Personal Leadership

Journal of Management Development
A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership development and

action-steps to promote personal leadership development
Stanley Ross
Article information:
To cite this document:
Stanley Ross , (2014),"A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership development
and action-steps to promote personal leadership development", Journal of Management Development, Vol.
33 Iss 4 pp. 299 - 323
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2012-0147
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 23:58 08 March 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 08 March 2016, At: 23:58 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 104 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1602 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Christopher P. Neck, Jeffery D. Houghton, (2006),"Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past
developments, present trends, and future possibilities", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp.
270-295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663097
Aoife McDermott, Rachel Kidney, Patrick Flood, (2011),"Understanding leader development: learning
from leaders", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 Iss 4 pp. 358-378 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111134643
Abraham Carmeli, Ravit Meitar, Jacob Weisberg, (2006),"Self-leadership skills and innovative
behavior at work", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 75-90 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437720610652853
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:368748 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
Process of self-
A conceptual model for leadership
understanding the process of development
self-leadership development and
action-steps to promote personal 299
leadership development Received 20 November 2012

Accepted 9 April 2013
Stanley Ross
Department of Management, College of Business,
Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The goal of the leadership development process is to enable the individual to learn how to
become a self-leader and for any organization to develop leaders. Self-leadership represents an individual’s
ability to exercise control (self-efficacy) over his or her choice of situations in which to participate in and to
provide intrinsic rewards that are usually associated with achieving goals. The paper aims to discuss
these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – This study presents and describes a conceptual model that will
help us to understand the critical dimensions (e.g. self-esteem) associated with self-leadership and the
interrelatedness of these dimensions.
Findings – The conceptual model that the author describes in this paper provides a comprehensive
overview of self-leadership that extends Neck and Manz’s (2010) conceptual model. It does so by
identifying all the critical super ordinate mediators referred to by Deci et al. (1981) as internal states
(referred to in this study as “dimensions”). These “dimensions” are then organized into his or her own
singular system which leads to specific types of behavior. Through elucidating the important mediators
and learning about and understanding how behavior, an individual’s internal processes and external
forces influence each other (in what Manz, 1986; Bandura, 1978 refer to as reciprocal determinism), we
can begin to understand how to design more effective leadership development programs. Additionally,
by studying these mediators any organization can develop clearly defined profiles of potential leaders; in
turn, this will help an organization screen candidates more effectively to fill leadership jobs.
Originality/value – This concept piece offers a comprehensive model of the self-leadership process
that includes all the important issues and the relationship among the important issues.
Keywords Leadership, Self-development, Leadership development, Motivation (psychology),
Self-assessment, Self-managed learning
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The goals of this study include: identifying and describing conditions that are
needed for an individual to be a self-leader, identifying and describing important
dimensions associated with self-leadership and identifying networks that describe the
interrelatedness of such dimensions. As some studies have noted individuals and
organizations can create the circumstances for developing the self-leadership abilities
of individuals (Ashford and Tsui, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Hambrick, 2007).
The purpose of this study is to present a conceptual model that can help potential users Journal of Management Development
Vol. 33 No. 4, 2014
understand self-leadership, which can help users design a self-leadership development pp. 299-323
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
training process using the model as a way to create and develop self-leaders 0262-1711
(Cunnington, 1985; Tichy and Sherman, 1993). DOI 10.1108/JMD-11-2012-0147
JMD If an individual is unable to lead his or herself, then the individual cannot expect to be
33,4 able to lead others. Leadership involves the individual exercising responsibility and
control over his or her personal actions (Neck and Manz, 2010). Upon assuming this
responsibility, the individual’s actions represent self-directed initiatives to promote (Norris,
2008). Self-perceptions represent the results of an individual’s efforts to assess his or her
personal capabilities. Bandura (1982) posits that the self-perceptions derived from the self-
300 assessment process influence the motivation and behavior of the individual. Furthermore,
Bandura stipulates that self-perception of the individual’s capabilities influences the types
of performance activities pursued (choice of goals), acquisition of skills and the
individual’s ability to achieve his or her goals. Positive self-perceptions lead the individual
to select more ambitious goals, and these goals reflect rising personal standards (Bandura,
1977a, b) because the individual feels more positive about his or her capability to achieve
these ambitious goals. In contrast, self-doubt leads to a negative view by an individual of
their personal capability, which in turn results in lower personal achievement standards.
As a result, the individual is seen to have lowered ambitious performance activities

because he or she selects less challenging (or no) goals altogether. As a consequence, self-
leadership development either atrophies and stops or proceeds imperceptibly.
This study presents a comprehensive model that describes self-leadership as an
individual’s overall framework for controlling his or her choice of leadership-related
situations to participate in. The self-leadership model is conceptualized as a all-inclusive
system of super ordinate mediators (Deci et al., 1981) that function as a network that
influences an individual’s choice of behaviors (Deci et al., 1981). Bandura (1978) refers
to self- influencers or internal influences (Bandura, 1978) that Deci et al. (1981) calls
“super ordinate mediators.” These mediators are referred to as “dimensions” in this
study because dimensions imply a range with one end of the range the lower level
and the other end of the range the higher level. Bandura identifies and describes
the self-influencers as self-esteem and self-concept (Bandura, 1978). These internal
self-influencers actuate an individual’s psychological functioning. Bandura’s Social
Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977b) is useful in providing theoretical support for the
importance of social interactions impact on the individual’s self-esteem and self-
concept. Self-perceptions, self-esteem and self-concept impact the individual’s personal
value system. An individual’s values represent the individual’s choice of personal
standards which aid the individual in selecting performance goals to achieve both at
work and outside of work. Self-perception, according to Bandura (1982), represents
the means individuals use to judge his or her capability to perform and achieve goals.
Self-perceptions affect an individual’s self-motivation and behavior (Carmeli et al., 2006).
