Self-Development • 3

EMPOWERED SELF-DEVELOPMENT AND

CONTINUOUS LEARNING

Manuel London and James W. Smither

Organizational changes are creating the need for continuous learning environments that support
employees’ self-development. Self-development means seeking and using feedback, setting devel-
opment goals, engaging in developmental activities, and tracking progress on one’s own. This
assumes that people are capable not only of monitoring their own behaviors, but also of recogniz-
ing which behaviors and outcomes are most favorable and desirable. Drawing on self-determina-
tion theory, this article shows how organizations can encourage self-development by providing
nonthreatening performance feedback, ensuring behavioral choices for learning, encouraging
feedback seeking, and rewarding participation in learning activities and other self-determined
behavior. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Introduction floor who regularly volunteers ideas

This article describes why self-development
and continuous learning are important in
today’s organizations and how employees can
take charge of their learning. To understand
what we mean by continuous learning, think
of these people:
• the software developer who must con-
tinuously be on the lookout for new
developments, learn them, and apply
them in developing new products;
• the director of international marketing
for a consumer products company
who travels the world to develop new
markets, actively works on learning
new languages, acquires information
about different cultures, and applies
the information as new ventures
evolve and are established;
• a manufacturing worker on the shop
for continuous quality improvement,
suggests and tries new manufacturing
techniques, discovers skills and knowl-
edge gaps (for instance in math and
statistical process control), and at-
tends evening courses at a community
college to acquire the lacking skills
and knowledge; and
• the manager of a bank branch who ac-
quires increasingly deeper knowledge
of banking, finance, economics, mar-
keting, and personnel management by
working toward an MBA degree, read-
ing trade and business publications,
and attending short courses funded by
the bank.
In this article, we first describe reasons
why self-development is becoming an impor-
tant expectation or requirement in many or-
ganizations. We then propose how Deci’s (cf.

Human Resource Management, Spring 1999, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pp. 3–15
© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4848/99/01003-12
4 • H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 1999
Deci & Ryan, 1985) self-determination
model of intrinsically motivated behavior
can serve as a theoretical framework for
understanding self-determined learning in
organizations. Next we consider features of
organizations that support self-development
as well as features that may inhibit such
development. We discuss the critical role
of the supervisor and emphasize supervisory
behaviors that empower self-development.
We then examine the individual’s role in
self-development. We consider cognitive
and personality characteristics that may in-
fluence such development, and we illustrate
how these individual differences interact
with organizational characteristics to deter-
mine important outcomes. Finally, we sug-
Organizational gest how organizations can help employees
changes lead to learn to manage their own development.
the need for an Figure 1 outlines a motivational model of
empowering work
environment— self-development that serves as the framework
one that provides for this article. Organizational changes lead
informational to the need for an empowering work environ-
feedback, offers ment—one that provides informational feed-
choices with clear back, offers choices with clear consequences,
consequences,
recognizes the
recognizes the problems facing the individual,
problems facing and provides a reason to act. Characteristics
the individual, of an empowering, continuous learning cul-
and provides a ture support self-development (feedback seek-
reason to act. ing, goal setting, and tracking progress),
especially for people whose characteristics
predispose them to self-determination. Recep-
tivity to self-development is increased by
teaching people constructive thought pro-
cesses and by making the value of self-deter-
mined behavior salient. Table I summarizes
supporting research.
FIGURE 1. A Motivational Model of Self-Development
The Importance of Self-Development
The nature of work is continuously chang-
ing. These days, for instance, work is increas-
ingly done in process teams; jobs are organized
around projects, not functions; new technolo-
gies must be integrated in the organization;
and performance standards are becoming
more complex and demanding (Ilgen &
Pulakos, 1997). Employees must prepare for
tomorrow today. This suggests that employ-
ees need to seek information to identify skill
gaps, recognize areas to improve current per-
formance, keep up with advances in their pro-
fession, and anticipate how changes elsewhere
in the firm and the industry may affect work
demands and skill requirements. Groups, such
as quality improvement teams, must seek com-
parative information to compare their opera-
tions to standards of excellence elsewhere in
the firm, in other firms in the same industry,
or in similar functions in different industries.
Organizations need to communicate chang-
ing opportunities for learning and career de-
velopment, assess changing skill requirements
for different types of jobs and at different lev-
els of the management hierarchy, revise train-
ing curricula, and design new programs for
development based on changing organizational
needs.
In small organizations and in organizations
that need to change rapidly in response to
changing conditions, structured employee and
management development plans and programs
become costly and impractical. Organizations
can provide the resources that enable individual
learning, but individuals must increasingly be
responsible for their own development.
In sum, self-development is important
to individuals in today’s financially con-
strained, quality oriented, rapidly changing
organizations. Consequently, people need
insight into organizational goals, perfor-
mance requirements, and their ability to
meet today’s organizational expectations.
They also need information about likely or-
ganizational directions, implications for fu-
ture performance requirements, and what
they need to do to meet these changing ex-
pectations. They need to consider whether
they might be better off finding and pre-
paring for other career directions. They
need to engage in continuous learning to
 Self-Development • 5

TABLE I Summary of Relevant Research.

