0.354** 0.177** 0.296** 0.317** 0.390** 0.451** 0.320** –
Notes: N = 357. C1 = visualizing successful performance item composite; C2 = self-goal setting item composite; C3 = self-talk item composite;
C4 = self-reward item composite; C5 = evaluating beliefs and assumptions item composite; C6 = self-punishment item composite; C7 = self-
observation item composite; C8 = natural rewards item composite; C9 = self-cueing item composite; V26 = item 26 – RSLQ; V32 = item 32 –
RSLQ; V35 = item 35 – RSLQ. * p < 0.05 (two-tailed); ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
rewards, and constructive thought factors have a higher order factor; namely, Revised self-
self-leadership. leadership
questionnaire
Discussion
The results of this study provide support for the validity and reliability of the
RSLQ as an acceptable measure of self-leadership skills and behaviors.
Reliability estimates for the RSLQ improved significantly or remained 685
relatively stable in comparison to Anderson and Prussia’s (1997) SLQ. Most
notably, the scale reliability estimate for the ``focusing on natural rewards’’
dimension of the RSLQ increased above the commonly recommended level
(0.70) to a coefficient alpha of 0.74, a significant improvement over the
reliability estimates (0.69 and 0.62) reported by Anderson and Prussia (1997). In
addition, EFA results suggest a remarkably stable factor structure for the
RSLQ. As expected, nine interpretable factors emerged representing distinct
self-leadership dimensions as specified by self-leadership theory. Behavior-
focused strategies were represented by five factors, natural reward strategies
were represented by one factor, and the constructive thought pattern strategies
were represented by three factors. The RSLQ items loaded strongly on the
correct factors with virtually no significant cross-factor loadings.
The construct validity of the RSLQ was further examined through a CFA
that examined the fit of a theoretically-based hierarchical model of self-
leadership to the data from a separate large sample. The superior fit of this
second order factor model over competing one-factor and three-factor models
suggests that the RSLQ is measuring self-leadership in a way that is
harmonious with the specifications of self-leadership theory, thus providing
additional evidence of the RSLQ’s construct validity. Based on the results of
both the EFA and CFA, it appears that the RSLQ is a fairly reliable and valid
measurement instrument that effectively reflects self-leadership theory in the
assessment of self-leadership skills, behaviors, and cognitions.
This study contributes to the self-leadership literature in at least three
important ways. First, the RSLQ, a revised self-leadership measurement scale,
was presented and described. Second, evidence of the reliability and construct
validity of the revised scale was demonstrated across two large independent
samples using EFA and CFA techniques. Third, a theory-based hierarchical
model of self-leadership was examined empirically for the first time. The results
of this study provide support for this model of self-leadership and for the RSLQ