Manz (1986) indicates that when individuals overcome challenges, self-perception of
personal competence and self-efficacy increases. We associate a positive self-perception
with increased self-confidence and increased self-confidence influences the individual’s
self-assessment of his or her capability to select more challenging personal goals and
achieve these challenging goals (Neck and Houghton, 2006).
Understanding the functioning and properties of the personal leadership
development process enables individuals and organizations to perform actions that
improve personal leadership development. Learning how the leadership development
process functions (Roberts et al., 2005) begins by learning about the dimensions that
contribute to someone demonstrating behaviors typically associated with leadership
and the interrelatedness of these dimensions. Leader type actions, according to Bennis
and Nanus (1985), are behaviors that individuals exhibit and usually we associate with
someone identified as a leader.
The author proposes a different approach toward conceptualizing leadership Process of self-
development. By developing a leadership development model which identifies and leadership
describes the critical personal leadership dimensions, an explanation of the noted
dimensions can work in tandem as a network. Manz (1986) calls the interplay between development
an individual’s behavior, internal processes and external factors (i.e. dimensions)
“reciprocal determinism” to characterize the way the factors influence each other.
The personal leadership development model incorporates the important issues 301
identified by leadership development theorists as the most salient features useful
for differentiating between leaders and non-leader types (see: Chan and Drasgow,
2001; McClelland, 1975; Miner, 2005; Yukl, 2010). Miner (2005) identifies and describes
numerous leadership theories that attempt to profile leader types. Minor also
describes problems associated with searches for one universal theory that might best
define leadership and profile the common characteristics of leaders. The emphasis on
one theory to explain leadership and leader characteristics is a dilemma confronting
researchers and practitioners. We attempt to avoid the theoretical quagmire associated

with attempts at developing a universal theory on leadership development. The emphasis
for organizations and individuals is in deciding how to promote an individualized
leadership development process based on a particular theory. We avoid the “chicken or
the egg” argument whereby someone is born to lead or that leadership is teachable.
The author proposes that individual can learn to be a leader, but only if the individual
pursues this as a goal (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). An individual who seeks to lead does
so because of his or her interest in assuming greater control over his or her life and
behavior (Bandura, 1989). Self-leadership or self-determination (Ryan and Deci, 2000)
involves setting personal standards through the use of goals which the individual links
with intrinsically derived rewards and these rewards are self-motivating (Courtright et al.,
2011; Bandura, 1978).
There are necessary conditions needed for an individual to want to become a leader
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1993). Self-leadership represents a process that involves intrinsic
motivation (derived from the perception of competence in successfully achieving some
personal standard of accomplishment) which leads to greater self-efficacy (Deci, 1976).
This process influences self-perceptions of personal competence which influences the
selection of higher personal standards or goals to achieve (Bandura, 1977a, b, 1978,
1982; Deci et al., 1981).
Experience is the catalyst that initiates the self-leadership development process.
Experiences, but especially successful experiences (Bandura, 1978; Cameron and Caza,
2004) are pivotal in developing self-leaders because successes create the foundation for
more successful experiences (Kuvaas and Dysuik, 2009). According to Bandura (1978),
self-doubt hinders an individual’s learning from bad experiences. In turn, this leads
to the individual’s inability to apply the lessons learned to future situations. When the
individual begins the process of assuming greater responsibility and control over his
or herself through choice-making, decisions, acting decisively and benefiting from the
positive results of his or her decisions, the individual’s self-esteem and self-concept
benefit (Bandura, 1982; Weick, 1995).
Experience affects the development of self-esteem. Self-esteem has evaluative and
emotional components whereby the individual reflects on his or her emotional
judgments (Gecas, 1982; Piaget, 1965).
The process of developing self-esteem and self-concept begins at an early age
(Erikson, 1994; Piaget, 1965; Swann, 1985). However, an adult or organization
(benefit adults) can initiate leadership development activities for adults with success
JMD (Tichy and Sherman, 1993). The critical factor is the individual’s desire to want to
33,4 become a self-leader by making personal choices that gives the individual greater
responsibility for his or her personal actions (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). The personal
self-leadership development model described in this study offers individuals and
organizations opportunities to understand how the dimensions contribute to
leadership development and by describing these dimensions illuminated how
302 dimensions potentially interrelate, provide examples for initiating the individual self-
leadership development process as well as provide insights on how to maintain the
momentum of building when an individual confronts such challenges as a layoff,
reprimand, criticism from peers, etc. (Bandura, 1982; Roberts et al., 2005; Zaleznik, 1992).
Figure 1 presents an overview of the proposed self-leadership development model
(referred to as “ETVBAMA[1]” leadership development model), showing the important
dimensions of the model and the primary directional sequence of the dimensions posit
that a positive self-esteem and self-concept leads to a self-confident individual (Knowles
et al., 2005; Luthans, 2002; Spreitezer et al., 1995) who demonstrates a positive attitude
(Fineman, 2006; Kahn, 1998). An individual with a positive attitude is self-motivated
and demonstrates self-motivation through personal action oriented behaviors. An
action-oriented individual’s modified behaviors represent proactive decision making that
often leads to constructive personal change (Zaleznik, 2004). Positive experiences have
beneficial impacts on the individual’s self-esteem and self-concept because success leads
to external and internal rewards that reinforce the individual’s commitment to improve
his or her self-leadership abilities. Internal reinforcement is particularly important
because the individual learns to shape his or her own behavior which initiates the
self-learning process. Only someone who feels (self-esteem) and thinks (self-concept) of
his or herself as a successful learner (by achieving personal goals) will continue wanting
to learn more. Most often the focus of an organization’s leadership development program
is attitude modification ignoring critical dimensions that influence an individual’s
attitude (Bandura, 1982; Erikson, 1994; Piaget, 1965; Stets and Burke, 2003; Swann, 1985;
Tichy and Sherman, 1993; Yukl, 2010).
Figure 2 presents an expanded view of the model. Figure 2 incorporates several
additional dimensions to the model found in Figure 1. One dimension, “results,”
Self-
Concept/Values Self-
Confidence
Self-
Esteem/Values
Attitude
Behavior
Figure 1.