The Role of the Supportive Supervisor

I. Employees produce the most creative work when they work on complex, challenging jobs and are
supervised in a supportive, noncontrolling way (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
II. Supportive supervisors demonstrate concern for employees’ feelings and needs, encourage them to voice
their own concerns, provide positive and mainly informational feedback (rather than evaluative opinions
and comparisons to others), and facilitate employee skill development (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
III. An external change agent can work with office managers and their staffs to create empowering environ-
ments (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). The change agent helps supervisors encourage subordinates to
take initiative (make choices and solve problems relevant to them), avoid giving negative and thus de-
motivating feedback, provide performance feedback that facilitates competence while supporting the
subordinates’ autonomy, use a minimum of controlling language, treat poor performance as a problem to
be solved rather than a focus for criticism, recognize and accept the subordinates’ perspective, and
acknowledge the needs and feelings of subordinates.

Individual Characteristics Affecting Self-Development

I. Managers who have inflated self-evaluations are likely to encounter job problems or career barriers at
some point (McCall & Lombardo, 1983).
II. Managers who have more accurate self-assessments (i.e., they see themselves as others see them) are
more likely to be promoted (McCauley & Lombardo, 1990).

Regarding feedback seeking . . .

I. Managers who seek negative feedback more accurately understand how others evaluate their work than
managers who merely seek positive feedback (Ashford & Tsui, 1991).
II. People seek feedback by monitoring the environment and by inquiring about their performance (Ashford
& Cummings, 1983). Motives that drive the feedback-seeking process include: (1) the desire for
feedback, resulting from the need to reduce uncertainty; (2) the desire to protect one’s ego or maintain
a certain level of self-esteem; and (3) the desire to make a positive impression on others.
III. Situational variables can affect feedback-seeking behavior. One such situational variable is whether the
context is public or private. Some people avoid seeking feedback in public to maintain a favorable,
confident public image (Levy, Albright, Cawley, & Williams, 1995). They may intend to seek feedback
until they realize the public nature of the setting (e.g., coworkers may overhear the supervisor’s re-
sponse). As a result, they may reconsider the wisdom of asking for feedback. This points to the need for
organizations and supervisors to develop mechanisms where employees can receive informational
feedback in settings that are private and nonthreatening; 360-degree feedback is one way to do this.

(continued)

keep up with organizational changes and
ensure their continued contribution to the
organization.
A Theoretical Framework for
Self-Development
Before discussing how organizations, supervi-
sors, and individual characteristics affect self-
development, it is important to have a
theoretical framework from which each of these
components can be viewed and integrated.
Deci’s self-determination model of intrinsically
motivated behavior offers such a framework.
Deci’s self-determination theory (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 1987, 1991; Deci, Egharari,
Patrick, & Leone, 1994) views people as pro-
active organisms whose natural or intrinsic
functioning can be either facilitated or impeded
by the social context. Internalization of con-
trols and subsequent self-determination can be
increased by providing a rationale for actions
that is personally meaningful, acknowledging
the actor’s feelings or perspective, and convey-
ing a choice. Requests that are presented in a
controlling and pressuring way are not as ef-
fective as requests that minimize pressure and
convey choice and autonomy. Choice increases
self-determination and intrinsic motivation.
Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) reasoned
that when managers provide a context that pro-
motes self-determination, subordinates will
trust the context and thus be more active in
satisfying their own needs. The functional
6 • H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 1999

TABLE I (continued)

Regarding need for control . . .

I. The greater the individual’s need for control in an uncertain situation, the more active the individual
will be in learning, thereby resolving uncertainty and gaining control of the situation (Ashford & Black,
1996).
II. Uncertainty is an aversive state, especially for people with a high need for control (Bell & Staw, 1989).
These individuals are likely to respond to tough situations by seeking information that tells them what
they should be doing, including how they should change their behavior to increase their chances of
success.
III. The greater individuals’ needs for control in uncertain situations, the more they will engage in self-
management behavior in general, and information seeking behavior in particular (Ashford & Black,
1996). Thus, when organizational uncertainty is high, people with a high need for control are likely to
spontaneously seek feedback. In this situation, however, supervisors will need to be more proactive in
providing information and feedback to employees who have a lower need for control.

Regarding uncertainty orientation . . .

I. Some people want to test their capabilities and determine their competence. Such uncertainty-oriented
individuals are especially likely to engage in self-development. On the other hand, some people are
motivated to maintain their self-conception and avoid confusion about themselves. These certainty-
oriented individuals are motivated to avoid self-assessment, which might turn up new information that
does not match their existing self-image. This is especially the case if they are threatened by failure.
They are likely to avoid seeking feedback that might reveal their weaknesses. Such a disposition
represents an important barrier to self-development (Roney & Sorrentino, 1995).