Model À2 df GFI NNFI IFI CFI À2 difference df

1. Second order factor 128.49 41 0.94 0.88 0.91 0.91

2. One-factor 191.67 44 0.91 0.81 0.85 0.85
Model 1-2 difference 63.18 3 Table IV.
3. Three-factors 427.68 44 0.82 0.50 0.60 0.61 Fit indexes for
Model 1-3 difference 299.19 3 covariance structure
4. Null 1019.9 55 analyses
Journal of as an effective instrument for the measurement of self-leadership and its
Managerial dimensions. By empirically confirming the generally accepted theoretical model
Psychology of self-leadership and by providing a psychometrically sound instrument for
the measurement of self-leadership, the results of this study could be
17,8 instrumental in the advancement of future empirical self-leadership research.
Despite its significant contributions, the present study has at least three
686 important limitations. First, both of the samples consisted of undergraduate
students, which could affect the generalizability of these results. However,
because the primary focus of the present study is the examination and
measurement skills, behaviors, and psychological concepts, this sample of
undergraduates, though convenient, seems as appropriate as any other large
sample at this preliminary stage. Nevertheless, future research should
determine whether the results found here generalize to other samples of
interest. Second, while the current study assessed the RSLQ’s stability across
two large samples, scale stability could also have been effectively tested across
time through an examination of test-retest reliability. Ideally, a subset of one of
the large samples would have completed the entire scale a second time to assess
the reliability of measurement across the two administrations. In the current
study, however, data collection constraints prohibited a second administration
of the scale. Future research should examine the test-retest stability of the
RSLQ to more completely examine the scale’s reliability. Third, although this
study generally assessed the construct validity of the RSLQ, it did not
specifically examine the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity.
Convergent validity suggests that scores on a given scale designed to measure
a certain construct should correlate with scores on another instrument designed
to measure the same construct, while discriminant validity suggests that scores
on the given scale should be uncorrelated with scores on scales that are not
designed to measure the said construct.
Future research should attempt to assess both the convergent and
discriminant validity of the RSLQ. For example, because they have only
two items in common, the RSLQ could easily be compared to the Cox (1993)
self-leadership scale for convergence. Alternatively, for a partial assessment of
convergent validity, the RSLQ could be compared to the lifestyle approaches
(LSA), a well-established 16-item measure of self-management developed by
Williams et al. (1992). Specifically, LSA items could be assessed for
convergence with the behavior-focused items on the RSLQ, because these items
are intended to assess self-management skills. The discriminant validity of the
RSLQ could be examined by comparing RSLQ results to the results from a
scale designed to measure a similar, but theoretically distinct construct, such as
the personality construct of conscientiousness. In following these suggestions,
future researchers will be able to more thoroughly examine both the reliability
and construct validity of the RSLQ, thus overcoming some of the limitations of
the present study. Messick (1995) stresses the importance of such further
examinations, suggesting that construct validation requires an accumulation of
evidence and cannot be accomplished in a single study.
 Ultimately, the results reported here support the use of the RSLQ as a Revised self-
relatively effective and psychometrically sound measure of self-leadership that leadership
has the potential to facilitate new and exciting empirical research in the self- questionnaire
leadership domain. In short, the existence of a validated scale can enhance the
efficacy of self-leadership as an organizational intervention, an important
implication for practicing managers. For managers and theorists alike, a
greater understanding of ``why’’ and ``how’’ self-leadership training 687
interventions impact various dependent variables could be achieved if the
RSLQ were administered before and after the intervention. Self-leadership
training interventions currently found in the literature (e.g. Neck and Manz,
1996) show that self-leadership enhances various outcomes, but can at best
only partially explain ``why’’ or ``how’’ the interventions impacted the selected
dependent variables. One reason for this is that no validated self-leadership
instrument existed at the time these interventions were carried out and hence
the researchers could only measure outcome-related variables as opposed to
``process’’ variables. Thus, by using the RSLQ in future self-leadership
interventions, researchers will be able to ask questions that they could not have
asked in the past such as: ``Was the impact of the training on performance
accompanied by increases in the practice of self-leadership behaviors by the
trainees?’’. In conclusion, the RSLQ presented and validated in this study could
potentially serve as the catalyst for training interventions and other empirical
research endeavors that may highlight the importance of self-leadership skills
in twenty-first century organizations characterized by new decentralized
structures and a greater reliance on individual initiative.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ``Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Anderson, J.S. and Prussia, G.E. (1997), ``The self-leadership questionnaire: Preliminary
assessment of construct validity’’, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 119-43.
Andrasik, F. and Heimberg, J.S. (1982), ``Self-management procedures’’, in Frederikson, L.W. (Ed.),
Handbook of Organizational Behavior Management, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 219-47.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1991), ``Social cognitive theory of self-regulation’’, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 248-87.
Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F. and Emery, G. (1979), Cognitive Theory of Depression, Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), ``Comparative fit indices in structural models’’, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnett, D.G. (1980), ``Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Blanchard, K. (1995), ``Points of power can help self leadership’’, Manage, Vol. 46 No. 3, p. 12.
Bollen, K.A. (1989a), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Journal of Bollen, K.A. (1989b), ``A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models’’,
Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 17, pp. 303-16.
Managerial
Burns, D.D. (1980), Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy, William Morrow, New York, NY.
Psychology Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1981), Attention and Self-regulation: A Control Theory Approach
17,8 to Human Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Cashman, K. (1995), ``Mastery from the inside out’’, Executive Excellence, Vol. 12 No. 12, p. 17.
688 Cautela, J.R. (1969), ``Behavior therapy and self-control: techniques and applications’’, in
Franks, C.M. (Ed.), Behavioral Therapy: Appraisal and Status, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY, pp. 323-40.
Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E. Jr (1994), ``The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasi-
experiment’’, Human Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 13-43.
Collins, J.M. and Gleaves, D.H. (1998), ``Race, job applicants, and the five-factor model of
personality: implications for black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and
the five-factor theory’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 531-44.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1988), ``The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice’’,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 639-52.
Corbin, C.B. (1967), ``Effects of mental practice on skill development after controlled practice’’,
