IMM-07148; No of Pages 14

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their

influence on sales performance
Nikolaos G. Panagopoulos a,⁎, Jessica Ogilvie b,1
a
Department of Marketing, The University of Alabama, 126 Alston Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, United States
b
Department of Marketing, The University of Alabama, Box 870225 Alston Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sales leadership has attracted a good deal of research attention during the past thirty years. Prior work, however,
Received 8 May 2014 has largely taken a dyadic, interpersonal approach where leadership originating at one level (i.e., the sales leader)
Received in revised form 18 October 2014 influences others (i.e., salespeople) thus paying no attention to the intrapersonal level whereby leadership orig-
Accepted 18 October 2014
inates within the individual with the purpose to influence oneself. Importantly, the realities of the modern sales
Available online xxxx
position (e.g., self-managing teams, virtual work away from direct supervision) requires attention to other forms
Keywords:
of leadership that may stem from and manifest at the individual level – namely, self-leadership strategies. Here
Self-leadership we address this gap by focusing on a particular form of self-leadership – that is, thought self-leadership (TSL). We
Sales performance draw on social cognitive and self-regulation theories to ground hypothesis development and investigate the
Self-efficacy relationship between self-monitoring behaviors, TSL, self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem (OBSE),
Self-monitoring and salesperson performance. Findings from a sample of 301 salespeople in five companies demonstrate positive
Self-regulation relationships between self-monitoring behaviors and TSL, TSL and self-efficacy, and self-efficacy and salesperson
performance. Moderation analysis shows that TSL will result in higher levels of self-efficacy only when moderate
to high levels of OBSE exist. Further, results suggest full mediation of self-efficacy on the relationship between TSL
and salesperson performance. Theoretical and managerial implications of the study are discussed.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Academics and managers would certainly agree that successfully
leading salespeople is an activity of utmost importance for the success
of any firm. Through direction and coaching, sales leaders set goals for
salespeople, align their activities with the objectives of the organization,
and motivate them to perform well. It is thus not surprising that sales
leadership has attracted a good deal of research attention during the
past thirty years (e.g., Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, & Spangler, 1995;
Ingram, LaForge, Locander, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2005; Kohli, 1985;
Tyagi, 1985) while continuing to offer novel insights to our discipline
(e.g., Boichuk et al., 2014). The net outcome of this body of literature
has been a significant enhancement of our knowledge regarding how
leaders can affect salespeople's attitudes and outcomes through, for ex-
ample, transformational leadership (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich,
2001; Shannahan, Bush, & Shannahan, 2013) or supervisory behaviors
(e.g., Kohli, 1989). Indeed, the recent meta-analysis of Verbeke, Dietz,
and Verwaal (2011) demonstrates that leadership behaviors exert an
important influence on salesperson performance. This recognition,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 205 348 8942.
E-mail addresses: npanagopoulos@cba.ua.edu (N.G. Panagopoulos),
jlogilvie@crimson.ua.edu (J. Ogilvie).
1
Tel.: +1 205 348 8596.
however, comes with the realization that all prior studies have
approached the phenomenon of leadership from a top-down perspec-
tive in that leadership has been theorized to manifest at the level of a
sales leader who is then directing her/his influence on salespeople. As
such, studies investigating leadership in the sales domain have largely
taken a dyadic, interpersonal approach where leadership originating
at one level (i.e., the sales leader) influences others (i.e., salespeople)
as opposed to focusing on the intrapersonal level whereby leadership
originates within the individual with the purpose to influence oneself.
Though leadership manifested at higher levels of the sales organiza-
tion is important, at least three realities of the modern sales position
require attention to other forms of leadership that may stem from and
manifest at the individual salesperson level. First, many salespeople
work in physical, social, and psychological isolation from the firm for
which they work (Ingram et al., 2005) thereby making activity less
visible to management. Reduced proximity to management is further
amplified today due to many firms' initiatives for salespeople to work
in “virtual offices” where salespeople work from remote locations
with fewer chances for interaction with their supervisors (Cascio,
2000). Presumably, isolation from management renders salespeople
less readily susceptible to leadership, motivation, and coaching inter-
ventions that may result from manager–salesperson interactions as
implied in the top-down approach to leadership mentioned previously.
Fewer outlets of visibility and management intervention provide