Basic leadership Motivation
development model
Self-
Process of self-
Self-
Concept/Values leadership
Esteem/Values
development
Self-
Confidence
303
Experience
Attitude
Figure 2.
Expanded view of the
Behavior Motivation leadership development

model
represents the consequences of the actions taken. For example, “if I swing a baseball bat
and strike out, what happens?” Striking out is often interpreted by the individual with
negative self-esteem and negative self-concept as “not good”. At the same time hitting
the ball is interpreted as “lucky.” However, an individual with a positive self-esteem and
positive self-concept is likely to interpret the experience not as a self-esteem and self-
concept concern but only what can be done differently to hit the ball better. Furthermore,
it is not interpreted as a concern of not feeling good enough (negative self-esteem and
negative self-concept). Hitting the ball is the action, what happens is the result and the
individual’s interpretation of the result reflects the influence of the feeling of self-esteem
and thinking associated with self-concept (Gecas, 1982; Yukl, 2010).
The dimension personal values and the influence of personal values, self-esteem
and self-concept have on each other represents a dynamic that works in unison
because these dimensions are mutually reinforcing (Ghiselli, 1968; Kark and Dijk, 2007;
Knowles, 1984; Lord and Brown, 2001; Swann, 1985; Weick, 1995). For example, a good
work ethic (value) is associated with positive self-esteem and positive self-concept
(feeling and thinking good thoughts about oneself), which triggers the dynamic cycle
illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, modifying a person’s self-esteem/values and self-concept/
values are the critical focal points (Roberts et al., 2005; Spreitezer et al., 1995) in any
leadership development training program.
In addition to a detailed discussion of all of the dimensions identified in Figure 2, the
author examines the type of influences (Cameron et al., 2003; Chan and Drasgow, 2001;
Cross and Markus, 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1993; McClelland, 1975; Roberts et al., 2005;
Spreitezer et al., 1995; Weick, 1995) that set into motion the self-leadership development
process. Finally, the author identifies and describes examples of possible actions an
individual independent of training by an employer or organization can incorporate as
part of a leadership development training program to foster self-leadership (Hamel and
Prahalad, 1994; Kark and Dijk, 2007; Knowles et al., 2005; Yukl, 2010). The following
sections describe each of the dimensions presented in Figure 2.
Centrality of self-esteem
Yukl (2010) suggests that self-esteem is the critical dimension that directly influences
an individual’s self-concept and that self-concept affect an individual’s self-confidence,
JMD particularly in being able to learn, especially from bad experiences. Self-esteem (the
33,4 author refers to this as emotional intelligence) affects an individual’s motivation and
his or her resulting performance (Leach et al., 2005). Furthermore, self-esteem affects
the individual’s self-regulating capabilities and the ability to focus as exemplified
through the use of goals for focus. Leach et al. (2005) define self-regulation as the ability
to self-monitor feelings, thoughts and actions, and to assess the status of these as well.
304 Gist’s (1987) research indicates that self-esteem (or how an individual feels about his or
herself) is an excellent predictor of an individual’s level of motivation and his or her
ability to perform tasks.
Self-esteem occupies a central role in the individual’s psycho-social development
because self-esteem provides a sense of self-worth or self-value (Modupe and Ositoye,
2010). Self-esteem is a dynamic concept that evolves through a process and involves
the individual’s constant comparison between his or her self-views and the views
of important reference groups selected by the individual (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).
The role of self-concept is twofold. First, self-concept protects an individual’s

self-esteem (Modupe and Ositoye, 2010) and affects the individual’s self-confidence.
Self-concept functions as a bridge between self-esteem and self-confidence. Have
learned that the self-concept evolves from early in an individual’s life based on his or
her perceptions of the self as negative or positive; these perceptions are the result of
negative and/or positive interactions with the environment (Modupe and Ositoye,
2010). Piaget’s (1965) research suggests that significant types of interactions are social
interactions that begin at the earliest age and compel the young child to reflect on the
status of his or her social relationships and to modify moral rules that guide his or her
thoughts and actions to remain in “harmony” with social peers. These moral rules
govern the development of the individual.
Self-esteem’s importance to the individual’s personal growth as a person and in
achieving higher levels of self-management requires protection from hostile forces.
Because of the vulnerability of self-esteem (emotional intelligence) the self-concept’s
role includes protecting the self-esteem from external threats (Modupe and Ositoye,
2010). There is a mutuality in the relationship between self-esteem and self-concept
because self-esteem creates the emotional conditions that can lead to a positive
self-concept, which can lead to growing self-confidence which is a precursor to a
willingness to pursue new challenges (Davies and Esterby-Smith, 1984; Higgins, 1987).
Self-esteem is the emotional dimension and the self-concept represents the intellectual
evaluative dimension of the individual (Gecas, 1982). Both dimensions are evaluative in
that the individual makes judgments about his or her self (feeling and thinking).
An individual’s positive self-esteem contributes to a positive self-concept.
According to Carl Rogers (1945), when self-esteem is negative, it leads to negativity
throughout the self-leadership development process; the result is that the individual
stays firmly within his or her comfort zone. An individual’s uses personal defense
mechanisms to justify maintaining the status quo of staying within his or her comfort
zone. Rosenberg (1989) calls this process of self-protection creating the “idealized self.”
The individual distorts or otherwise hides from his or her actual view of the self.
Self-discrepancy theory helps in understanding how individuals can have views of
his or her self that differ from the perceived view of the individual by others (Higgins,
1987). However, the ability to self-regulate to reduce any differences between the
self-views of the individual and the views of others is critical if personal growth is to
occur (Higgins et al., 1994). The individual draws on various adaptation strategies
to reconcile any differences in views (Leonard et al., 1999). If personal growth is to
occur, self-acceptance is critical and a pre-requisite in order for the individual to Process of self-
recognize self-deception practices and to thwart the negative aspects of the defense leadership
mechanisms (Maddi, 2001).
development
Role of self-concept
An individual’s cognitive image of his or her self is commonly labeled “self-concept.”