Research Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 534-8.
Corbin, C.B. (1972), ``Mental practice’’, in Morgan, W.P. (Ed.), Ergogenic Aids and Muscular
Performance, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 93-118.
Cox, J.F. (1993), ``The effects of superleadership training on leader behavior, subordinate self-
leadership behavior, and subordinate citizenship’’, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), ``Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests’’, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Deci, E.L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, Plenum, New York, NY.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior,
Plenum, New York, NY.
Driskell, J.E., Copper, C. and Moran, A. (1994), ``Does mental practice enhance performance?’’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 481-92.
Ellis, A. (1962), Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, Lyle Stuart, New York, NY.
Ellis, A. (1977), The Basic Clinical Theory of Rational-Emotive Therapy, Springer, New York, NY.
Finke, R.A. (1989), Principles of Mental Imagery, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gorsuch, R. (1974), Factor Analysis, Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.
Hackman, J.R. (1986), ``The psychology of self-management in organizations’’, in Pollack, M.S.
and Perlogg, R.O. (Eds), Psychology and Work: Productivity Change and Employment,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 85-136.
Hoyle, R.H. and Panter, A.T. (1995), ``Writing about structural equation models’’, in Hoyle, R.H.
(Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 158-76.
Ivancevich, J.M. and Matteson, M.T. (1999), Organizational Behavior and Management, 5th ed.,
Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), ``Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 85-98.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1981), LISREL V: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the
Method of Maximum Likelihood, National Educational Resources, Chicago, IL.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Revised self-
Command Language, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
leadership
Kanfer, F.H. (1970), ``Self-regulation: research, issues, and speculations’’, in Neuringer, C. and
Michael, J.L. (Eds), Behavioral Modification in Clinical Psychology, Appleton-Century- questionnaire
Crofts, New York, NY, pp. 178-220.
Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A. (2001), Organizational Behavior, 5th ed., Irwin/McGraw-Hill,
Boston, MA.
689
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Luthans, F. and Davis, T. (1979), ``Behavioral self-management (BSM): the missing link in
managerial effectiveness’’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 42-60.
McShane, S.L. and Von Glinow, M.J. (2000), Organizational Behavior, Irwin/McGraw-Hill,
Boston, MA.
Mahoney, M.J. and Arnkoff, D.B. (1978), ``Cognitive and self-control therapies’’, in Garfield, S.L.
and Borgin, A.E. (Eds), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Therapy Change, Wiley, New
York, NY, pp. 689-722.
Mahoney, M.J. and Arnkoff, D.B. (1979), ``Self-management: theory, research, and application’’, in
Brady, J.P. and Pomerleau, D. (Eds), Behavioral Medicine: Theory and Practice, Williams
and Williams, Baltimore, MD, pp. 75-96.
Manz, C.C. (1983), The Art of Self-leadership: Strategies for Personal Effectiveness in your Life
and Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. (1986), ``Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 585-600.
Manz, C.C. (1991), ``Developing self-leaders through SuperLeadership’’, Supervisory Management,
Vol. 36 No. 9, p. 3.
Manz, C.C. (1992), Mastering Self-leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (1991), ``Inner leadership: creating productive thought patterns’’, The
Executive, Vol. 5, pp. 87-95.
Manz, C.C. and Neck, C.P. (1999), Mastering Self-leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal
Excellence, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1980), ``Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social
learning perspective’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 361-7.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1986), ``Leading self-managed groups: a conceptual analysis of
paradox’’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 7, pp. 141-65.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), ``Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership
of self-managing work teams’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-28.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1991), ``Superleadership: beyond the myth of heroic leadership’’,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 18-35.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2001), The New SuperLeadership: Leading Others to Lead
Themselves, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Markham, S.E. and Markham, I.S. (1995), ``Self-management and self-leadership reexamined:
a level of analysis perspective’’, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 343-59.
Markham, S.E. and Markham, I.S. (1998), ``Self-management and self-leadership reexamined:
a level of analysis perspective’’, in Dansereau, F. and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds),
Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches, Classical and New Wave, JAI Press, Stanford,
CT, pp. 193-210.
Journal of Messick, S. (1995), ``Validity of psychological assessment’’, American Psychologist, Vol. 50,
pp. 741-9.
Managerial Nahavandi, A. (2000), The Art and Science of Leadership, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
Psychology River, NJ.
17,8 Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1992), ``Thought self-leadership: the impact of self-talk and mental
imagery on performance’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 681-99.
690 Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996), ``Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies
training on employee behavior, cognition, and emotion’’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 445-67.
Neck, C.P., Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1996), ``Self-leaders within self-leading teams: toward an
optimal equilibrium’’, in Beyerlein, M. (Ed.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work
Teams, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-65.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Perry, H.M. (1939), ``The relative efficiency of actual and imaginary practice in 5 selected tasks’’,
Archives of Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 5-75.
Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S. and Manz, C.C. (1998), ``Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The
mediating influence of self-efficacy’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 523-38.
Roberts, H.E. and Foti, R.J. (1998), ``Evaluating the interaction between self-leadership and work
structure in predicting job satisfaction’’, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 257-67.
Sackett, R.S. (1934), ``The influence of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a maze habit’’,
Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 376-95.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1991), Learned Optimism, Alfred Knopf, New York, NY.
Shipper, F. and Manz, C.C. (1992), ``Employee self-management without formally designated teams:
An alternative road to empowerment’’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 48-61.
Sims, H.P. Jr and Manz, C.C. (1996), Company of Heroes: Unleashing the Power of Self-leadership,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), ``Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive
model of intrinsic task motivation’’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 666-81.
Thoresen, C.E. and Mahoney, M.J. (1974), Behavioral Self-control, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
New York, NY.
Waitley, D. (1995), Empires of the Mind: Lessons to Lead and Succeed in a Knowledge-based
World, William Morrow, New York, NY.
Williams, R.L., Moore, C.A., Pettibone, T.J. and Thomas, S.P. (1992), ``Construction and validation
of a brief self-report scale of self-management practices’’, Journal of Research in
Personality, Vol. 26, pp. 216-34.