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
0019-8501/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
2 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
greater occasion for salespeople to diverge from the firm's goals. Second,
emerging trends in the design of the workplace – such as self-managing
teams (e.g., Langfred, 2007) or employee empowerment initiatives
(e.g., Pearce & Manz, 2005; Prussia, Anderson, & Manz, 1998) – necessi-
tate that salespeople engage in some form of leadership behaviors that
allows them to be self-empowered, self-motivated, and be able to deal
with role ambiguity and task difficulty themselves (see Ingram et al.,
2005). Finally, we recognize a growing emphasis on understanding
leadership opportunities within the sales domain specifically because
these organizations are often tasked with leadership challenges unique
to the sales field. Sales organizations are presented with leadership
needs, opportunities, and trials not routinely found in those orga-
nizations operating in less dynamic, less complex environments
(Anderson, 1996). Indeed, “the dynamic nature of today's environment
means that sales organizations will have to change continuously —
sometimes dramatically” (Ingram et al., 2005, p. 150).
As a consequence of these realities, firms now seek alternative ways
to enhance the capacity of sales employees to engage in leadership be-
haviors that will allow them to strive and keep abreast of an increasingly
complex and ambiguous environment (Verbeke et al., 2011). One such
strategy specifically empowers employees to engage in self-leadership
strategies (e.g., Houghton & Neck, 2002; Manz, 1986, 1992; Manz &
Sims, 2001). Importantly, self-leadership –conceptualized as a learned
behavior because individual and managerial interventions can impact
the extent to which individuals engage in the associated activities
(Manz, 1986) – is gaining momentum among practitioners and
researchers. Indeed, Ingram et al. (2005) have acknowledged the need
for more research on self-leadership in their review of the sales leader-
ship literature: “It will also be important for future research to assess the
feasibility of implementing self-leadership for salespeople…” (p. 145). In
considering new directions in sales leadership, this idea indeed presents
“a more contemporary perspective” (Ingram et al., 2005, p. 137), reflec-
tive of new initiatives being undertaken by a multitude of companies in
order to expand and develop leadership capabilities within their organi-
zation (Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 2000). Unfortunately, no research to
date has addressed whether self-leadership is a viable strategy at the
salesperson level, what factors motivate salespeople to engage in self-
leadership, whether doing so has an impact on sales performance, and
through what mechanisms or under what conditions self-leadership
influences performance.2 Though prior work has provided evidence
that self-leadership, in general, is linked to increases in job performance
(e.g., Prussia et al., 1998), remarkably very few attempts have
been made to link thought self-leadership (a specific type of self-
leadership) with performance. In addition, as noted by Stewart,
Courtright, and Manz (2011) in their review of the extant literature,
most empirical research to date has paid less attention to whether
individual-level traits, such as self-monitoring or organizational-based
self-esteem, may influence and facilitate engagement in self-leadership.
Against this background, we seek to address these issues by focusing
on the most advanced, distinctive, and promising type of self-leadership
(Stewart et al., 2011; Williams, 1997) – namely, thought self-
leadership – that involves self-influence at the individual level through
employment of cognitive strategies of: self-talk, mental imagery, and
the challenging of beliefs and assumptions (Neck & Manz, 1996). Due
to the close nature of the customer-facing salesperson–customer
relationship and resulting customer experiences and perceptions, we
suggest that examining thought self-leadership (TSL, hereafter) at the
salesperson level may provide relevant managerial implications as
firms consider self-leadership strategies as an extension of employee
2
One might speculate that the slow adoption of the self-leadership concept by the sales
academic community appears to resemble the situation with many interesting topics that
have been discussed in the domains of applied psychology and/or organizational behavior
for decades but have not found their way into the sales literature until only very recently
(see, for instance, work on organizational identification, e.g., Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, &
Dick, 2009).
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
management and control. Because it is the individual employee who is
of paramount theoretical importance in studying self-leadership (see
Markham & Markham, 1995) and because TSL is a self-directed cogni-
tive phenomenon occurring at the individual level, here we initiate
the dialogue on self-leadership in sales by taking an individual perspec-
tive. In particular, we draw on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986,
1991) and self-regulation theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1998),
which allow us to examine (a) the influence of self-monitoring on the
practice of TSL; (b) the role of self-efficacy as a potential mediating
mechanism in the relationship between TSL and sales performance;
and (c) the moderating role of organizational-based self-esteem in the
relationship between TSL and self-efficacy.
The following sections present the notion of TSL, its theoretical
underpinnings, and how it relates to the rest of the constructs in our
conceptual framework. Following formal hypothesis development,
statistical modeling testing demonstrates findings from a sample of
301 salespeople across five companies. Resulting managerial and
research implications are then discussed, and the paper concludes
with an acknowledgement of study limitations and opportunities for
future research.
2. Thought self-leadership
TSL involves the use and maintenance of constructive thought
through specific mental strategies that include the use of (a) positive
self-talk, (b) mental imagery, and (c) evaluation of dysfunctional beliefs
and assumptions (Houghton & Jinkerson, 2007; Manz & Neck, 1999;
Neck & Manz, 1992, 1996). Engaging in these cognitive strategies will
contribute to the constructive thought process creation and mainte-
nance (Neck & Manz, 1996) that assists salespeople in establishing the
self-influence necessary for accomplishing task-related goals and thus
increase individual sales performance. We explore the specific role
played by each of the three constructive thought strategies below.
Through the use of positive self-talk, employees maintain a constant
self-dialogue to influence positive emotional states and cognition (Ellis,
1988; Neck & Manz, 1992). Based upon what employees covertly tell
themselves, they can encourage more optimistic self-dialogue and sup-
press negative or pessimistic self-talk (Houghton & Jinkerson, 2007).
Consider, for example, a salesperson that engages in a constant self-
dialogue that helps her identify or even redefine the individual goals
and strategies that need to be pursued during customer interactions.
These positive self-talk strategies influence employees' ability to self-
lead though strategic cognitive thought patterns that regulate their
goal focus and goal motivation. Because thought patterns tend to be
reflective of habitual thinking (Houghton, Neck, & Manz, 2003), an
individual's repeated chain of thoughts impacts the extent to which
they develop constructive thought processes within the workplace.
Therefore, employees that engage in increasing levels of positive self-
talk can influence their positive thought patterns and be more apt to
self-leadership roles.
Similarly, positive mental imagery impacts a salesperson's ability to
self-lead by enhancing their constructive thought patterns. Mental
imagery involves the creation and symbolic experiencing of imagined
goal achievement (Manz & Neck, 1999). When salespeople engage in
positive mental imagery they picture themselves experiencing the
desired results of a specific behavioral process before actually engaging
in the process or performing the necessary tasks for goal attainment
(Houghton et al., 2003). Because self-regulation includes the reduc-
tion of discrepancies between current and desired states (Neck &
Houghton, 2006), such purposeful focus on a desired state (as occurs
with positive mental imagery) allows the employee to better moni-
tor, compare and regulate current and desired states.
Finally, the third component of TSL involves the individual's ability
to eliminate or alter dysfunctional beliefs (Manz & Neck, 1999). Through
evaluating beliefs and assumptions, salespeople can actively promote
positive thought processes by eliminating the negative beliefs and
 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
assumptions associated with dysfunctional thought processes (Neck &
Manz, 1992). Consider, for instance, a salesperson at the end of an
unsuccessful call on a tough customer. If the salesperson believes that
her poor presentation skills will never be adequate to effectively over-
come customers' objections, giving-up behaviors may result rather
than her focusing on what can be remedied. By reducing the destructive
thought patterns which adversely affect employee emotional and
behavioral states (Manz, 1992), the employee's constructive and posi-
tive thought process capabilities are inherently increased. This ability
to monitor and self-regulate individual thought patterns results in a
salesperson with higher TSL capabilities through an increased focus on
opportunities as opposed to obstacles.
3. Conceptual framework & theoretical underpinnings
3.1. Overview of conceptual framework
The foundations of TSL rest on an understanding that individual
thought can be self-controlled (e.g., Gioia & Manz, 1985; Manz, 1992).
This assumption introduces the idea that, in controlling one's thought
process, individuals have the innate ability to regulate the self-
direction and self-motivation inherent in their cognitive processes
(Manz & Neck, 2004). Social cognitive theory emphasizes the capacity
of individuals to exercise forethought (Bandura, 1988), enabling their
ability for self-influence. Purposeful control of one's thoughts, as takes
place in TSL strategies, empowers employees to engage in focused cog-
nitive processes to regulate their individual behaviors in conjunction
with their desired outcomes (Neck & Manz, 1996). Through foresight
of goals, individuals wield adoptive control and can influence their
own environment in the pursuit of those goals. The resulting motivation
and actions that guide individuals toward those goals are in turn
governed by several self-regulatory mechanisms (Bandura, 1988).
Indeed, according to Bandura (1991), self-regulatory systems “lie at
the very heart of causal processes” (p. 248) and allow individuals, to
motivate themselves and guide their actions. As simultaneous products
and producers of their surroundings, individuals can equip themselves
with the capabilities to influence their environment through self-
regulation.
With this in mind, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991) provides
a broad framework that, when coupled with self-regulation theory
(Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1998), informs the development of our concep-
tual framework (Fig. 1) delineating how individuals within the sales
force translate cognition into action. Our framework outlines both ante-
cedents and consequences of salesperson TSL. In particular, two dimen-
sions of self-monitoring (H1a and H1b) are exogenous in the model and
are hypothesized to predict salesperson engagement in, and employ-
ment of, TSL strategies. The remainder of the model outlines both direct
(H2 and H4) and indirect (H5), through self-efficacy, effects of TSL
strategies on individual employee outcomes and incorporates the mod-
erating effect of organizational based self-esteem (H3). We elaborate on
the theoretical underpinnings of our framework in what follows.
3.2. Social cognitive theory
According to social cognitive theory, the cognitive processes of
individuals both influence, and are influenced by, their environmental
circumstances (Bandura, 2011). Meaning, people are capable of affect-
ing the nature of their environment through selection and creation of
activities and situations (Bandura & Walters, 1959). Social cognitive
theory then provides a basis for understanding the ways in which
salespeople are influenced by, and influence their environment. Per
social cognitive theory, persons “function as contributors to their own
motivation, behavior, and development within a network of recip-
rocally interacting influences” (Bandura, 2011; p. 8). Specifically, the
framework offers guidelines for understanding how employees equip
themselves with the necessary self-regulatory capabilities (e.g., self-
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
3
monitoring, self-efficacy) to influence future accomplishments
(Bandura, 1991; Manz, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Following this framework, salesperson TSL strategies consider the
effects of both individual and environmental influences in influencing
an employee's behaviors — specifically, self-efficacy and performance
(Neck & Manz, 1992). Recalling that TSL reflects one's thoughts and
behaviors (Furtner, Rauthmann, & Sachse, 2010), the process moves be-
yond cognitive control (Houghton et al., 2003) to include motivational
theory, focusing specifically on the self-regulatory mechanisms neces-
sary for goal pursuit. It is this self-regulatory aspect of TSL to which
we turn next.
3.3. Self-regulation theory
Considering effective self-regulation of employee cognition can be
developed in an organizational setting (e.g., Manz, 1986; Neck, 1996),
the ability of employees in a sales organization to manage their own
thinking and regulate their behaviors through TSL strategies can help
establish the direction necessary for achievement of sales-specific
performance goals. TSL, then, provides a platform through which
salesperson's regulatory mechanisms manifest in self-influencing
cognitive strategies. Simply put, “self-regulation is the foundation of
self-leadership” (Williams, 1997; p. 143). There are three ways with
which self-regulation informs our conceptual framework.
First, drawing on observations of their environment, individuals
form outcome expectations that inform their motivation to transcend
their immediate environment into a desired future state through action-
able shaping and regulation of the present (Bandura, 1986; Carver &
Scheier, 1981). Because intention and desire alone have little impact
in the absence of an individual's capability to exercise influence over
their own environment and behaviors (Bandura & Simon, 1977), self-
regulatory mechanisms at the salesperson level are of critical impor-
tance in the actualization of sales goals. Indeed, “among the mecha-
nisms of personal agency, none is more central or pervasive than
peoples' beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their
own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives”
(Bandura, 1991; p. 257). It thus appears that self-regulation encom-
passes the concept of self-efficacy which acts as a crucial mechanism
capable of explaining the transformation of thoughts into actions
(Bandura, 1991; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Manz, 1986).
A second important process in the context of self-regulation is
self-monitoring (e.g., Bandura, 1991; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989;
Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Self-monitoring refers to an employee's
(a) sensitivity to reading the social cues of others and (b) ability to
alter their self-presentation accordingly (Snyder, 1979). TSL considers
the self-regulation of thought processes in the pursuit of individual
goals and ideals (Neck & Manz, 1996). Meaning that, rather than forcing
employees to adopt changes on an attitudinal level, TSL facilitates the
constant monitoring and cultivating (or self-regulation) of constructive
thought patterns to self-monitor and adjust thoughts and behaviors
(Neck & Manz, 1996). This process internalizes constructive ways of
dealing with challenges (Neck & Manz, 1996) and allows employees
to cultivate long-term management of their mental processes, encour-
aging more positive and opportunity focused thinking (Houghton &
Jinkerson, 2007; Neck, Smith, & Godwin, 1997). Meaning, the extent
to which individuals regulate their thoughts and behaviors should be
related to the extent to which individuals are monitoring their appear-
ances of self in social settings (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Tsui &
Ashford, 1994). Indeed, there is evidence that high self-monitoring em-
ployees are adept at interpreting such cues and regulating their self-
presentation accordingly (Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons, 1990).
Finally, individuals draw conclusions about their self-worth and
self-regard on the basis of organizational influences that shape
their beliefs of how much they are “valued” within their workplace
(i.e., organizational-based self-esteem). Conceptual work (Tsui &
Ashford, 1994; Williams, 1997) as well as empirical evidence
4 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Organizational-
based self-
esteem

Covariates
•Sales experience
Thought Self-leadership •Sales effort
Strategies •Company dummies
H3 (+)
Sensitivity to
H1a (+)
expressions Self talk
of others

Sales
Mental Self-efficacy
H5 (+) performance
imagery H2 (+)
Ability to
modify self-
presentation H1b (+)
H4 (+)
Evaluating
beliefs &
assumptions