Self-concept represents the individual’s psychological image of the self. An individual’s 305
thoughts about his or her self-concept are fundamental to any leadership development
program; likewise, a positive self-view of self-concept leads to a self-confident
individual who is becoming a leader (Cameron et al., 2003; Chan and Drasgow, 2001).
To develop leaders, either the individual or organization must focus on creating the
conditions necessary to design an ongoing self-development process that improves
a self-concept that is adequate to cultivate self-confidence and sufficient to produce a
positive attitude, which, in turn, leads to a motivated person who becomes achievement
oriented (i.e. goal setter).

Positive self-feelings are valued because of “feel good” quality associate a positive
self-concept with an action-oriented achievement-focussed person. Personal values can
reflect this focus. However, the interdiction between the value of achieving and self-
concept can result in more talk, but not lead to any actual action-type behavior. This is
due to the fact that the negative self-concept dominates the personal value system that
reflects this condition. Thus, an individual’s self-doubt about the ability to achieve leads
to a set of values that reflect the individual’s fear of failure. An individual with a negative
self-concept is not able to cope with the actual idea of doubting his or her abilities.
The individual with a dominant negative self-concept does not interpret a failed result as
an opportunity to learn from the experience and that success might occur on the next
attempt. The individual with a negative self-concept might identify goals that are far too
ambitious so as to avoid making a serious effort to achieve his or her goals.
The selection of overly ambitious goals represents an attempt at impressing others
without really mobilizing the self for action. Overly ambitious goals lead to non-action
or face-saving actions that soon end because achieving the goals is not entirely
realistic. Talking about goals is only meant to convey a false impression. An individual
with a weak self-concept is very adept at undercutting own efforts for the obvious
reason of creating self-fulfilling prophecies that an individual incapable of achieving
his or her goals.
A positive self-concept enables the individual to recognize the opportunities that
exist to achieve personal and professional growth because the individual’s values
support learning and associate learning with achieving. An example of the benefits of
a positive self-concept compared to a negative self-concept is the individual’s ability to
identify choices. A negative self-concept severely limits the individual’s view of what is
possible because negativity causes the individual to think “I can’t” or “this is not
possible.” A negative self-concept severely limits the individual from being aware that
there are options. Options indicate that multiple alternatives are available to facilitate
personal learning and personal growth. Because of the fear of failure associated with
attempting to achieve something different, the individual with a negative self-concept
does not want to learn that there are options (Knowles et al., 2005).
A positive self-concept is associated with the motivation to achieve (Cameron et al.,
2003; Kark and Dijk, 2007; Knowles et al., 2005; McCall and Simmons, 1978;
Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). The more positive the self-concept, the greater the individual’s
propensity to achieve because the individual does not think failure is the most likely
JMD outcome (Brockner and Higgins, 2001; Chan and Drasgow, 2001; Luthans, 2002;
33,4 Spreitezer et al., 1995). A positive self-concept is the catalyst for actions associated with a
leadership development process (see Figures 1 and 2) that requires a motivated person.
Understanding the centrality of the self-concept is critical because any effort at changing
an individual’s attitudes or attempts to instill motivation must focus on the self-concept
(and self-esteem). As depicted in Figure 3, there is no endpoint when seeking to improve
306 self-esteem and self-concept because the capacity for growth through self-learning is
endless, blocked only by the individual’s choice.
Focussing on personal growth is instrumental in working to improve an individual’s
self-concept (Ashford and Tsui, 1991). Personal growth starts by the individual
convincing his or her self that working to change his or her self-concept (thoughts about
self-worth) can lead to real, sustainable changes that can result in a better, happier, more
successful person. Success in changing the self-concept is measurable through a variety of
ways; type of jobs hold, promotions received, pay increases, awards earned, people who
want us as friends, possessions, feedback about ourselves from others, self-impressions,

personal habits (e.g. quit smoking). There is no lack of measures. What is important is the
sense of self-worth that influences the extent that the individual focusses on achieving
that which the individual wants to accomplish. The individual’s selection of goals that are
unrealistic symbolizes the underlying sense of low self-worth associated with avoiding
real efforts to change, feeling unfulfilled, or blaming others rather than assuming personal
responsibility for not achieving the goal.
Over time, as the self-concept strengthens, the individual begins to turn from
the self to focus on others. This is what referred to as the “leadership aspiration”
level. The individual with a strong positive self-concept begins to look beyond
Leader
Self-Directed Leader
Societal Acceptance
Social Acceptance
Figure 3.
Typology of motivational
factors Survival
self-leadership and focusses on leading others. The individual believes in his or her Process of self-
ability to proactively and positively impact the lives of others (Rogers, 1945). At this leadership
point leadership of others begins to emerge in the form of beliefs, values and actions
associated with leadership. The individual emerges from exclusively focussing on self- development
leadership to leading others seeking to lead others represents a natural outcome in the
evolution of the individual’s self-concept. Personal growth by self-leadership now
allows the individual to devolve from a mostly self-centered condition to focus on 307
positively impacting the lives of others (Rogers, 1945).
Importance of self-confidence
Self-confidence represents an individual’s beliefs about his or her personal abilities (Neck
and Houghton, 2006). Self-confidence can be viewed as a process that involves the
individual’s assessment of personal self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Neck and Houghton,
2006). A self-confident person believes that the self is capable of achieving. This suggests
limits to the scope and depth of an individual’s self-confidence at any point in time
because self-confidence evolves over time as the individual learns from confronting
and successfully overcoming challenges. Self-confidence is a critical dimension that
influences the individual’s decision-making process in the use of goals and in the
selection of the type of goals (Bandura, 1982). As the level of self-confidence evolves
the individual’s attitude becomes more positive because of the individual’s changing
self-perception. Self-confidence is associated with being positive and no confidence
associated with a negative attitude. Attitude determines whether the individual is goal-
focussed, the type of goal(s) chosen and the level of goal difficulty. Attitude initiates
either action-oriented behaviors to achieve a goal or initiates a defense mechanism to
create a scenario that justifies the decision to maintain the status quo.