Learning Self-Development
Regarding learning self-reflection and mental imagery . . .
Constructive thought patterns differentiate high-performing managers from low-performing managers
(Manz, Adsit, Campbell, & Mathison-Hance, 1988).
I. Telling students in a microcomputer course that people successfully learn computer skills over time
lowered computer anxiety and led to a significant increase in computer efficacy beliefs between pre- and
post-training (Martocchio, 1994).
II. Telling students that a skill can be developed through practice and effort increases self-efficacy and
goals compared to telling students that a skill is stable and a function of underlying cognitive capability
(Wood & Bandura, 1989).

significance (psychological meaning) of a con-
textual factor, rather than its objective charac-
teristics, is the critical consideration in
predicting the effects of that factor. They out-
lined three essential elements for self-deter-
mination: (1) the availability of behavioral
choices, (2) informational (nonthreatening)
feedback, and (3) empathy—the knowledge
People will be that others understand one’s perspective. The
intrinsically external consequences of behaviors (e.g., ac-
motivated when
countability mechanisms) must be clear and
they have a sense
of self- presented in a noncontrolling way. This will
competence and lead to internalization of the desire for the posi-
they believe that tive consequences. Thus, external goals are in-
they control their ternalized, and behavior is self-determined.
own behavior. People will be intrinsically motivated when they
have a sense of self-competence and they be-
lieve that they control their own behavior.
Also relevant here is how adults learn.
Theories of experiential learning indicate that
learning is most likely to happen when (1) the
individual experiences a demanding task that
requires action, (2) there is an element of sur-
prise so the individual cannot easily ignore
the problem, (3) an immediate solution is not
evident, and (4) the individual feels in con-
trol (has the capability to take action) (Sims
& McAulay, 1995). These situational charac-
teristics capture the individual’s attention and
impose a demand for action.
The Organization’s Role in
Self-Development
Organizations are moving from a control to
a commitment model of management

(Hackman, 1986). The control model holds
that efficiency can be achieved by rigid con-
trol of workers. The commitment model holds
that control-management can generate behav-
iors that undermine the goals of the organiza-
tion and its employees by preventing
involvement at work, thereby decreasing effi-
ciency and effectiveness. That is, controlling
environments undermine intrinsic motivation.
In contrast, the commitment model holds that
organizations must develop employee commit-
ment and self-management to attain sustain-
able competitive advantage.
Empowering Work Environments
Empowering (autonomy supportive) envi-
ronments are an example of the commitment
model. An organization can foster an environ-
ment in which everyone is individually self-
managing and can interact directly with
everyone else in the system (Shipper & Manz,
1991). In such an environment, new employ-
ees have sponsors who act as their coach and
advocate. There are direct lines of communi-
cation between people regardless of function,
department, or level. Objectives are set by
those who must make them happen. Any em-
ployee, regardless of position, can demonstrate
different types of leadership—for example,
having special knowledge or experience; be-
ing able to coordinate activities; proposing
necessary objectives; evaluating the relative
contributions of team members; and organiz-
ing new teams for new businesses, new prod-
ucts, and new processes. Computer Associates
is a firm that operates this way with its flat
organizational structure, absence of formal job
descriptions, and frequent reorganizations to
invigorate the work force. Another is Oticon,
a Danish manufacturer of high-tech hearing
aids. While this type of work environment is
not suitable for every individual and organiza-
tion, many of the components of self-manage-
ment, including self-development, can be
effective in many different settings.
Empowerment entails sharing information
and knowledge that allow employees to con-
tribute to organizational performance, reward-
ing them based on organizational
performance, and giving them the authority
to make decisions that affect important out-
comes (Bowen & Lawler, 1992). In addition
Self-Development • 7
to giving employees opportunities for input to
decisions, an empowering environment holds
individuals and teams accountable for deci-
sions (Ford & Fottler, 1995; Simons, 1995).
In a fully empowered organization, every
person is given full information about the qual-
ity of their output and is receptive to, under-
stands, and acts on this information (Kinlaw,
1995). Of course, empowerment is not an all
or nothing phenomenon. Individuals or teams
may be empowered for one aspect of their job
(e.g., a sales person having authority to make
price changes) but not others (e.g., the sales
person not being allowed to alter product de-
sign in line with customer requirements).
Empowerment can focus on job content (the
tasks and procedures needed to get the job
done) and job context (the departmental mis-
sion, goals, and objectives and the environ-
ment within which the job is done).
Continuous Learning Organizations
In continuous learning organizations, there is
“an organizationwide concern, value, belief,
and expectation that general knowledge ac-