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

(Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1993) has provided evidence that self-
esteem serves as an important mechanism in explaining self-regulation
processes. Specifically, because of a favorable self-image, employees
high in self-esteem have generally superior self-regulation capabilities
(Baumeister et al., 1993) whereas they place great value on their self-
concept and related processes, such as TSL, to guide their behaviors
(Brutus, Ruderman, Ohlott, & McCauley, 2000).
4. Hypothesis development
4.1. Self-monitoring and thought self-leadership
As noted by Bandura (2011), “In social cognitive theory, people are
neither driven by inner forces nor automatically shaped and controlled
by the environment” (p. 7). Instead, an interaction between internal
cognitions and a network of environmental stimuli contribute to the
development of individual motivations and behaviors. Because self-
monitoring considers the interaction of both internal and external stim-
uli (Williams, 1997), this regulatory activity is a key self-influencing
action on which the cognitive strategies of self-leadership are premised.
Self-monitoring is imperative in informing TSL strategies because,
while “self-monitoring may occur in response to internal or external
prompts,” (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; p. 662), high self-monitoring em-
ployees place a greater emphasis on situational factors in determining
appropriate behaviors (Dobbins et al., 1990). In doing so, these
employees gain self-insights by identifying modifiable aspects of their
current environment and altering their own behaviors in order to “set
in motion a process of corrective change” (Bandura, 1991; p. 250). In-
herent in their self-corrective and self-enhancing nature, TSL strategies
thus represent an example of one such process of corrective change.
Given extant support for self-monitoring practices influencing lead-
ership emergence and behaviors in prior studies (e.g., Dobbins et al.,
1990; Ellis, 1988; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenney, 1991), it is logical that the
mental strategies of TSL may manifest through self-monitoring abilities.
Meaning, constructive self-monitoring can lead employees to be more
motivated to engage in TSL strategies (Houghton et al., 2003) through
projection of increasingly foreseeable future events as opposed to an
abstract future state.
Individuals differ in the extent of their abilities to observe and infer
external social prompts (Snyder, 1979). One such external prompt in
the case of self-monitoring can be gathered from the expressions of
those around them. Because employees high in self-monitoring are
“markedly sensitive” (Snyder & Gangestad, 1982; p. 123) to social
cues, they retain an increased sensitivity to reading and interpreting
the expressive behavior of others (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). Success in
self-regulation thus depends, in part, on the extent to which the self-
monitoring actions of an employee provide the information necessary
in setting realistic goals and evaluating progress toward those goals
(Bandura, 1991). Therefore, employees more adept at reading social
cues, such as those conveyed in the expressions of others, will gather
more salient and dynamic information; thus allowing them to better
self-regulate in accordance with behavioral outcomes that are more
valued, resulting in an increased propensity toward engagement in
TSL strategies. We therefore posit:
H1a. A salesperson's sensitivity to expressions of others will positively
relate to employment of TSL strategies.
Through successful self-monitoring, employees attend to and alter
those behaviors that correspond to situational cues (Kanfer &
Ackerman, 1989). Because successful self-monitoring links an em-
ployee's thoughts to their actions, high self-monitors are more likely
to emerge as leaders (e.g., Zaccaro et al., 1991). Employees high in
self-monitoring abilities are not only able but willing to control their
behavior in order to optimize their self-presentation in accordance
with the social demands of the situation (Dobbins et al., 1990). By
adapting their self-presentation, employees are better able to minimize
the distance between their current state of performance and their
desired performance goals. Those employees capable of altering their
behaviors are better able to initiate processes of constructive, and cor-
rective, change (Bandura, 1991). Thus, employees that are high self-
monitors are more responsive to situational inconsistencies (Snyder &
Gangestad, 1982) and more inclined to enact those changes necessary
for movement toward desired end-states. Such adaptive behaviors are
essential to successful employee self-monitoring and underlie the self-
regulating tendencies that permeate TSL strategies, as discussed previ-
ously. Hence:
H1b. A salesperson's ability to modify self-presentation will positively
relate to employment of TSL strategies.

Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
4.2. Thought self-leadership strategies and self-efficacy
Individuals capable of constructing positive (or opportunity)
thought patterns are better suited to cope with difficult situations and
maintain their course for goal attainment (Neck & Manz, 1992). Positive
and constructive thought patterns, such as those cultivated through TSL
strategies, create optimistic employees that view problems in the work-
place as challenges to be conquered, as opposed to disruptive and
enduring difficulties (Manz & Neck, 2004). Employees capable of utiliz-
ing the positive strategies of self-talk, mental imagery, and evaluation
of beliefs and assumptions approach goals with optimistic views
(Seligman, 1991) and, by strengthening their TSL capabilities, they bol-
ster their beliefs in their own abilities and subsequent performance
(Manz & Neck, 2004). One mechanism that explains how this occurs is
when individuals make judgments on why things are happening with
regard to their performance levels which implicitly involves a process
of self-dialogue where individuals attribute good performance to specif-
ic capabilities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Following this logic, here we
expect that TSL will positively relate to a salesperson's perceptions of
self-efficacy, which refers to “beliefs in one's capabilities to mobilize
the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to
meet given situational demands” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408).
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991), as well as conventional
wisdom, also shape the expectation that those employees with such a
strong sense of self-concept are more likely to perceive themselves as
highly capable with a higher probability of task success, resulting in
higher levels of motivation (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). Accordingly, sales-
people that maintain higher efficacy levels are likely to put forth more
effort and follow through when selecting and revising goals and will
maintain higher levels of motivation for goal attainment (Bandura,
1991). The three primary elements of TSL influence an employee's
ability to strategically create and maintain patterns of thinking aimed
at fostering and encouraging a positive and optimistic regulatory-
focus on individual goal attainment. Through positive and constructive
self-dialogues (self-talk), envisioned or symbolically experienced be-
haviors (mental imagery), and the conscious evaluation and challenging
of any irrational or dysfunctional beliefs or assumptions, employees
generate a positive view of themselves and their capabilities in refer-
ence to their goals (Houghton & Neck, 2002).
TSL strategies maintain inherent positive and constructive traits of
cognitive processing that lead salespeople to be more confident in
their performance abilities. In self-regulating employees, this construc-
tive thinking process can evolve into self-efficacy (Millikin, Hom, &
Manz, 2010). Considering self-efficacy perceptions are related to
employee assessment of his/her performance abilities in reference to a
desired behavior (Bandura, 1977), the positive and constructive influ-
ences of TSL strategies will lead to increased employee self-efficacy.
Formally stated:
H2. Employment of TSL strategies will positively relate to self-efficacy.
4.3. Moderating role of organizational based self-esteem
The underlying foundation of TSL maintains the assumption that a
mixture of psychological and sociological orientations are incorporated
in employee cognitive processing (Neck, 1996). Simply put, social
cognition, beyond an individual's own thoughts and feelings, must in-
clude the learning and instruction that is gathered from interactions
with the external environment (Higgins, 2000). Considering TSL in the
context of a salesperson, the external environmental influences would
reflect organizational inferences and experiences of the employee.
Within the organizational context, an employee accumulates work
and organizational experiences that culminate in a “self-perceived
value that individuals have of themselves as important, competent,
and capable within their employing organizations” (Pierce & Gardner,
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
5
2004; p. 593), or what is commonly referred to as organizational-
based self-esteem (OBSE, hereafter).
The environmental influences presumed in social cognitive theory
maintain that an individual not only influences, but is also influenced
by their environment. In a sales context, this translates to a consider-
ation of the effects of the organizational environment on the salesper-
son. This interaction creates the salesperson's concept of self within
their specific role in the firm. OBSE is essential to the concept of self
within an organization (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989)
as it indicates the extent to which employees believe they are capable
of satisfying their needs within their organizational roles. Employees
with high self-esteem maintain higher perceptions of worthiness and
importance within their role (Renn, Allen, Fedor, & Davis, 2005).
These employees maintain a heightened level of belief in their ability
to translate self-perceived competence into goal-directed actions that
will ultimately result in success (Pierce et al., 1989). Essentially, OBSE
allows for a context specific evaluation of the self (Brutus et al., 2000)
that provides an employee further insight and beliefs in their own
thoughts and feelings, resulting in more positive assessments of work-
ing capabilities and increased motivations toward, and assurance in,
goal attainment (Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, &
Cummings, 1993). Prior work on self-regulation, for instance, has
identified self-esteem as a potential influencer in the relationship
between self-leadership and its outcomes (Crocker, Brook, Niiya, &
Villacorta, 2006; Williams, 1997) because it has been shown that people
high on self-esteem are more effective in self-regulation (Baumeister
et al., 1993).
Self-esteem is considered central in explaining employee atti-
tudes and motivations in the workplace (Korman, 1970). Indeed,
those employees with high beliefs in their abilities of goal attain-
ment maintain increased levels of positive performance outlook
(Neck & Houghton, 2006). Logically, as levels of self-value in the
workplace increase (as in the case with high levels of OBSE) an em-
ployee will be increasingly likely to translate TSL strategies into
higher levels of self-efficacy. This happens because individuals high
in OBSE rely more on their capabilities when performing their jobs
(Pierce et al., 1993; Rank, Nelson, Allen, & Xu, 2009). It is reasonable
to assume then, that those employees who perceive themselves
to be highly capable, significant, successful, and worthy will be
more inclined to predict higher probabilities of success (Gardner &
Pierce, 1998). Hence:
H3. Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) will positively moderate
the relationship between employment of TSL strategies and self-
efficacy such that, as OBSE increases the relationship between employ-
ment of TSL strategies and self-efficacy is strengthened.
4.4. Thought self-leadership strategies and sales performance
Considering the effective use of TSL strategies can influence
employee's constructive thought patterns and manifest in greater
sustainability of effort and improved performance through optimis-
tic self-regulation (Houghton et al., 2003), direct effects of TSL strat-
egies and sales performance must be considered. Indeed, Konradt,
Andressen, and Ellwart (2009) found that, although partially
mediated by self-efficacy, self-leadership is positively related to per-
formance at the individual level. As discussed previously, TSL strate-
gies elicit constructive thought patterns typical of opportunity
thinkers. Extant research shows that opportunity thinkers are more
likely to exert higher levels of effort and try harder throughout the
course of their work (Neck et al., 1997). Self-regulation theory sug-
gests that those individuals who are confident and hopeful, such as
opportunity thinkers, tend to persist and succeed when faced with
challenges in goal attainment (Neck & Houghton, 2006). In this
way, TSL strategies create a positive cognitive platform for direct
6 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Sample characteristics.