Self-confidence helps to overcome self-doubt. Doubt represents a conditional reaction
when the individual considers a goal that involves attempting something new (Cameron
et al., 2003; Cameron and Caza, 2004; Fineman, 2006; Knowles, 1984; Seligman
and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Self-doubt is the negative quality associated with an
individual’s decision to remain in his or her comfort zone. “Comfort zone” represents the
familiar, what the individual is already able to do, the individual’s perceived self-limits
without realizing any risk associated through personal initiatives. Comfort zone also
represents a collection of routines associated with some purposeful action. Individuals
have hundreds if not thousands of purposeful actions that represent an amalgamation of
behaviors referred to as purposeful routines. However, self-confidence enables the
individual to look beyond the comfort zone barriers and to consider pursuing new
challenges. However, elf-confidence does not eliminate self-doubt. Self-confidence helps
to overcome self-doubt by enabling the individual understand that taking risks can
lead to successful goal achievement. Failure can occur, but failure does not represent
a negative personal statement about the self. The process of continuing to push beyond
comfort zone barriers initiates a lifelong process of building self-esteem, self-concept and
self-confidence, and eroding self-doubt. The individual uses self-confidence to create
a process to push the self. This occurs because the evolution of the self-confidence
development process occurs through prior experiences that helped build a positive
self-esteem and positive self-concept that are essential in contributing to an evolving and
growing self-confidence.
Self-confidence provides insight into understanding an individual’s level of self-
esteem (i.e. feelings about the self). Self-confidence is a state of being with degrees of
differences. Self-confidence provides the individual with the opportunity to understand
JMD the cognitive, emotive and behavioral byproducts associated with self-confidence and
33,4 to compare these with individuals failing in self-confidence (Bandura, 1982; Erikson,
1994). Comparing these two conditions enables the individual to understand that there
are levels of self-confidence as well as causal factors contributing to positive or
negative self-confidence. Recognizing the individual with limited self-confidence is
fairly straightforward because of the frequent use of “can’t” or proxy statements for
308 “I can’t” or other actions that indicate an “I can’t” view the individual holds about his or
her ability to achieve. The individual without much self-confidence attempts to keep
the window to the inner self-closed to avoid insights into this condition. However,
complete denial is impossible because the individual will receive feedback from
various social interactions with peers, colleagues and superiors (Swann, 1985; Tice and
Wallace, 2003; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003).
A measure of self-confidence is an individual’s choices, aspirations or goals
(Brockner and Higgins, 2001; Roberts et al., 2005; Steel and Konig, 2006; Stets and
Burke, 2003; Tichy and Sherman, 1993). Choice of goals, whether professional or
personal, shed light on how an individual thinks about their ability to succeed. Goals
that are not challenging reflect a large measure of self-doubt. Goals that are unrealistic
reflect self-doubt because the individual creates circumstances wherein failure is
almost a certainty, or, alternatively, the individual creates a scenario where the reasons
for doing nothing are overwhelming and therefore action toward accomplishing a goal
never commences. Two examples suffice to help us understand the thinking of an
unconfident individual. One extreme example of weak self-confidence is when an
individual avoids setting goals because of his or her belief that there is no chance to
achieve said goals because circumstances prevent success or the individual does not
believe in his or her ability to succeed. For example, an individual sets a goal of
increasing sales calls by 100 percent when the individual has made the same
approximate number of calls over the same specified period of time for a long time.
This scenario can create exciting possibilities but represents unrealistic expectations
that are unlikely to lead to any meaningful effort to succeed due to the fact that the
individual’s self-confidence is not sufficient to accomplish goals of this magnitude.
Such goals represent an attempt to impress everyone, including the individual. Failure
is predictable since without a large measure of self-confidence to support these types of
initiatives failure is the most likely outcome.
Importance of attitude
Attitude reflects an individual’s assessment about his or her self, others and situations.
Leaders do not have negative or indifferent attitudes (Shamir et al., 1998) because a
negative attitude and effective leadership do not go together. These represent
incongruent attributes that work in opposition to each other because people with
negative attitudes are highly unlikely to be problem-solving “can-do” types of people.
According to Roberts et al. (2005), a positive attitude moves an individual to action.
A positive attitude stimulates thoughts associated with identifying and achieving
a goal. The consequence of having a positive attitude is that the individual begins the
process of mobilizing for action. A positive attitude correlates with people who actually
follow through and do what they say what they will do. People want to achieve something,
whether work-related or personal because of the innate desire for self-improvement
(Roberts et al., 2005). An individual becomes invigorated by developing a positive
attitude which reinforces the desire to act in positive ways. For leaders of others, this
process is critical because leaders provide followers with the confidence needed to
influence his or her own attitudes, motivation and actions (Shamir et al., 1998; Yukl, Process of self-
2010; Zaleznik, 2004). An individual without a positive attitude learns quickly that few leadership
follow willingly. An individual with a negative attitude does not usually seek the
company of a person with a negative attitude unless commiserating together. Instead, development
he or she looks to others to help him or her change his or her negative views. This puts
the leader in a difficult position because at the same time individual’s (with a negative
attitude) comfort zone incorporates a negative. An individual’s comfort zone is not easy 309
to modify without the self-interest to want to change (Roberts et al., 2005; Steel and
Konig, 2006; Stets and Burke, 2003; Tice and Wallace, 2003).
A positive attitude influences the individual’s perception of the range of
opportunities available (Bandura, 1982; Bandura and Jourden, 1991; Higgins, 1987;
Higgins et al., 1994; Kovach, 1989). According to Steel and Konig (2006) a positive
attitude initiates a process that incorporates a “What can be done?” outlook. The
individual expands his or her search to learn if other realistic possibilities exist and the
individual is more willing to engage in unfamiliar actions to achieve the goals.