quisition and application is important”
(Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995, p.
245). Organizations provide the resources and
support that promote continuous learning
(Holt, Noe, & Cavanaugh, 1996). Self-devel-
opment is especially important to continuous
learning in changing work environments. Self-
development needs to be guided by managers
and human resource professionals who facili-
tate the learning process by providing feed-
back, coaching, and resources for development.
Organizations that establish continuous learn-
ing cultures provide training, and they reward
the use of new skills and knowledge on the
job. This, in turn, enhances employees’ aware-
ness of the need for, and value of, acquiring
knowledge, skills, and abilities throughout
one’s career. Such organizations use person-
nel selection and training to ensure that em-
ployees have the skills and knowledge needed
tomorrow.
In organizations that promote continuous
learning, employees are ultimately responsible
for recognizing their own developmental
needs, and the organization provides the re-
sources to enable development. These orga-
nizations expect employees to make
8 • H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 1999
continuous learning a part of their jobs, and
they expect managers to be coaches and de-
velopers. Managers and their employees are
held accountable for continuous learning just
as they are for other aspects of performance.
Organizations They are measured on, and rewarded for,
that are high in learning. Managers are trained to give employ-
empowerment
are not
ees timely and accurate performance feedback
necessarily high and information about organizational changes
in empowering and job expectations.
self-development. Organizations that are high in empower-
ment are not necessarily high in empowering
self-development. For instance, interviews in a
firm that has a dynamic organizational struc-
ture and no formal job descriptions (and gener-
ally empowers employees to get involved in a
variety of project teams), revealed that employ-
ees felt that resources were not readily avail-
able for development and that development did
not seem to be valued by the top executives.
Organizations need a deliberate strategy to em-
power and reward self-development.
The Supervisor’s Role in
Self-Development
An employee’s immediate supervisor has an
important role in creating a noncontrolling
environment that empowers self-development.
Supportive supervisors encourage employees’
feelings of self-determination and personal
initiative, which in turn increase their inter-
est in work and enhance creative achievement
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996). In compari-
son, controlling supervisors closely monitor
employee behavior, make decisions without
employee involvement, provide feedback in a
controlling way, and pressure employees to
think and behave in certain ways. Controlling
supervision diminishes intrinsic motivation
and focuses employees’ attention away from
work and toward external issues, thereby low-
ering creativity.
Many of the conditions that support self-
development (and effective self-management
in general) are influenced or controlled by
supervisors. These include a clear statement
of direction, a challenging task, a supportive
organizational context (e.g., a reward system
that rewards goals that are important for the
organization, an educational system that helps
fill gaps in the skills and knowledge that em-
ployees need to perform well, and an infor-
mation system that provides clear data about
performance), expert coaching and consulta-
tion from team leaders or consultants, and
adequate and available material resources
(Hackman, 1986).
Effective Supervisory Feedback
As noted above, supervisors need to ensure
that employees receive feedback that supports
self-development; however, not all feedback
is likely to be effective. Kluger and DeNisi
(1996) defined feedback interventions as “ac-
tions taken by (an) external agent(s) to pro-
vide information regarding some aspect(s) of
one’s task performance” (p. 235). Their analy-
sis of the feedback intervention literature
found that on average, feedback interventions
had a moderately positive effect on perfor-
mance. Feedback was not effective 38% of the
time, however, because the feedback was not
given in a constructive way. Effective feedback
focused the employee’s attention on the task,
highlighting specific behaviors that needed to
be done differently. Feedback that was gen-
eral—even when it was meant to be motiva-
tional (e.g., “You’re doing great, keep up the
good work”) tended not to be effective. Worse
yet was feedback that attacked the individual
(“You’re not smart enough to do this job” or
“You need to work as hard as Fred”). Feed-
back interventions that compared feedback
recipients to others or threatened self-esteem
were likely to decrease motivation and perfor-
mance. Feedback interventions that focused
on task behaviors and outcomes, indicated
performance improvement over time (and
thereby created a clear feedback-standard
discrepancy at the task level), and supplied
the correct answers, solutions, or task behav-
iors were likely to increase motivation and
performance.
360-Degree Feedback
Multi-source or 360-degree feedback (i.e.,
performance ratings from subordinates, peers,
supervisors, and customers) is a popular tech-
nique in many organizations today. Its popu-
larity stems from the notion that managerial
jobs are increasingly complex, and managers
need input about their performance from dif-
ferent constituencies. The supervisor,