Companies Number of employeesa Annual sales Scope of internationalization Size of sales forceb Distribution of respondents in initial (final) samplec
(in €)a

Company A 2136 1,280,964,000 Global 80 23 (23)

Company B 1756 709,529,000 Domestic 60 49 (49)
Company C 1000 613,715,000 Domestic 31 19 (19)
Company D 380 118,323,708 Domestic 155 148 (143)
Company E 9782 3,905,000,000 Global 80 67 (67)
Total 15,054 6,627,531,708 – 406 306 (301)
a
With the exception of Company D (which is a single business unit company), the balance of the sample companies refers to multi-unit companies. Because of publicity requirements in
Europe, which only require companies to report financial information at the level of the entire company as opposed to reporting data for each business unit (see Homburg, Jensen, &
Krohmer, 2008), information reported here refers to the level of the entire company rather than the business unit or division level, which constitutes the focus of our study. For example,
Company E, a major financial institution, employs thousands of employees at retail bank branches, a business unit that we didn't include in our sample because it refers to a business-to-
consumer sales setting.
b
Companies A and E are global companies with operating sales forces in multiple European countries and headquartered in the European Union country in which the study took place
(see Methods section). Consequently, the sales force sizes for these two companies refer to the sales force size at headquarters.
c
Initial sample refers to the number of salespeople that responded to the survey. Final sample refers to the number of responses that were utilized for all analyses reported herein after
excluding responses with excessive missing data (see also Methods section).

effects on employee performance (Houghton & Neck, 2002). There- employee performance whereas Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) provide
fore, we hypothesize: evidence that creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
employee transformational leadership and employee creativity. Hence:
H4. Employment of TSL strategies will positively relate to sales
performance. H5. Salesperson self-efficacy mediates the relationship between em-
ployment of TSL strategies and sales performance.

4.5. Mediating role of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is considered of paramount importance in the self-
regulation process (Bandura, 1991; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Social cogni-
tive theory predicts that self-efficacy results in higher performance
levels (Houghton et al., 2003) by reinforcing an employee's beliefs in
their task performance capabilities (Bandura, 1997). Individuals that
are more confident are more likely to participate and follow through
on goal attainment (Bandura, 1991). With increased motivation toward
goal attainment, greater self-efficacy is also associated with higher goal
setting and increased levels of performance as a result (Phillips & Gully,
1997). In the sales domain specifically, extant research suggests that
self-efficacy is an individual-level variable that plays an important role
in sales performance (e.g., Fournier, Tanner, Chonko, & Manolis, 2010;
Krishnan, Netemeyer, & Boles, 2002). Salespeople high in self-efficacy
demonstrate higher levels of beliefs in their abilities and are more per-
sistent and engaged as a result (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005;
Bandura, 1986).
As a motivational component of behavioral self-regulation, self-
efficacy is reflective of an employee's effort allocation intentions
(Kanfer, 1987). Simply put, as an employee's self-efficacy increases,
they are more highly motivated to designate time and regulate behav-
iors for goal attainment (Phillips & Gully, 1997). Those employees dem-
onstrating high self-efficacy tend to redouble their efforts and persist
until reaching their goals (Houghton et al., 2003). Indeed, while self-
efficacy may contain an inherent component of ability, it is expected
to contribute to performance levels independently of an individual's
ability level (Locke & Latham, 1990; Phillips & Gully, 1997).
The preceding discussion establishes the conceptual relation of self-
efficacy with sales performance. In linking this discussion with H2 and
H4, we expect self-efficacy to function as a regulatory mechanism in
our conceptual framework that will, at least partially, mediate the rela-
tionship between TSL strategies and sales performance. This notion is in
line with work in the domain of organizational behavior (e.g., Prussia
et al., 1998); that is, TSL strategies elicit beliefs of self-efficacy, which,
in turn, lead to increased levels of job performance. Indeed, there is
evidence in previous empirical studies that self-efficacy may mediate
the effects of leadership strategies and behaviors on employee out-
comes. For instance, Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) have shown that
self-efficacy mediates the effects of transformational leadership on
5. Methods
5.1. Research setting & sample
We sought and secured the cooperation of five firms operating in
pharmaceuticals (one firm), telecommunications (three firms), and fi-
nancial services (one firm) in a European Union country. All firms
were members of a major European University's corporate program
(see Table 1 for a description of the firms). Senior executives contacted
all business-to-business field salespeople to request their voluntary par-
ticipation, assuring them of confidentiality. Researchers administered
paper-and-pencil surveys on predefined dates and during work hours,
and ensured that salespeople completed questionnaires in a room
where no manager was present. All salespersons employed in these
five firms (406, in total) received a copy of the questionnaire and 306
responded by completing the questionnaire (75% response rate). After
deleting five cases with excessive missing values, the usable sample
size was reduced to 301. Evidence alleviating non-response bias con-
cerns comes from the high response rates as well as from discussions
with management revealing that the profile of the respondents is repre-
sentative of companies' sales force in all respects (selling experience,
age, and number of calls made). Sample salespeople had an average sell-
ing experience of six years, were 33 years old on average, and made an
average of 41 calls per week.3
5.2. Measures
All measurement scales and their respective items were drawn from
prior work (Table 2). TSL was measured with eleven items drawn from
Houghton and Neck's (2002) study. The TSL scale is well-established
and validated measure with favorable psychometric properties
(Stewart et al., 2011). The two dimensions of self-monitoring (sensitiv-
ity to the expressive behaviors of others and ability to modify self-
presentation) were measured with four and three items, respectively,
all drawn from the work of Lennox and Wolfe (1984). Self-efficacy
was measured with three items drawn from Chen, Gully, and Eden
3
Firms' top management restricted us from collecting any other demographic
information.

Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

Table 2
Scale sources, descriptive statistics, standardized factor loadings, and reliability and validity estimates for the study's constructsa.

Measure Mean Standard Loadings ρb Average Highest

deviation variance shared
extracted variancec

Self-monitoring: sensitivity to the expressive behaviors of others (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) 3.83 .57 .81 .52 4.41%
I am often able to read people's true emotions correctly through their eyes. .80
In conversations, I am sensitive to even the slightest change in the facial expression of the person I'm conversing .73
with.
I can usually tell when I've said something inappropriate by reading it in the listener's eyes. .67
If someone is lying to me, I usually know it at once from that person's manner of expression. .67
Self-monitoring: ability to modify self-presentation (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) 3.78 .63 .77 .54 11.56%
I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them. .84
When I feel that the image I am portraying isn't working, I can readily change it to something that does. .76
I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the requirements of any situation I find myself in. .57
Self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001) 3.89 .45 .73 .47 17.64%
I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself. .74
When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them. .61
In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. .70
Thought self-leadership strategies (Houghton & Neck, 2002) 3.23 .57 .83 .63 7.29%
Mental Imagery .78
I use my imagination to picture myself performing well on important tasks. .88
I visualize myself successfully performing a task before I do it. .90
Sometimes I picture in my mind a successful performance before I actually do a task. .73
I purposefully visualize myself overcoming the challenges I face. .67
I often mentally rehearse the way I plan to deal with a challenge before I actually face the challenge. .78
Self-talk
Sometimes I find I'm talking to myself (out loud or in my head) to help me deal with difficult problems I face .83
Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud or in my head) to work through difficult situations. .95
When I'm in difficult situations I will sometimes talk to myself (out loud or in my head) to help me get through it. .91
Evaluating beliefs and assumptions
I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy of my own beliefs about situations I am having problems with. .60
I openly articulate and evaluate my own assumptions when I have a disagreement with someone else. .64
I think about and evaluate the beliefs and assumptions I hold. .62
Organizational-based self-esteem (Pierce et al., 1989) 3.80 .49 .89 .51 21.16%
I count around here. .77
I am taken seriously. .81
I am important. .76
I am trusted. .72
There is faith in me. .77
I am valuable. .59
I am helpful. .62
I am efficient. .63
Salesperson performance (Sujan et al., 1994) 3.59 .55 .86 .51 21.16%
Contributing to your company's acquiring a good market share. .80
Selling high profit-margin products. .58
Generating a high level of dollar sales. .77
Identifying major accounts in your territory and selling to them. .64
Exceeding sales targets. .76
Assisting your sales supervisor meet his or her goals. .72
a
All constructs were measured with a 5-point scale, anchored from “1 = Completely Disagree” to “5 = Completely Agree”, except from the measures tapping thought self-leadership
strategies, which were measured with a 5-point scale, anchored from “1 = Very untrue of me” to “5 = Very true of me” and salesperson performance which was measured with a 5-point
scale, anchored from “1 = Much worse” to “5 = Much better”.
b
ρ: Fornell and Larcker's (1981) composite reliability estimates.
c
Highest shared variance was calculated based on LISREL-generated correlations and thus it has been corrected for measurement error.