For example, the individual might ask others directly or indirectly for their opinions,
read relevant books, conduct Google searches or seek assistance from reference
librarians. The list of choices is broad only to the person who has a positive attitude
and who sees the numerous opportunities to gain different perspectives.
Often the phrase “I can’t” is associated with a negative attitude. A negative attitude
is self-limiting because it reinforces the conclusion that something is not possible
(Bandura, 1982; Bandura and Jourden, 1991; Higgins, 1987; Higgins et al., 1994;
Kovach, 1989; Yukl, 2010). An alternative view of the meaning of “I can’t” is “I do not
want to.” Obviously, a negative attitude represents a closed or narrow view of what is
realistically doable because achievement or pursuing some goal that falls outside the
parameters of what an individual with a negative attitude is inclined to achieve.
Talking about doing something is what a negative person does best, but actually doing
something is left to the positive individual because each approach represents the
individual’s self-perceptions.
What is significant about understanding the importance of a negative or positive
attitude is the type of choices made by the individual. An individual makes choices
(Bandura, 1989; Brockner and Higgins, 2001) when selecting goals, makes decisions or
deals with circumstances that an individual frequently confronts. An individual with
a positive attitude realizes that there are multiple choices available. Whereas the
individual with a negative attitude sees few if any choices and often is forlorn in his
or her viewpoint of this self-limiting circumstance – a feeling of resignation. The
distinction between the two types of attitudes is important because attitude reinforces
the perception of the individual with a negative attitude that there are no choices or that
the choices available are less desirable. Having choices represents a powerful mental
image because the ability to visualize choices has an energizing effect on the individual
with a positive attitude who learns that there are options available with positive
consequences (Barling and Beattie, 1983; Deci et al., 1981; Kovach, 1989; Manz, 1986).
An example of the phenomenon described above is the condition of boredom.
The experience of boredom is common for everyone. However, boredom represents
a decision point. The individual can remain bored, feel powerless to do anything to
change the situation, might look to others to alter the situation and be dependent on
others to decide to do something or might change the circumstances. Thus, the
individual has several choices. The individual with a positive attitude attempts to
change the circumstances, realizing that his or her efforts can succeed in changing the
JMD situation by altering his or her thinking which leads to behavior change (this is
33,4 referred to as self-efficacy) (Bandura, 1977a; Barling and Beattie, 1983; Deci et al., 1981;
Kovach, 1989; Piaget, 1965). The individual learns that exerting control over the
situation stops boredom which offers the additional benefit of greater self-emporment.
Self-empowerment symbolizes the individual’s control over his or her ability to make
choices (Bandura, 1989; Brockner and Higgins, 2001).
310
Driving force of motivation
Motivation is a condition that is the result of an individual wanting something (Maslow,
1943). A motivated person is recognizable by the type of behaviors exhibited. There are
many theories that identify and describe different types of causal factors that motivate
individuals (Miner, 2005). Among many, Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs theory
represents a long-established theory on motivation and serves as a useful paradigm to
demonstrate needs-based causal factors. Maslow emphasizes that there are different
types of causal factors arranged in a hierarchy of levels of different types of needs. Using
levels is a useful paradigm for explaining how variations in an individual’s motivation
reflect a change in the individual’s needs. Figure 3 represents a model showing how
individuals can evolve based on different types of needs. Needs, according to Maslow’s
theory, range from basic survival type needs to higher order needs.
At the survival level, the intent of the individual is to create a living situation that
reflects his or her efforts to provide for his or her self. This level is equivalent to
Maslow’s lowest two levels. The next level, social acceptance, represents a condition in
which the individual seeks acceptance and a feeling of self-worth from family, friends
and co-workers. This requires the individual to engage in a process involving cognitive
insights that result in behavioral actions that culminate in acceptance. Failure to gain
acceptance leads to either different cognitive insights that alter behavior so as to
gain acceptance or cognitive insights shaped by defense mechanisms and which justify
maintaining the status quo (Rogers, 1945).
As the individual gains in self-esteem, societal acceptance becomes a motivating
factor. Societal acceptance involves gaining approval from valued community
members beyond the individual’s immediate social circle of family and close friends.
Achieving societal acceptance requires the individual to gain acceptance within the
workplace (i.e. superiors and subordinates), among community groups and community
leaders, from interested prospective employers, peers who are acquaintances but
not friends, and seniors citizens who have the experience and wisdom to determine the
individual’s value if motivated to do so.
The next level, self-direction, represents the first consistent effort toward
demonstrating leadership qualities. This level initiates the process of self-leadership
(Neck and Houghton, 2006; Houghton and Neck, 2002; Yukl, 2010) transitioning from
self-management which involves self-care without using goals (Frayne and Latham,
1989). At the self-leadership level, the individual seeks to exercise greater control
(i.e. self-efficacy) over his or her behavior through the selection of goals that require
changes in attitude which lead to changes in behavior to achieve these goals.
Improving self-esteem and self-concept provides the impetus to improve the
individual’s self-confidence which is necessary to select and pursue change altering
goals. At the self-leadership level, the individual identifies realistic choices as goals and
demonstrates sustained initiative toward achieving the goals.
The top level is leadership. By moving to this level, the individual recognizes his or
her potential for leading others. This perception originates from successful experiences
that occurred during the self-directed leader level and incorporates the lessons Process of self-
learned from successful and unsuccessful experiences that occurred at this level. leadership
These experiences shaped the individual’s self-perceptions of being capable of meeting
society’s normative criteria that define leadership (Bass, 1990; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; development
Chan and Drasgow, 2001; House, 1973; McClelland, 1975; Shamir et al., 1998).
Self-leadership and self-management are associated with wanting to achieve. The
difference between the two is that self-leadership emphasizes achieving performance 311
enhancing goals. Self-management focusses on the individual reducing the difference
between an actual behavior and the desired behavior (Markham and Markham, 1995).
The standards associated with self-management originate from the preferred behavior
and are taken from the views of others. Self-leadership focusses on setting goals that
lead to performance standards and which conform to an idealized view of how the
individual should act. A self-leader is motivated to reach this standard of performance.