traditionally the sole source of performance
feedback, is not likely to have sufficient infor-
mation to give the manager comprehensive
feedback. Moreover, organizations tend to use
the survey rating results for development—not
to make pay or promotion decisions, thereby
reducing the potentially threatening nature of
being evaluated by others. Ratings are made
anonymously and averaged across sources
(e.g., all subordinate ratings for a given item
are averaged). Managers, often with the help
of some coaching from human resource pro-
fessionals in the organization, are encouraged
to take responsibility for analyzing their re-
sults, determining how they need to change,
and monitoring the effects of their change over
time (London & Smither, 1995).
Insight Assessments
AT&T runs an assessment center for middle-
level managers to evaluate them on dimen-
sions of leadership performance. At a typical
assessment center, the participants spend sev-
eral days involved in interviews, group and
individual business games, and various career
direction surveys. Unlike a typical assessment
center that is used to make promotion deci-
sions, however, the results are fed back to the
participants and used only to help them guide
their development. The results are delivered
in-person by a counselor with whom they can
discuss implications for development and ca-
reer planning. The goal is to enhance their
understanding of themselves in a nonthreat-
ening way that suggests weaknesses to reduce
and strengths to enhance. Departments pay
to send their people, and there is a waiting
list, which shows how much executives value
the experience for their managers in a time of
cost cutting.
In sum, feedback, coaching, and develop-
ment that are nonthreatening; oriented to the
task and behaviors; indicate clear behavioral
choices and their consequences; show empa-
thy for the individual’s situation; impose rea-
son to act even though the needed action or
solution is not immediately evident; and
suggest that the individual can control the situ-
ation and encourage self-determined develop-
ment. In contrast, organizational mechanisms
that are controlling, regulating, and prescrip-
tive (e.g., “You must do this or else”, “You will
Self-Development • 9
be watched closely”, “Only people who do such
and such will be rewarded”) discourage self-
determined development.
Individual Characteristics
Affecting Self-Development
Good self-managers are people who “know
where they want to go in their lives, develop a
plan for getting there, and execute the plan
efficiently” (Williams, Verble, Price, & Layne,
1995, p. 495). Self-management requires de-
fining goals for oneself and then using self-
directed strategies to accomplish them. This
involves maintaining one’s focus on important
tasks until they are completed, basing one’s Self-management
actions on clearly defined goals, and starting requires defining
and finishing tasks in a timely fashion. The goals for oneself
major steps in self-management are “select- and then using
ing a goal, assessing progress toward that goal, self-directed
strategies to
developing a supportive environment for accomplish them.
reaching the goal, using self-messages that are
supportive of reaching the goal, and imple-
menting maintenance strategies” (Williams,
Pettibone, & Thomas, 1991, p. 168).
People who are self-managing, monitor
and evaluate progress toward their goals on
their own (Lavalee & Campbell, 1995). People
stop self-regulation when they abandon or
derogate the importance of a goal (Pyszczynski
& Greenberg, 1987). People don’t give up eas-
ily, however, even when a negative event casts
doubt on their ability to accomplish a goal,
especially when the goal is important to their
identity or sense of self-worth. They will main-
tain focus on the blocked goal, thereby inten-
sifying self-focus. If a goal cannot be achieved
and self-criticism ensues, their self-concept
will be undermined and feelings of depression
will result.
When development is self-determined,
individuals assume responsibility for their own
learning. They take actions to determine what
they need to know by assessing their environ-
ments. They explore likely future states and
their implications for skill and knowledge re-
quirements. They actively seek performance
feedback and formulate a self-assessment.
They compare their self-assessment to current
and future skill and knowledge requirements.
Then they investigate opportunities for devel-
opment and set development goals. They
evaluate their progress and adjust their goals
10 • H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 1999
and learning behaviors relative to their
progress and perceived shifts in skill and
A final question knowledge requirements.
concerns whether Employees need to develop proficiency in
people can learn
self- observing and evaluating their behavior in a
determination manner that is consistent with how others
and thereby be perceive and evaluate it (Ashford, 1989). This
more receptive to is because accurate self-assessments help
an empowering employees correct errors and tailor their per-
environment and
do more to take
formance to the demands of the organization.
advantage of it. This is another reason why 360-degree feed-
back, mentioned above, is helpful.
Some individuals may be predisposed to
engage in higher levels of self-development
than are others. For example, personality traits
such as openness to experience, conscientious-
ness, and an internal locus of control will cre-
ate an interest in continuous learning, the
disposition to initiate and plan for such learn-
ing, as well as the tendency to persist in the
face of challenging obstacles. High levels of
self-efficacy will be associated with a willing-
ness to expand existing skills or develop new
skills. Beliefs about societal, economic, and
technological trends (e.g., the pace of tech-
nological change, trends in employers’ com-
mitment to employees, the use of contingent
employees, job and economic stability) will
influence the desire to develop skills that are
transportable across employers and industries.
Education and ability will influence success
in acquiring and using new learning. Table I
includes research summaries of several indi-
vidual characteristics (feedback seeking, need
for control, and uncertainty orientation) that
are likely to affect self-development and re-
lated behaviors.
In summary, a number of individual char-
acteristics may affect the extent to which em-
ployees engage in self-development. Also,
some individual characteristics may interact
with situational features to influence the ex-
tent of self-development. For example, employ-
ees who are high in public self-consciousness
are unlikely to seek feedback in public con-
texts. Employees with a low need for control
are unlikely to seek feedback, even in uncer-
tain environments. And certainty-oriented
employees are likely to avoid situations where
new information or experience may challenge
their self-image. Each of these situations pre-
sents a challenge for organizations that seek
to promote continuous learning. In contrast,
a high need for control and an uncertainty-
orientation, coupled with an empowering but
changing or ambiguous environment, are likely
to lead to self-determined development.
Learning Self-Development
The above ideas indicate that environmental
support can empower self-development, espe-
cially for individuals who respond positively
to such an environment, such as those with
an uncertainty-orientation or those who need
control. A final question concerns whether
people can learn self-determination and
thereby be more receptive to an empowering
environment and do more to take advantage
of it. Theory and research suggest that self-
determination can be learned. Self-manage-
ment training shows people how to assess
problems; to set specific, reasonably difficult
goals; to monitor ways in which the environ-
ment helps or hurts their goal attainment; and
to reward themselves for working toward a goal
(Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 278).
One way people may become self-
directed is by learning how to purposefully
control their own thoughts (Neck, Steward,
& Manz, 1995). This occurs through the
cognitive strategies of self-dialogue, men-
tal imagery, and beliefs and assumptions.
These strategies form constructive, habitual
thought patterns. Self-dialogue involves tell-
ing oneself that one can improve perfor-
mance by trying harder. Such positive
thinking is enhanced by becoming aware of
self-defeating internal statements (e.g.,
“This is boring” or “I messed up on this last
time”). Self-dialogue can lead to higher lev-
els of reflection, confrontation control, and
empathy in dealing with others (Richardson
& Stone, 1981). Mental imagery is the men-
tal invention or recreation of an experience.
Supposedly, imagining successful perfor-
mance can enhance the level of the perfor-
mance when it actually occurs. Building on
Ellis’s (1977) concept of rational-emotive
processes, rational thoughts result in posi-
tive emotional states while irrational or mal-
adaptive thoughts result in emotional
distress. Thus, changing internalized
thoughts (self-talk) should affect emotions.
Emotional states or moods influence behav-
iors, learning, perceptions, memory, and