(2001), and we employed eight items drawn from the work of Pierce
et al. (1989) to measure OBSE. Finally, similar to recent research in the
domain of sales (e.g., Dietvorst et al., 2009; Sarin, Challagalla, & Kohli,
2012), salesperson performance was measured with six items taken
from Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar (1994). Because the fieldwork for this
study took place in a European Union country, we employed the
established translation-back-translation procedures as well as the tech-
niques of collaborative and iterative translation in order to ensure
equivalence of meaning (Douglas & Craig, 2007). Two bilingual native
speakers of the target country (one of the authors and one professional
translator) jointly worked on this processes.
6. Results
6.1. Measurement model
We assessed the measurement model for unidimensionality, reli-
ability, and validity by means of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
in LISREL 8.80. Following the recommendations in the literature
(Houghton & Neck, 2002), we operationalized TSL as a second-order
construct with the three strategies acting as first-order reflective
dimensions. Fit statistics indicate that the measurement model fit the
data reasonably well: χ2545 = 1139.16, p = .000; RMSEA = .060 (90%
confidence interval: .055, .065); NNFI = .92; CFI = .92; SRMR = .087.
Evidence of reliability is demonstrated by the fact that all construct
reliability coefficients exceed the cut-off value of .70, with an average
reliability index of .82 (Table 2). Discriminant validity was assessed by
comparing the squared correlations (φ2) between any pair of factors
with the average variance extracted for these constructs (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). In all cases, the φ2 was less than the constructs' aver-
age variance extracted, thereby providing evidence of discriminant
validity (Table 2). Further support in terms of discriminant validity
is given by the fact that the epistemic correlations among study con-
structs range from .10 to .46, with none approaching unity (Table 3).
In addition, without exception, the estimated loadings are significant
and large, with standardized values ranging from .57 to .95 (lowest

Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
8 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Table 3
Construct intercorrelations.a
Construct 1 2 3 4
1. Sensitivity to expressions of 1.00 .21⁎⁎ .15⁎ .18⁎⁎
others
2. Ability to modify 1.00 .27⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎
self-presentation
3. TSL 1.00 .12⁎
4. Organization-based 1.00
self-esteem
5. Self-efficacy
6. Salesperson performance
Note. N = 301.
⁎ p b .05 (two-tailed).
⁎⁎ p b .01 (two-tailed).
a
These are the intercorrelations among the latent constructs and thus have been
corrected for attenuation due to measurement error.
t-value N 5.66, p b .01), suggesting that the individual indicators have
substantial systematic variance attributed to their underlying latent con-
struct; this offers evidence of the convergent validity of the constructs.
6.2. Common method variance assessment
With the exception of sales performance, the rest of the constructs
examined in our framework refer to cognitions that are best captured
by asking salespeople themselves (i.e., self-monitoring, self-efficacy,
employment of TSL strategies, and OBSE), thus rendering the collection
of data from other sources a difficult endeavor (see Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003, p. 887). We do, however, acknowl-
edge that it is both possible and desirable to collect archival data on
sales performance. Collecting secondary performance data was not
practically feasible in our study because our research design involved
sampling over five different companies, thus making challenging to
collect this type of data about salesperson performance (see also
Homburg, Müller, & Klarmann, 2011; Johnson & Sohi, 2014). In addition,
objective performance data is not comparable across companies
(Homburg et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, we were sensitive in exploring the extent to which the
results of the present study may be influenced by common method var-
iance (CMV) bias as a result of collecting data from one source. In partic-
ular, we employed the unmeasured latent method factor (UMLMF;
Podsakoff et al., 2003) technique. This procedure has the effect of con-
trolling for that portion of variance in the indicators that is attributable
to obtaining the measures from the same source (MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
& Paine, 1999). In particular, we partitioned the variance in our mea-
sures to trait, method, and error variance by running two CFA models:
one with both the traits and a method factor, and one with traits only
(see Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). Though the fit of the model in-
cluding the UMLMF improved (χ2498 = 877.99; p = .000) – as is usual
in this type of analysis (see Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Conger, Kanungo,
& Menon, 2000; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991) – the median ef-
fect of CMV on items' variances is 3.61%, which is much lower than the
median amount of CMV found to range between 25% (Williams et al.,
1989) and 26.3% (Cote & Buckley, 1987) across studies. In addition,
the median explained variance of the indicators which is attributed to
their underlying trait is 40.96%. Thus, the ratio of trait-explained vari-
ance to method-explained variance is about 11:1. Further, all method
factor loadings are nonsignificant. Collectively, the evidence provided
here allows us to conclude that CMV bias is not a problem in our study.
In addition to the statistical remedies employed, it should be noted
that at least two realities in our results and methods lessen the possibil-
ity of CMV biases in our data. First, had common method bias been a
problem in the study, the pattern of relationships we observed –
which included absence of a relationship and a significant interactive
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
effect – would be less likely to occur (Evans, 1985). Second, following
Podsakoff et al. (2003, p. 887), we (a) used a personalized cover letter
5 6 to assure respondents that their responses would be treated in a
.21⁎⁎ .15⁎
confidential manner and that no right or wrong answers exist,
(b) counterbalanced the order of the measurement of the predictor
.31⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ and criterion variables in the survey instrument, (c) employed dif-
ferent response formats to measure the study's constructs
.11 .10
(i.e., “Very Untrue of me–Very True of Me”; “Much Worse\Much
.42⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎
Better”; and “Agree\Disagree”), and (d) used validated, unambigu-
1.00 .34⁎⁎ ous, and clearly defined items.
1.00
6.3. Hypothesis testing
Given the many indicators, error variances, and structural paths
in the model – including an interaction effect between a second-
order and a first-order construct – which calls for freely estimating
91 parameters, the use of a covariance-based approach to test the
hypothesized model relationships (Fig. 1) is not advisable because
it can result in unstable parameters and non-replicable results (see
Diamantopoulos, 2011). Indeed, according to Bentler and Chou
(1987) a ratio of sample size to number of free parameters of at
least 5:1 is necessary, and a ratio of 10:1 may be more appropriate.
Applying these guidelines to our model we would need a sample be-
tween 455 and 910 to generate results that are stable (see MacCallum,
Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). Given our sample size of 301, we
employed a partial least squares (PLS) approach (SmartPLS 2.0;
Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005) to test our hypotheses which is consistent
with much prior work in sales research (e.g., Ahearne, MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, Mathieu, & Lam, 2010a; Ahearne, Rapp, Hughes, & Jindal,
2010b). PLS is more robust with relatively smaller sample sizes and
can better accommodate complex model structures that often produce
Heywood cases under a covariance-based approach (Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Mena, 2012; Henseler et al., 2014).
We employ a hierarchical model approach (Chin, Marcolin, &
Newsted, 2003). We first fit a linear effects model (Table 4). We next es-
timate the hypothesized model that is identical to the first model but
also contains the interaction effect, to test hypotheses. We then fit a
final model to test for any omitted paths (i.e., from the two self-
monitoring dimensions to salesperson performance). Moreover, the
largest variance inflation factor (VIF) has a value of 1.334, thereby sug-
gesting that there is no evidence of severe multicollinearity in our data
(Hair et al., 2012). Finally, consistent with prior research (e.g., Ahearne
et al., 2010b), our modeling approach specifies several covariates of
salesperson performance — that is, sales experience (in years) and
sales effort (measured as number of sales calls). To capture any system-
atic effects on performance due to the company setting we also included
four dummy variables, using the financial services company as the
referent category in our analyses. Table 4 reports the standardized
path coefficients. Most structural paths were significant and in the
hypothesized direction whereas the constructs in our framework ex-
plained 9.3%, 23.9%, and 22.5% of the total variance in TSL strategies,
self-efficacy, and sales performance, respectively.
6.3.1. Main effects
H1a, which predicts that sensitivity to expressions of others is posi-
tively related to TSL strategies, was supported (γ = .268, p b .01). Like-
wise, the positive relationship between ability to modify self-
presentation and TSL strategies (H1b) received support (γ = .100,
p b .01). In support of H2, TSL strategies were found to positively relate
to self-efficacy (β = .090, p b .05). However, the hypothesized relation-
ship between TSL strategies and salesperson performance was not con-
firmed (β = .059, p N .05); thus H4 was not confirmed.
6.3.2. Moderating effect of OBSE
As we predicted in H3, the interaction between TSL strategies and
OBSE was significant and in the predicted direction (β = .132,
 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9

Table 4
Results of structural equation analyses.a,b,c

Hypothesized paths Linear effects model Hypothesized model Final model

Endogenous variable: TSL R2: 9.3% R2: 9.3% R2: 9.3%

H1a: Sensitivity to expressions of others → TSL .268⁎⁎ .268⁎⁎ .267⁎⁎
H1b: Ability to modify self-presentation → TSL .100⁎ .100⁎ .091⁎

Endogenous variable: Self-efficacy R2: 2.8% R2: 23.9% R2: 23.9%

H2: TSL → Self-efficacy .167⁎⁎ .090⁎ .090⁎
H3: TSL× Organization-based self-esteem → Self-efficacy – .132⁎⁎ .132⁎⁎