Successful self-initiated experiences provide useful feedback that reinforce the
individual’s belief that achieving more challenging goals is possible (based on

expectancy theory) (see Isaac et al., 2001) through the expenditure of additional effort.
To become an achieving individual is to want to continue to reach higher performance
standards and to believe that these standards are achievable. Expectancy theory
(Miner, 2005) and self-efficacy theory (Padilla et al., 2007; Neck and Houghton, 2006)
provide a clear understanding and description of this process.
A motivated individual demonstrates initiative through his or her actions (Bennis
and Nanus, 1985). Actions such as volunteering for extra assignments, assisting
co-workers without prodding, initiating social contacts and proactive involvement in
family activities represent only a few examples of self-initiative. These examples
represent self-directed personal actions associated with initiative. Initiative is
frequently associated with motivation because the linkage between the two concepts
is the desire to want something (motivator) and the recognition that the individual
must take action (initiate) to be in a position to fulfill the want. Even if directed by
others the individual showing initiative by his or her actions represents a motivated
person though not self-directed. Thus, anecdotal evidence provides support for he view
that levels of motivation exist (Manz, 1986; Markham and Markham, 1995; Neck and
Houghton, 2006).
Inevitably, a self-motivated individual becomes focussed. The link between
(motivation and focus) is strong because a motivated person seeks to achieve (see
Maslow’s, 1943 theory of motivation). The individual’s attention becomes riveted on
identifying tasks to accomplish to achieve the goal. Motivation requires focus because
the individual diminishes the benefits that motivation provides without focus.
Attention is dissipated from the failure to focus which lessens the effort. Another way
to understand the importance of focus is by comparing a focussed person’s efforts to
the blast from a shotgun. Much of the scattered shot does not strike at the selected
target because the focus is not precise. A focussed individual uses a rifle shot, targeting
a specific point with the greater likelihood of hitting the selected target.
Being self-motivated means that the individual recognizes that more effort is
necessary to achieve a goal. To achieve a goal requires that the individual initiate
a goal directed process that involves unfamiliar or untried actions that require the
individual to move outside of his or her “comfort zone.” Comfort zone represents
familiar and successful routines (Cross and Markus, 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1993).
People operate within a comfort zone because the comfort zone generates no stress
associated with performing familiar tasks. A comfort zone’s benefits include greater
JMD economy of effort, efficient time management and greater predictability of results from
33,4 actions taken. These benefits are offset by the failure to learn other effective ways to
achieve a goal or save time through the use of new approaches (i.e. increased efficiency)
or achieve more challenging goals which require risk-taking (i.e. getting outside of the
comfort zone) behaviors. As discussed previously, the comfort zone encompassed
known and predictable behavioral routines which provide the individual with the
312 benefit of known ways to do something but at the cost of being dogmatic about
maintaining the status quo. Self-motivation provides the impetus for the person to
consider ways to move beyond the boundaries of the comfort zone. The process of
moving outside of the comfort zone initiates a learning process. This is because the
individual needs to discover new ways to achieve the goal and during this discovery
process there are a series of trials and errors made that lead to uncovering different
ways to achieve the goal. Trial and error generates invaluable knowledge to help the
individual to differentiate between a successful actions and actions that do not work
during the process of achieving the goal.
Behavior of a self-motivated individual

Motivated (self-leader) and unmotivated (non-self-leader) individuals demonstrate
different types of behavior. Behavior reflects the manifest intentions of the individual.
Thus, behavior is the act of doing with the intended consequence of achieving a
particular purpose (Neck and Houghton, 2006; Rosenberg, 1989). Actual behavior
confirms that the individual made a decision to achieve some end (i.e. making a choice).
Behavior associated with a self-leader represents his or her choice of actions to
accomplish a goal. For example, an individual who wants certain types of people as
friends must demonstrate specific behaviors that are necessary to appear to be similar
to these people in order to accomplish this end. Self-directed actions demonstrate to the
potential friends similar interests and values that represent the individual’s capability
of being friends. One of the central premises of social learning theory (Bandura and
Jourden, 1991; Frayne and Latham, 1989) is that individuals learn through frequent
and ongoing interactions with others.
Careers and specific jobs reflect choices made in terms of whether the individual is
proactive and goal oriented (i.e. self-leader type) or aims to maintain the status quo in
his or her career or job (i.e. self-manager). A reactive or proactive approach reflects
a choice made. The difference between the two is that a proactive individual initiates
responsibility and control (i.e. self-efficacy) over his or her actions because his or her
self-confidence creates the basis for acting in ways required to accomplish goals. The
self-confident person considers failure as a learning experience that will then lead to
future efforts to accomplish the same goal. If a person shows little to no self-confidence,
learning still occurs, but the focus is then on the specific desire to avoid failure. At that
point, the individual focusses more on staying within the comfort zone because of the
association linking failure to initiative. Proactive individuals make the choice of job
and career early in their professional lives because early successes create a foundation
of positive self-esteem, leading to positive self-concepts and resulting in growing
self-confidence. Self-confidence initiates self-motivationand leads to the behaviors
associated with a self-confident person (i.e. researching career fields by talking to
others, reading about job opportunities, learning about a particular business by
visiting a company web site, etc.). The range of behaviors is broad, but the common
theme linking the behaviors is a initiative-taking, self-motivated, self-confident
individual (Neck and Houghton, 2006).