judgment (Zajonc, 1980). Positive and nega-
tive thought patterns can become habitual
and thereby influence emotional and behav-
ioral reactions. Positive patterns, such as
concentrating on opportunities, worthwhile
challenges, and constructive ways of deal-
ing with challenging situations, are more
productive than are negative patterns such
as concentrating on reasons why a goal can’t
be achieved. Optimistic patterns of thought
support positive behaviors and drive people
to be successful, while pessimistic thoughts
presumably have the opposite effect
(Seligman, 1991). Research is needed to
test these effects; however, existing research
is supportive (see research summarized in
Table I). Even simple thought inductions
can make a difference. For instance, believ-
ing that one is able to accomplish a goal is
an important part of self-determination.
Self-dialogue, mental imagery, and positive
patterns of thought and feeling can be
taught to people and practiced over time.
Implications for Human Resources
Recognizing the value in supporting employ-
ees’ self-development, organizations have
begun to create continuous learning envi-
ronments using a variety of interventions
such as self-development guides and 360-
degree feedback. These methods have com-
ponents that encourage self-determination
(by providing nonthreatening performance
feedback, ensuring behavioral choices for
learning, and rewarding participation in
learning activities). Also, the organizations
link performance appraisal to development
and may even reward employees for devel-
opment. For example, they reward people
who (1) anticipate learning requirements by,
for instance, identifying areas for future job
requirements and implications for needed
skill updates, (2) set development goals that
reflect needed knowledge and skill struc-
tures, (3) participate in learning activities,
(4) ask for feedback to test goal relevance,
and (5) track progress.
Another device to support continuous
learning is to establish a career center—a
place for employees to get assistance in self-
assessment, career planning, and searching
for new job and career opportunities within
Self-Development • 11
and outside the firm. This recognizes that
individuals need to keep up with changing
organizational needs and alter their careers
as the organization redirects its business
strategies. The concept of a career center
was taken a step further in AT&T’s forma-
tion of The Talent Alliance. This is a non-
profit consortium of companies including
AT&T, Johnson & Johnson, GTE, Unisys,
and UPS. The Alliance supports employees’
career management and helps them make
job matches between companies (Lancaster,
1997). In particular, The Alliance helps
employees find other employment when
their skills are no longer needed by their
company. Also, it helps member firms iden-
tify candidates who have the skills needed
as organization requirements change. Cen-
tered around an Internet Web site, employ-
ees at all organization levels and career
stages can take tests concerning personal-
ity, career skills, and interests and receive
counseling to help them formulate career
plans based on the results. The Alliance
then matches employees with appropriate
training and education available through the
corporate members’ contacts in academia
and at training companies and institutes.
An organization’s selection process can
also support and enhance continuous learn-
ing. In addition to a traditional approach to
selection—where the organization identifies
the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other char-
acteristics (KSAOs) required to effectively
perform essential job functions—the organi-
zation also needs to identify employee char- Compensation
acteristics associated with continuous policy is another
area in which
development and select applicants who pos-
organizations can
sess such characteristics. These may include use their human
variables associated with the disposition to resource
engage in continuous development, such as practices to
conscientiousness, achievement motivation, encourage
continuous
locus of control, and proactivity, as well as
development.
variables associated with the ability to benefit
from continuous development, such as cog-
nitive ability and learning orientation.
Compensation policy is another area in
which organizations can use their human re-
source practices to encourage continuous de-
velopment. More organizations are using
skill-based pay plans. In such plans, employ-
ees are paid more for developing and master-
ing new skills (rather than tying pay to the
12 • H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 1999
value of the job, as is the case with traditional
pay plans based on job evaluations). Skill-
based pay plans benefit the organization by
enhancing the skill and versatility of its work
force, and they create a culture where con-
tinuous learning is explicitly valued and
rewarded.
Examples of Self-Development in Different
Organizational Structures
Consider the different approaches human re-
source practitioners will take in incorporating
self-development and continuous learning in
different organizational structures: the tradi-
tional, hierarchical organization; the temporary
organization; and the organization that combines
elements of the two. Here are some examples:
Traditional, Hierarchical Organization.
Colgate-Palmolive developed a new fast-
track program for high-potential managers
to ward off raids of its talented young man-
agers and to ensure that as business ex-
pands, the company has the talent for the
growing number of executive positions
Given the likely (Conner & Smith, 1998). The human re-
changing nature source department worked with senior lead-
of organizations,
ership to identify desired qualities of
individuals will
have to take high-potential managers, design develop-
responsibility for mental experiences (largely based on glo-
their own bal job rotation), select people for the
continuous program, and carefully track their progress.
development.
The human resource department also cre-
ated a tool kit of self-paced methods to help
participants learn what development plan-
ning is and to complete an individual de-
velopment plan. Overall, this was a
traditional fast-track program—though one
geared to the changing nature of the busi-
ness; however, it included an important role
for the participant to be engaged in self-
development.
Temporary, Networked Organization. An-
other organizational model becoming in-
creasingly common is a temporary,
networked organization established to man-
age a particular project. This is typical of
engineering and defense industry firms that
work on large projects that come and go.
An example of such a firm is Strohbelt (Dan-
ish for Great Belt)—the firm constructing
the bridge and tunnel between Zealand and
Jutland. This enormous infrastructure
project is coordinated by a parent company
that employs about 200 core people who are
mostly designers, engineers, and project
managers. The remaining approximately
2,000 people work for various subcontrac-
tors. Strohbelt needed to attract the best
and the brightest core personnel, but rec-
ognized that the work would be temporary—
lasting several years depending on the
particular assignment. These individuals are
likely to be in high demand and could eas-
ily be attracted elsewhere before the project
is complete. In order to retain them,
Strohbelt helps them with career planning
by providing them with career counseling,
education assistance, and job search and
placement assistance. Fluor, the engineer-
ing company, does much the same thing. By
helping their engineers with career planning
and placement, they hope to attract the
engineers back when they get a new con-
tract that requires their expertise. As such,
the organization provides the resources for
career development, helps them assess the
choices available to them, and helps them
realize what they need to learn to take ad-
vantage of these different opportunities.
Combined Organizational Forms. The
organizational model with a relatively stable
core of employees and a coterie of contract
and temporary workers suggests the need
for different development programs for each
group—advancement-oriented programs in
the core and professional development pro-
grams for temporary workers. Given the
likely changing nature of organizations, in-
dividuals will have to take responsibility for
their own continuous development. Sup-
porting self-development of both groups is
in the firm’s interest as a way to attract the
best people when they are needed, as tem-
porary or core employees, and to prepare
core employees for higher level positions.
If the core is organized in a flexible mode,
without formal jobs and with people in-
volved in a shifting array of project teams,
care will need to be taken by the organiza-
tion to ensure that employees get construc-
tive performance feedback and that
resources are available for development.
 Self-Development • 13