Endogenous variable: Salesperson performance R2: 22.5% R2: 22.5% R2: 27.3%
H4: TSL → Salesperson performance .059 .059 .048
H5: Self-efficacy → Salesperson performance .343⁎⁎ .340⁎⁎ .262⁎⁎
Sensitivity to expressions of others → Salesperson performance (non-hypothesized path) – – .240⁎⁎
Ability to modify self-presentation → Salesperson performance (non-hypothesized path) – – .046
Sales experience → Salesperson performance .310⁎⁎ .311⁎⁎ .286⁎⁎
Sales effort → Salesperson performance .016 .016 .061
DummyCompany A −.054 −.058 −.081
DummyCompany B −.044 −.045 −.047
DummyCompany C −.093⁎ −.096⁎ −.069⁎
DummyCompany D .017 .015 .047

Note: T-values are calculated from 5000 bootstrapped samples and are for one-tailed test; Critical values: 1.65 (p b .05), 2.33 (p b .01).
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
a
Company dummies have been coded so that the financial services firm serves as the base relative to which the effects of the other dummies are measured.
b
Entries within each cell correspond to standardized path estimates.
c
Explained variance (R2) indicates good explanatory power of the proposed model (Chin, 1998). Also, the model exhibits good predictive relevance because a blindfolding pro-
cedure (d = 7) yielded Stone–Geisser (Q2) cross-validated redundancy values of .03, .12, and .13 for TSL, self-efficacy, and salesperson performance, respectively (Hair et al., 2012).

p b .01). Thus, H3 was supported thereby suggesting a positive moderat-
ing effect of OBSE in the relationship between TSL strategies and self-
efficacy.
To facilitate interpretation of the form of the interaction, we plotted
it in Fig. 2 using the utility suggested by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer
(2006). As can be seen from the plot, TSL is significantly and positively
related to self-efficacy at average and higher levels of OBSE. However,
this positive relationship is buffered and becomes non-significant for
lower levels of OBSE.
6.3.3. Mediating role of self-efficacy
H5 predicts that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between TSL
strategies and sales performance. As seen in Table 4, we find support for
this hypothesis because self-efficacy was related positively to sales per-
formance (β = .340, p b .01) and, as previously mentioned, though TSL
is positively related to self-efficacy, its direct effect on performance is
not significant. As such, the effect of TSL on sales performance is fully
mediated by self-efficacy. In a next step, we formally tested for media-
tion following the procedures suggested by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen
(2010). Specifically, we employed a bootstrapping procedure with
5000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) to calculate the confidence
interval of the indirect effect (a × b). Because the 95% confidence inter-
val (.0069; .0822) does not include 0, “the indirect effect is significant
and mediation is established” (Zhao et al., 2010, p. 202).
6.3.4. Testing for non-hypothesized effects
Our final model tests whether any direct paths from the two dimen-
sions of self-monitoring to sales performance have been omitted.
Importantly, the findings show that all hypothesized relationships
remain significant after including these paths. Moreover, our supple-
mentary analyses enabled us to uncover one additional significant
relationship. Specifically, the results of this analysis show that sensitiv-
ity to expressions of others is positively related to sales performance
(γ = .240, p b .01) whereas ability to modify self-presentation is not
(γ = .046, p N .05).

7. Discussion

To date, leadership in the sales domain has been approached as a

Fig. 2. Moderating effect of organizational-based self esteem.
top-down phenomenon. Consequently, our knowledge of whether
salespeople can enact strategies to regulate their behaviors and
self-lead is largely limited. We contribute to this line of research by
arguing that self-leadership, and particularly TSL strategies, is a via-
ble construct that holds much promise for both academic research
and practice. We anchor our work on social cognitive and self-
regulation theories and reveal that self-monitoring dimensions in-
crease salespeople's engagement in TSL, which in turn influences
sales performance through heightened levels of self-efficacy. We
also show that the effect of TSL on self-efficacy depends on whether
the salesperson perceives him/herself as valuable in the organiza-
tion: the positive effect of TSL strategies are enhanced when OBSE
is high but is crowded out when OBSE is low.

Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
10 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
7.1. Research implications
By extending TSL strategies to a sales context, this study provides a
unique vantage point for organizations to better understand the oppor-
tunities for self-leadership in boundary spanning employees. Boundary
spanners embody the link between customers and the firm and in doing
so manage dual relationships, demands, and goals from both the cus-
tomer and the organization. In this customer-facing role they are crucial
to the firm's success. To be successful these employees must demon-
strate the ability to adapt to the needs of their customers and their
environment in order to establish and meet goals that satisfy both the
customer and the organization. By evaluating their environment and
responding aptly, self-led individuals are capable of determining
which actions and subsequent outcomes are most desirable (Mair,
2005) and regulating pursuit toward those outcomes. TSL, specifical-
ly, represents the cognitive self-leadership process through which
employees can monitor, evaluate, and react to their environment
in order to translate motivations to behavioral outcomes and self-
lead. By examining TSL in a sales context, the model tested within
this research advances empirical understanding of the antecedents
and outcomes of self-leadership among front-line employees. Re-
sults demonstrate that through employing TSL, employees can effec-
tively self-lead in such a way as to enhance self-efficacy and increase
performance outcomes. This article contributes to existing research
in several ways.
First, results of this research demonstrate that self-monitoring di-
mensions act as significant antecedents to a salesperson's engagement
in TSL strategies. Employees that are adept in observing social cues
and reacting accordingly are better positioned to self-lead through
conscious cognitive control and purposeful thought regulation. Because
individual employees will differ in their ability to successfully self-
monitor (Snyder, 1979), the significant findings for both H1a and H1b
demonstrate the importance of understanding employee traits and
managing employees strategically based upon strengths and weak-
nesses. For example, following the results of our analysis, employees
that have higher self-monitoring capabilities can and should be encour-
aged to engage in TSL strategies. However, those employees that are low
self-monitors (or those that have misconstrued views of their ability to
self-monitor) should not be left to self-lead at the risk of hurting sales
performance.
Second, this study contributes to the literature by analyzing key
outcomes of salesperson TSL. Results support a significant and positive
relationship between TSL and self-efficacy. These findings support the
notion that salespeople capable of effective self-leadership are more
proficient in setting operative performance goals and maintaining the
motivation necessary for achieving these goals. Importantly, the nonsig-
nificant direct relationships between TSL strategies and sales perfor-
mance (i.e., H4), and thus the full mediation demonstrated in our
model, highlight the importance of considering the self-efficacious
behaviors that result from the positive thought patterns inherent in
TSL strategies. Had CMV bias been a concern, we wouldn't observe full
mediation of self-efficacy. This finding adds value to our results as it
seems the effects of self-efficacy on sales performance being a method-
ological artifact of same-source data used in this study is not likely. Ad-
ditionally, considering self-efficacy is of paramount importance in the
self-regulation process (Bandura, 1997), the indirect effects of TSL on
performance through self-efficacy demonstrate the nature of the posi-
tive self-imaging of self-efficacy in translating employee motivations
to performance outcomes. Because “confident salespeople will be
more willing to adapt and try different approaches on the fly than will
less confident people” (Ahearne et al., 2005; p. 952), self-efficacy is in-
deed a key ingredient in the successful implementation of TSL strate-
gies. Specifically, our results demonstrate that confident individuals
(i.e., those demonstrating high levels of self-efficacy) are more likely
to participate in, and follow through on goal selection, goal revision,
and eventual goal attainment (Bandura, 1991).
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
Third, organizational support as perceived through OBSE was a pos-
itive and significant moderator in the relationship between employee
TSL and self-efficacy. OBSE encourages employee action within organi-
zational roles; and as OBSE increases, salespeople demonstrated an
increase in self-competence in the value of their actions which translat-
ed to a strengthening of the TSL to self-efficacy relationship in the model
presented. This relationship is key in understanding the contextual
influencers that have potential to impact TSL effectiveness. For example,
a salesperson may display high levels of TSL within an organization, but
if they perceive themselves to be of little value within their organiza-
tional role (i.e., low levels of OBSE) they are less likely to translate TSL
to high levels of self-efficacy because their situational self-esteem is
likely to counteract feelings of self-value created through positive TSL
strategies. As Fig. 2 demonstrates, when an employee has low OBSE,
increasing levels of TSL do not result in higher self-efficacy. Yet at mod-
erate and high levels of OBSE, an employee's self-efficacy increases as
TSL strategies become more salient. That is to say, as TSL increases,
only those employees who feel they are valued within the organization
translate increases in TSL to higher levels of self-efficacy. Indeed, at the
highest levels of OBSE, increased TSL results in the highest levels of self-
efficacy among employees. When employees feel they are more valued,
they likely internalize this self-esteem as encouragement of their own
capabilities (i.e., self-efficacy) and are more inclined to push themselves
for better performance. These novel findings are highly relevant to sales
organizations as they represent one outlet for organizations to inter-
vene and encourage the TSL process.
Fourth, our testing for non-hypothesized effects in the final
model shows that the self-monitoring dimension of “sensitivity to
expressions of others” is directly and positively linked to sales
performance. Thus, it appears that the TSL → self-efficacy → sales
performance mechanism suggested within our study entails one
plausible mechanism for explaining the influence of self-
monitoring on performance; however, other mediating mechanisms
may also exist for at least the dimension of “sensitivity to expres-
sions of others” and deserve to be examined in future studies.
Though purely speculative, it is feasible that this dimension is relat-
ed to the idea of empathetic selling and the relationships that exist
between salesperson empathy and selling performance.
Finally, this research furthers knowledge of employee self-
regulation in the workplace to better understand the transformation
of motivational factors into workplace behaviors and eventual per-
formance through TSL strategies. This research establishes a founda-
tion for further exploration within the marketing field in an effort to
extend empirical understanding of employee self-regulatory behav-
iors, self-monitoring capabilities, and specifically the impacts of self-
leadership within the organization.
7.2. Managerial implications
This study highlights the performance implications of employees as
self-leaders within the organization. Considering today's selling land-
scape in which employees may be operating remotely or selling in
areas geographically removed from the firm (Ingram et al., 2005), em-
ployees that are capable of self-leading can prove to be a huge asset to
selling organizations. Salespeople in the field must be adaptable and
maintain the capabilities of leadership at all times (Manz & Sims,
1986), even in the absence of managerial presence. TSL tendencies
craft employees capable of leading themselves in the field, and specifi-
cally during sales calls and customer interactions. These employees
are able to self-evaluate and self-react to meet the in-moment needs
of their selling goal. Additionally, the extant literature supports the
idea that employees can be trained in TSL strategies (Neck et al.,
1997) and develop leadership influence even when they are unable to
attain direct supervisor feedback. By demonstrating the implications
of effective employee TSL, support from this study endorses the use of
 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
such training to raise TSL abilities of salespeople in an effort to increase
individual sales performance.
Considering the implications of self-monitoring in developing TSL
capabilities, firms should take note of those individuals that demon-
strate self-monitoring tendencies in the hiring process. Individuals
vary in their ability to self-monitor (Snyder, 1979), and differences
should be taken into consideration not only when hiring but also in
the placement of employees in various sales roles. For instance, em-
ployees with poor self-monitoring abilities should be placed in a role
that maintains a higher rate of contact with managers and within the
more regulated roles of the firm. On the contrary, employees that are
successful self-monitors are more likely to succeed with less external
monitoring and supervision and can thus be more successful than
their counterparts in the field and in unstable situations such as new
customer acquisition or sales calls. Additionally, as the selling landscape
shifts, salespeople are increasingly tasked with role ambiguity and task
overload (Ingram et al., 2005), requiring them to be more adaptive and
versatile in the field. By training employees in TSL strategies, firms can
increase their ability to self-lead in situations of role ambiguity and
role conflict. Such leadership abilities allow these employees to be
empowered and self-motivate in order to adapt to the needs of these
moments.
Another key finding in this study is the positive moderating effects of
OBSE on the relationship between employee TSL and self-efficacy. OBSE
reflects perceived employee self-worth within their organizational role
(Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Because self-esteem is reflective of the per-
ceived climate of support and value within their role (through organiza-
tional support), it can be influenced by the actions of the firm. Based
upon our findings, organizations should promote the use of positive
and supportive interfaces between supervisors and employees as well
as among employees. To increase the effectiveness of employee TSL, a
climate of support and celebrated valuation of employees should be
encouraged. Supervisors should focus attention on recognition and sup-
port of their subordinates; and organizational practices should prompt
the exchange of positive feedback and encourage employee participa-
tion in idea creation and organizational growth. By making employees
feel they are vested in the organization and their jobs, firms can impact
their ability to leverage TSL within employee roles. If employees are
recognized and supported in their job and maintain high levels of self-
esteem in response, they will be more likely to translate TSL strategies
to self-efficacy and be more confident in their work. Those employees
become increasingly valuable to the company as their sales perfor-
mance increases.
Finally, the impacts of employee TSL on peers could provide an
avenue of benefits for sales firms. Considering the impacts of leader-
ship in self-managing teams (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1986), firms may
benefit from strategically placing high TSL salespeople as informal
leaders within sales teams. With informal leaders in a team environ-
ment, firms can reduce the role demands of supervisors and poten-
tially alleviate some costs associated with managing these teams.
Indeed, Manz and Sims (1987) demonstrate that in the case of self-
managing teams, the role of external leaders is far removed from
that of the traditional leader. With a decline in necessary monitoring
by supervisors, self-led teams may not only alleviate some role de-
mands placed on managers but could also eliminate some of the
time consuming tasks that have resulted from micro-managing
sales teams by supervisors. For example, a sales manager may have
specific sales call forms that he/she requires team members to fill
out in order to keep track of the number of sales calls made and
the salespeople's effective conversion ratio. Such forms may be nec-
essary in the case of employees that are unmotivated or unfocused
(such as those with low TSL abilities), but could perhaps be reduced
in the case of high TSL employees who are capable of self-motivating
and reaching performance goals without constant monitoring from
their supervisor. In fact, high TSL employees may be wasting valuable
time and resources filling out such reports (time that could be used to
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
11
make more sales calls), and possibly reducing their sales performance
potential. Recognizing self-leaders and adjusting supervisor monitoring
based on self-leadership ability could optimize supervisors' time and
result in higher overall organizational performance.
8. Limitations & future research
As with all research, the results of the present study are tempered by
certain limitations. First, though theory guided our framework, data are
cross-sectional and thus causality remains an issue that can only be
substantiated in experimental or longitudinal studies.
Second, as mentioned previously, we were sensitive in taking sever-
al procedural and statistical steps to alleviate concerns over CMV bias.
Nevertheless, data on sales performance was self-reported, so future
researchers might want to examine the influence of TSL strategies on
objective measures of performance.
Third, participating companies were selected from a major,
European University's corporate program. Though this helped us secure
access to their sales forces, the sample is a convenience one and may not
be representative across all industries. Thus, future researchers might
want to study TSL processes by employing a random sample research
design.
Fourth, here we focus on TSL, the most advanced, distinctive, and
promising type of self-leadership strategies. However, it would be
fruitful if future studies examined other self-leadership strategies such
as natural reward and behavior focused strategies (Houghton & Neck,
2002).
Fifth, as noted at the onset, here we take an individual perspec-
tive in studying TSL. Several interesting questions remain to be an-
swered in future research studies. Specifically, researchers may
wish to investigate whether variables at the managerial or organiza-
tional level – such as dyadic leadership, organizational structure or
empowerment – influences the extent to which salespeople engage
in self-leadership strategies. In addition, an interesting question is
whether positive organizational attributes such as the presence of
a supportive climate or culture buffer the effect of TSL on perfor-
mance; is self-leadership, for instance, really helpful when salespeo-
ple perceive a supportive work environment that motivates them to
perform at higher levels? Likewise, considering extrinsic motiva-
tional factors of the organization may shed additional light on the
role of TSL in the sales force. Consider a sales control system, for in-
stance, in which employees are rewarded through sales contests and
prizes. A salesperson may be capable of the TSL strategies that could
increase her performance in order to be a strong competitor in a cer-
tain sales contest, but if she determine that the contest prize is not
something she is willing to sacrifice the time and effort needed for
performance goal attainment, she may be less likely to demonstrate
TSL strategies and simply sit back and let other employees win the
prize. In this way, considering the match between salespeople's in-
trinsic motivations and extrinsic organizational motivations may
shed additional light on how and when employees demonstrate
TSL strategies.
Sixth, as one anonymous reviewer suggested, an interesting ave-
nue for future research is presented in considering the boundary
conditions that may exist in TSL specifically pertaining to salespeo-
ple. The likelihood of negative implications at exceedingly high
levels of TSL is indeed thought-provoking (see also Stewart et al.,
2011). Increased employment of TSL strategies requires consider-
able time and cognitive resources to be effective. Additionally, not
all customers, sales calls, or daily activities require TSL strategies in
order to be handled effectively. Meaning, TSL strategies are benefi-
cial to salespeople on a large scale but are not necessary, nor effi-
cient, for each everyday activity salespeople partake in. Salespeople
that spend too much time developing and employing these strate-
gies in every situation may be wasting the limited resources they
12 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
have to dedicate toward sales activities which may result in de-
creased sales performance.
Another ‘dark-side’ of TSL that warrants exploration regards possible
negative organizational impacts of high TSL among employees. Prior
work, for instance, has shown that narcissism is positively associated
with self-leadership (Furtner, Rauthmann, & Sachse, 2011). It's thus
possible that salespeople who rely too much on TSL strategies may be
adverse to following direction from top management or may be less
likely to adhere to changes in organizational regulations or protocol.
Unethical behavior, lack of conformity, or inconsistent sales interactions
are very possible results for an organization with a highly self-led
salesforce. Salespeople may choose to instead follow their own path
and make decisions about themselves that fall outside of the prefer-
ences of their manager or the organization as a whole. It could then
be possible to create ‘rogue’ salespeople that may no longer be in-
line with the actions of the organization. This could have far reaching
effects on consistency of customer interactions with salespeople,
with employees that may become too independent or too self-led
in this case.