Appendix. The revised self-leadership questionnaire

INSTRUCTIONS: Read each of the following items carefully and try to decide how true the
statement is in describing you.
Not at all Somewhat A little Mostly Completely
accurate accurate accurate accurate accurate
1 2 3 4 5

(1) I use my imagination to picture myself performing well on important tasks.

(2) I establish specific goals for my own performance.
(3) Sometimes I find I’m talking to myself (out loud or in my head) to help me deal with
difficult problems I face.
 (4) When I do an assignment especially well, I like to treat myself to some thing or activity I Revised self-
especially enjoy.
leadership
(5) I think about my own beliefs and assumptions whenever I encounter a difficult situation.
questionnaire
(6) I tend to get down on myself in my mind when I have performed poorly.
(7) I make a point to keep track of how well I’m doing at work (school).
(8) I focus my thinking on the pleasant rather than the unpleasant aspects of my job (school)
activities. 691
(9) I use written notes to remind myself of what I need to accomplish.
(10) I visualize myself successfully performing a task before I do it.
(11) I consciously have goals in mind for my work efforts.
(12) Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud or in my head) to work through difficult situations.
(13) When I do something well, I reward myself with a special event such as a good dinner,
movie, shopping trip, etc.
(14) I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy of my own beliefs about situations I am having
problems with.
(15) I tend to be tough on myself in my thinking when I have not done well on a task.
(16) I usually am aware of how well I’m doing as I perform an activity.
(17) I try to surround myself with objects and people that bring out my desirable behaviors.
(18) I use concrete reminders (e.g., notes and lists) to help me focus on things I need to
accomplish.
(19) Sometimes I picture in my mind a successful performance before I actually do a task.
(20) I work toward specific goals I have set for myself.
(21) When I’m in difficult situations I will sometimes talk to myself (out loud or in my head)
to help me get through it.
(22) When I have successfully completed a task, I often reward myself with something I like.
(23) I openly articulate and evaluate my own assumptions when I have a disagreement with
someone else.
(24) I feel guilt when I perform a task poorly.
(25) I pay attention to how well I’m doing in my work.
(26) When I have a choice, I try to do my work in ways that I enjoy rather than just trying to
get it over with.
(27) I purposefully visualize myself overcoming the challenges I face.
(28) I think about the goals that I intend to achieve in the future.
(29) I think about and evaluate the beliefs and assumptions I hold.
(30) I sometimes openly express displeasure with myself when I have not done well.
(31) I keep track of my progress on projects I’m working on.
(32) I seek out activities in my work that I enjoy doing.
(33) I often mentally rehearse the way I plan to deal with a challenge before I actually face the
challenge.
(34) I write specific goals for my own performance.
(35) I find my own favorite ways to get things done.