TABLE II Summary of Ingredients for Empowered Self-Development.

The organization/supervisor provides employees with . . .

I. informational (nonthreatening, noncontrolling) feedback that focuses employee attention on the task
and highlights specific behaviors that need to be done differently
II. 360-degree feedback or assessment center feedback
III. insight into organizational goals, likely organizational directions, and implications for future perfor-
mance requirements
IV. behavioral choices (i.e., employees are not pressured to think and behave in certain ways) with clear
consequences
V. requests that minimize pressure and convey autonomy
VI. a rationale for action that is personally meaningful
VII. the authority to make decisions that affect important outcomes
VIII. resources (including training) to enable development
IX. self-management training (using self-dialogue, mental imagery, and positive patterns of thought)
X. a tool kit of self-paced methods (for development planning)
XI. skill-based pay plans
XII. a selection process that identifies candidates high in openness to experience, conscientiousness,
internal locus of control, uncertainty orientation, and self-efficacy

The organization/supervisor creates a climate where . . .

I. employees can interact directly with everyone else (regardless of level, function, or department)
II. objectives are set by those who must make them happen
III. individuals and teams are accountable for decisions
IV. use of new skills and knowledge on the job is rewarded
V. managers are expected to be coaches, advocates, and developers
VI. managers and employees are held accountable for continuous learning (measured on and rewarded
for learning)

Employees . . .
I. are ultimately responsible for recognizing their own developmental needs
II. assume responsibility for their own learning
III. actively seek performance feedback
IV. compare their self-assessments to current and future skill requirements
V. investigate opportunities for development
VI. set development goals, evaluate their progress, and adjust their goals

Conclusion feedback, coaching, and developmental

Table II summarizes the key ingredients re-
quired for empowered self-development
and continuous learning. In today’s orga-
nizations, employees need to take charge
of their own learning and recognize that
learning is a career-long process. This re-
quires knowing how to seek feedback, com-
paring feedback to current and future
performance expectations, setting develop-
ment goals, and tracking progress. The or-
ganization provides resources such as
experiences to support self-development
and continuous learning. These support
mechanisms need to be designed in ways
that encourage self-determination. This en-
couragement happens when feedback is
informative and nonthreatening, the em-
ployees’ situation and abilities are taken
into account, and employees have behav-
ioral choices and understand the likely
consequences of these choices. People who
are self-determined are motivated to en-
hance their performance. Even if their
14 • H UMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 1999

performance is good, they want to do bet-
ter the next time. In complex, demanding
environments, they are motivated to resolve
uncertainty by self-determination. People
who are high in self-efficacy, need for con-
trol, and uncertainty orientation are likely
to seek and use feedback as a means of re-
solving uncertainty and gaining control. Fi-
nally, self-determined behavior may be
learned and induced, thereby increasing
the positive effects of an empowering work
environment on self-development.

MANUEL L ONDON is associate provost, professor of management, and director of the

Center for Human Resources Management at the State University of New York at Stony
Brook. He received his B.A. in psychology and philosophy from Case Western Reserve
University and his M.S. and Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology from
The Ohio State University. He is the author of several books, (including Career Barri-
ers: How People Experience, Overcome, and Avoid Failure published by Lawrence Erlbaum
in 1998); His research interests include career planning and development, career moti-
vation, and multi-source feedback surveys (360 degree feedback).

JAMES W. SMITHER is a professor in the Management Department at La Salle University

in Philadelphia. He received his B.A. in psychology from La Salle University, an M.A. in
education from Seton Hall University, an M.A. in industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy from Montclair State University, and a Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psy-
chology from Stevens Institute of Technology. He has published articles in journals
such as Personnel Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes. He is currently Associate Editor for Personnel Psy-
chology. Before coming to La Salle, Smither worked in corporate human resources for
AT&T. He continues to consult in the areas of management development and human
resources.