Finally, research at the intersection of dyadic leadership and intra-
personal self-leadership might generate useful insights for both
academics and practitioners. As Manz and Sims (1991) noted some
20 years ago, “If you want to lead somebody, the first critical step is to
lead yourself” (p. 25). Indeed, recent theoretical work suggests that
changing the self is paramount to changing others (Crossan, Vera, &
Nanjad, 2008); accordingly, it would be fruitful to examine whether
and how TSL employed by managers trickle-down to influence the TSL
employed by salespeople and whether the dyadic leadership style of
managers (e.g., transformational leadership) interacts in a synergistic
or complementary fashion with TSL strategies en route to influencing
salespeople's work attitudes and outcomes. Exploring these nuances
in self-leadership might be important for an additional reason. Specifi-
cally, modern salespeople often work in virtual offices with increasingly
little chances for face-to-face interaction with management. Thus, it
would be interesting to study the impact of virtual or remote manage-
ment over salespeople and especially on the strategies that sales leaders
may enact in order to facilitate the development of self-leadership
among members of their sales forces.
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank George Avlonitis for his help
with data collection at one pharmaceutical company, Jeff Houghton
for offering many useful suggestions during the initial stages of this
research, as well as Harish Sujan and William Cron for their many
constructive suggestions during the 2009 Houston Conference in
Selling and Sales Management and the 2010 Winter AMA Educators'
Conference.
References
Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Lam, S. K. (2010a). The role
of consensus in sales team performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 458–469.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales
force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behav-
ior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945.
Ahearne, M., Rapp, A., Hughes, D. E., & Jindal, R. (2010b). Managing sales force product
perceptions and control systems in the success of new product introductions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 764–776.
Anderson, R. E. (1996). Personal selling and sales management in the new millennium.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(4), 17–32.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems.
Netherlands: Springer, 37–61.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. Handbook of social psychological theories,
349–373.
Bandura, A., & Simon, K. M. (1977). The role of proximal intentions in self-regulation of
refractory behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(3), 177–193.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression: A study of the influence of child-
training practices and family interrelationships.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1993). When ego threats lead to self-
regulation failure: Negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64(1), 141.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological
Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.
Boichuk, J. P., Bolander, W., Hall, Z. R., Ahearne, M., Zahn, W. J., & Nieves, M. (2014).
Learned helplessness among newly hired salespeople and the influence of leadership.
Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 95–111.
Brutus, S., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & McCauley, C. D. (2000). Developing from job
experiences: The role of organization‐based self‐esteem. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 11(4), 367–380.
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conflict in the organization: Do life
role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26(5), 1031–1054.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory
approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management
Executive, 14(3), 81–90.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83.
Chin, Wynne W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation model-
ing. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). 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. Information
Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower
effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747–767.
Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: General-
izing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3),
315–318.
Crocker, J., Brook, A. T., Niiya, Y., & Villacorta, M. (2006). The pursuit of self‐esteem: Con-
tingencies of self‐worth and self‐regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1749–1772.
Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. (2008). Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in
dynamic environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 569–581.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based
structural equation models. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 335–358.
Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J., Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & van der Lugt, A. (2009).
A sales force-specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classical methods
and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5),
653–668.
Dobbins, G. H., Long, W. S., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T. C. (1990). The role of self-
monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study. Journal
of Management, 16(3), 609–618.
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative
approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 30–43.
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational
leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 15(2), 17–31.
Ellis, R. J. (1988). Self-monitoring and leadership emergence in groups. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(4), 681–693.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 305–323.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(3), 382–388.
Fournier, C., Tanner, J. F., Jr., Chonko, L. B., & Manolis, C. (2010). The moderating role of
ethical climate on salesperson propensity to leave. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 30(1), 7–22.
Furtner, M. R., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sachse, P. (2010). The socioemotionally intelligent
self-leader: Examining relations between self-leadership and socioemotional
intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(9),
1191–1196.
Furtner, M. R., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sachse, P. (2011). The self-loving self-leader: An exam-
ination of the relationship between self-leadership and the Dark Triad. Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal, 39(3), 369–379.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organi-
zational context an empirical examination. Group & Organization Management,
23(1), 48–70.
Giber, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Best practices in leadership development
handbook: Case study, instruments, training. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Gioia, D. A., & Manz, C. C. (1985). Linking cognition and behavior: A script processing
interpretation of vicarious learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 527–539.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-
efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W.,
et al. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and
Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Social cognition: Learning about what matters in the social world.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(1), 3–39.
Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: A
taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.
Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be
king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters.
Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 55–74.
Houghton, J. D., & Jinkerson, D. L. (2007). Constructive thought strategies and job satisfac-
tion: A preliminary examination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(1), 45–53.
Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a
hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17,
672–691.
Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003). We think we can, we think we can, we
think we can: The impact of thinking patterns and self-efficacy on work team sustain-
ability. Team Performance Management, 9, 31–41.
Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., Locander, W. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2005).
New directions in sales leadership research. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 25(2), 137–154.
Johnson, J. S., & Sohi, R. S. (2014). The curvilinear and conditional effects of product line
breadth on salesperson performance, role stress, and job satisfaction. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 71–89.
Kanfer, R. (1987). Task-specific motivation: An integrative approach to issues of measure-
ment, mechanisms, processes, and determinants. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 5(2), 237–264.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/ap-
titude–treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(4), 657.
Kohli, A. K. (1985). Some unexplored supervisory behaviors and their influence on
salespeople's role clarity, specific self-esteem, job satisfaction, and motivation.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4).
Kohli, A. K. (1989). Determinants of influence in organizational buying: A contingency
approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(3).
Konradt, U., Andressen, P., & Ellwart, T. (2009). Self-leadership in organizational teams: A
multilevel analysis of moderators and mediators. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 322–346.
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54(1), 31.
Krishnan, B. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Boles, J. S. (2002). Self-efficacy, competitiveness, and
effort as antecedents of salesperson performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 22(4), 285–295.
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the
effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covari-
ance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological
Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior
and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons'
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–150.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors matter
more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 27(4), 396–410.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29(2), 115–134.
Mair, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial behavior in a large traditional firm: Exploring key drivers.
Corporate entrepreneurship and venturing (pp. 49–72). US: Springer.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence process-
es in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 585–600.
Manz, C. C. (1992). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence.
Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Manz, C., & Neck, C. (1999). Mastering teacher-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal
excellence.
Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (2004). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for person-
al excellence (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1986). Leading self-managed groups: A conceptual analysis
of a paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7, 141–165.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external lead-
ership of self-managing work team. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1991). SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leader-
ship. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 18–35.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). New superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Markham, S. E., & Markham, I. S. (1995). Self-management and self-leadership
reexamined: A levels-of-analysis perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3),
343–359.
Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043
13
Millikin, J. P., Hom, P. W., & Manz, C. C. (2010). Self-management competencies in self-
managing teams: Their impact on multi-team system productivity. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(5), 687–702.
Neck, C. P. (1996). Thought self-leadership: A self-regulatory approach towards overcom-
ing resistance to organizational change. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 4(2), 202–216.
Neck, C. P., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research:
Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(4), 270–295.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1992). Thought self-leadership: The impact of self-talk and
mental imagery on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 681–699.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: The impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 17, 445–467.
Neck, C. P., Smith, W. J., & Godwin, J. L. (1997). Thought self-leadership: A self-regulatory
approach to diversity management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(3), 190–203.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of
self-and shared leadership in knowledge work.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement,
and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(5), 792.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational
context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of
Management, 30(5), 591–622.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based
self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 622–648.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1993). Moderation by
organization-based self-esteem of role condition–employee response relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 271–288.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interac-
tion effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of
self‐monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace*. Journal of Management
Studies, 40(6), 1537–1562.
Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance out-
comes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,
523–538.
Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and
task performance: Subordinates' self‐esteem and self‐presentation as moderators.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 465–489.
Renn, R. W., Allen, D. G., Fedor, D. B., & Davis, W. D. (2005). The roles of personality and
self-defeating behaviors in self-management failure. Journal of Management, 31(5),
659–679.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta).
Sarin, S., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, A. K. (2012). Implementing changes in marketing strate-
gy: The role of perceived outcome-and process-oriented supervisory actions. Journal
of Marketing Research, 49(4), 564–580.
Seligman, M. E. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: AA Knopf.
Shannahan, K. L. J., Bush, A. J., & Shannahan, R. J. (2013). Are your salespeople coach-
able? How salesperson coachability, trait competitiveness, and transformational
leadership enhance sales performance. Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 40–54.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. Advances in experimental social psychology,
12, 85–128.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1982). Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self-
monitoring processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 123.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multilevel review.
Journal of Management, 37(1), 185–222.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effec-
tive selling. The Journal of Marketing, 39–52.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial
effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93–121.
Tyagi, P. K. (1985). Relative importance of key job dimensions and leadership behaviors in
motivating salesperson work performance. The Journal of Marketing, 76–86.
Verbeke, W., Dietz, B., & Verwaal, E. (2011). Drivers of sales performance: A contemporary
meta-analysis. Have salespeople become knowledge brokers? Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 39(3), 407–428.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership–
employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self‐efficacy.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 153–172.
Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Dick, R. V. (2009). The role of leaders in internal
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 123–145.
Williams, S. (1997). Personality and self-leadership. Human Resource Management Review,
7, 139–155.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology,
74(3), 462.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
14 N.G. Panagopoulos, J. Ogilvie / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenney, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in Research in Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Personal Selling &
leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Sales Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business Research, International
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308. Journal of Human Resource Management, and European Journal of Marketing.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. Jessica Ogilvie: Jessica Ogilvie is currently a doctoral student in Marketing at the Univer-
sity of Alabama. Her research interests include strategy, personal selling, and sales
management. Jessica has published research in the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Nikolaos G. Panagopoulos: Dr. Nikolaos G. Panagopoulos is currently an Assistant Profes-
Management as well as Business Horizons.
sor of Marketing at the University of Alabama. His research interests include Strategy,
Personal Selling & Sales Management, and Firm–Stakeholder Relationships. Nick has con-
tributed many articles in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, International Journal of

Please cite this article as: Panagopoulos, N.G., & Ogilvie, J., Can salespeople lead themselves? Thought self-leadership strategies and their influence
on sales performance, Industrial Marketing Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.043