REFERENCES

Ashford, S.J. (1989). Self-assessments in organiza-
tions: A literature review and integrative model.
In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior (vol. 11, pp. 133–174).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ashford, S.J., & Black, J.S. (1996). Proactivity during
organizational entry: The role of desire for con-
trol. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.
Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback
as an individual resource: Personal strategies of
creating information. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 32, 370-398.
Ashford, S.J., & Tsui, A.S. (1991). Self-regulation for
managerial effectiveness: The role of active feed-
back seeking. Academy of Management Journal,
34(2), 251–280.
Bell, N.E., & Staw, B.M. (1989). People as sculptors
vs. sculpture: The role of personality and per-
sonal control in organizations. In M.B. Arthur,
D.T. Hall, & B.S. Lawrence (Eds.), The hand-
book of career theory (pp. 232–251). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bowen, D.E., & Lawler, E.E. (1992). The empower-
ment of service workers: What, why, how, and
when. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 31–39.
Conner, J., & Smith, C.A. (1998). Developing the next
generation of leaders: A new strategy for leader-
ship development at Colgate-Palmolive. In E.M.
Mone & M.London (Eds.), Transformational ap-
proaches to human resources development.
Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P., & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Self-
determination in a work organization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.
Deci, E.L., Egharari, H., Patrick, B.C., & Leone, D.R.
(1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-de-
termination theory perspective. Journal of Per-
sonality, 62, 119–142.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motiva-
tion and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1987). The support of au-
tonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational ap-
proach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Mo-
tivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (vol.
38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press.

Ellis, A. (1977). The basic clinical theory of rational-
emotive therapy. New York: Springer.
Ford, R.C., & Fottler, M.D. (1995). Empowerment:
A matter of degree. Academy of Management
Executive, 9(3), 21–31.
Hackman, J.R. (1986). The psychology of self-man-
agement in organizations. In M.S. Pallak & R.O.
Perloff, Psychology and Work: Productivity,
Change, and Employment (pp. 89–136). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Holt, K., Noe, R. A., & Cavanaugh, M. (1996). Man-
agers’ developmental responses to 360-degree
feedback. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-
ing of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Ilgen, D.R., & Pulakos, E.D. (1997). The changing
nature of work performance: Implications for
staffing, personnel actions, and development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kinlaw, D.C. (1995). The practice of empowerment:
Making the most of human competence. Lon-
don, UK: Gower.
Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feed-
back interventions on performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feed-
back intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 119,
254–284.
Lancaster, H. (1997, March 11). Managing your ca-
reer: Companies promise to help employees plot
their careers. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Lavalee, L.F., & Campbell, J.D. (1995). Impact of
personal goals on self-regulation processes elic-
ited by daily negative events. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 69, 341–352.
Levy, P.E., Albright, M.D., Cawley, B.D., & Williams,
J.R. (1995). Situational and individual determi-
nants of feedback seeking: A closer look at the
process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 62, 23–37.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal
setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
London, M., & Smither, J.W. (1995). Can multi-
source feedback change self- awareness and be-
havior? Theoretical applications and directions
for research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803–840.
Manz, C., Adsit, D., Campbell, S., & Mathison-Hance,
M. (1988). Managerial thought patterns and per-
formance: A study of perceptual patterns of per-
formance hindrances for higher and lower
performing managers. Human Relations, 41,
447–465.
Martocchio, J. (1994). The effects of conceptions of
ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in
training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 819–
825.
McCall, M.W., & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the
track: Why and how successful executives get
Self-Development • 15
derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC:
Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C., & Lombardo, M. M. (1990). Benchmarks:
An instrument for diagnosing managerial strengths
and weaknesses. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.),
Measures of leadership (pp. 535–545). West Or-
ange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Neck, C.P., Steward, G.L., & Manz, C.C. (1995).
Thought self-leadership as a framework for en-
hancing the performance of performance apprais-
ers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31,
278–302.
Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee cre-
ativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Self-regula-
tory preservation and the depressive self-focusing
style: A self-awareness theory of reactive depres-
sion. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 122–128.
Richardson, B., & Stone, G.L. (1981). Effects of a cog-
nitive adjunct procedure within a microcounseling
situation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
168–175.
Roney, C.J.R., & Sorrentino, R.M. (1995). Reducing
self-discrepancies or maintaining self-congru-
ence? Uncertainty orientation, self-regulation,
and performance. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 68, 485-497.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1991). Learned optimism. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Shipper, F., & Manz, C.C. (1991). Employee self-
management without formally designated teams:
An alternative road to empowerment. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 20(3), 48–61.
Simons, R. (1995). Control in an age of empower-
ment. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 80–88.
Sims, D., & McAulay, L. (1995). Management learn-
ing as a learning process: An invitation. Manage-
ment Learning, 26(1), 5–20.
Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Kavanagh, M.J.
(1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The
importance of the work environment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 239–252.
Williams, R.L., Pettibone, T.J., & Thomas, S.P.
(1991). Naturalistic application of self-change
practices. Journal of Research in Personality, 25,
167–176.
Williams, R.L., Verble, J.S., Price, D.E., & Layne, B.H.
(1995). Relationship of self-management to per-
sonality types and indices. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64, 494–506.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of concep-
tions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and
complex decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 407–415.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences
need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35,
151–175.