Self-initiated social interactions reflect the individual’s intention to have successful Process of self-
social relations (Maslow, 1943). The desire to have successful social relationships with leadership
subordinates, peers or superiors, or non-work related relationships, shows in an
individual’s actions. The individual defines his or her own success. The individual development
adapts his or her behaviors according to feedback received through social interactions
and these interactions enable the individual to achieve the intended benefit. After
achieving the desired results, the individual’s future actions serve to maintain the 313
situation until circumstances change (a condition referred to as homeostasis). The
individual who expects others to modify their behaviors or chooses to maintain the
status quo demonstrates self-motivation behaviors. This individual’s actions to get
others to change or to maintain the status of existing relationships reinforce the
perception of low self-esteem and low self-concept because social relations are dynamic
processes involving change by all involved (Neck and Manz, 1996; Neck and Houghton,
2006; Norris, 2008; Piaget, 1965). Self-esteem and self-concept reflected through personal
values control the actions of the individual. We interpret actions that aim to improve
social relations as moving toward positive homeostasis and actions to maintain the
status quo of relations as negative homeostasis.
The choice of social relationship goals influences the types of behavior
demonstrated by the individual as well as the intensity of the behavior. Motivated
people are goal-oriented because goals provide focus and reaching goals is a measure
of achievement and contributes to a positive sense of the self. To achieve a goal
requires a series of interconnected sequenced behaviors encompassing a specific time
frame. We can conceptualize this chain of behaviors as actions defined by a series of
sub-goals or interconnected milestones and that accomplishing the sub-goals is a pre-
requisite for achieving the overarching goal. The choice of individual behaviors linked
to achieving sub-goals is derived from prior experiences, lessons learned from others
and research performed by the individual who wants to achieve a particular goal and
who takes the initiative to learn what is necessary to achieve success (Bandura, 1982;
Neck and Houghton, 2006).
Leader behaviors are important to observe to understand how behavior reflects
cognitive processes at work so as to develop a better understanding of the meaning of
the concepts “leader” and “leadership.” Leaders think and act differently from non-
leader types. By defining the concepts of leader and leadership from a behavioral
perspective can develop a leadership model from which leadership development
training programs can evolve (Neck and Houghton, 2006; Parker et al., 2008).
An important distinction about a leader’s behavior is that such behavior most often
reflects a positive attitude because associate a positive attitude with the demonstration
of goal-directed behavior (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Kark and Dijk, 2007; Miner, 2005;
Yukl, 2010). In short, leaders are goal driven. A leader’s self-selected choice of
behaviors reflect a general willingness to assume risks because there is always some
level of risk the pursuit of goals that require changes that move individuals from the
known to the unknown. To focus on change requires goals that reflect a leader’s
positive self-esteem, positive self-concept, and self-confidence. Risk assumes that there
is the chance of failure because not all the actions required are proven based on prior
experiences. A leader’s level of self-confidence determines the leader’s selection of goals
from a range of goals that represent different levels of challenge. The choice of goals
incorporates the leader’s prior experiences that shaped self-esteem and self-concept.
The resulting self-esteem and self-concept influence levels of self-confidence. The
self-confidence then influences the selection of goals that go on to help maximize the
JMD chance for success and reduces the risk (and fear) of failure (Yoe, 2011). Achieving
33,4 change-oriented goals builds self-confidence because self-esteem and self-concept
benefit. Thus, change oriented goals reflect a positive attitude because the leader
demonstrates through his or her own actions the conviction that the goal is achievable.
The leader also demonstrates that risks are manageable and that self-esteem, self-
concept and self-confidence can successfully cope with the failure to achieve the goals
314 (Yukl, 2010).
The choice of behaviors is essential to reaching a goal(s) because the best actions
increase the probability of successfully achieving the goal. Behavior reflects the
individual’s commitment to achieving a goal. Behavior reflects the individual’s
intentions and intensity of his or her convictions that the goal is achievable. Behavior
reflects a commitment. People are pragmatic in his or her actions (Rosenberg, 1989).
An individual committed to accomplishing a particular goal demonstrates this
commitment through behavior. An uncommitted individual demonstrates a choice
of behaviors that confirms this commitment to being uncommitted. A leader with

a positive self-esteem and positive self-concept possesses the self- confidence to act
proactively in the selection of challenging goals and in creating a process to accomplish
these goal(s).
Importance of personal values

Values represent a system of beliefs that guide individuals in determining right from
wrong, good from bad and discerning between what is important from what is not
important (Chan and Drasgow, 2001). An individual’s values system provides guidance
in deciding how to act. We interpret behavior or actions as proxy measures
representing an individual’s values because behavior is tangible whereas values are
difficult to objectify (Power et al., 1989).
Values are critical elements in the process that influences how the individual makes
choices. Values work in synchronization with the individual’s self-esteem and
self-concept (see Figure 2) because values represent the individual’s beliefs; beliefs
are influenced by the individual’s perceived self-worth (Shamir et al., 1993).
Self-assessment to evaluate an individual’s self-worth involves the application of the
individual’s value system. Most likely, value acquisition starts during the first few
days of birth (Power et al., 1989). Likewise, the process of developing self-esteem and
self-concept begins during these first few days of birth as well (Erikson, 1994; Maddi,
2001; Modupe and Ositoye, 2010; Piaget, 1965; Power et al., 1989). From birth onward,
values, self-esteem and self-concept evolve simultaneously. Which originates first
(values or self-esteem) is irrelevant. What is important is the interrelatedness among
the concepts and that a proactive change in self-esteem and self-concept requires a
corresponding change in values. A change in personal values requires changing how
feel (self-esteem) and think (self-concept) about ourselves. The choice of a starting point
is less important than understanding the need to make the connection between values,
self-esteem and self-concept. The linkage among the three dimensions ensures that
initiatives that focus on change also incorporate a change in all the dimensions; a
change in values is inexorably linked to changing self-esteem and self-concept.
Understanding how an individual’s acquires values, self-esteem and self-concept
and how an individual can change his or her behavior by modifying these dimensions
is important in facilitating behavioral change. Insight into the acquisition and
development processes for creating and influencing an individual’s value system,
self-esteem and self-concept enable the individual to develop intervention strategies
that hasten the change process among the value system, self-esteem and self-concept Process of self-
(Shamir et al., 1993). Change can occur passively or through self-initiated change leadership
strategies (Neck and Manz, 2010; Neck and Houghton, 2006).
Changing values, self-esteem and self-concept can occur through passive means. development
The fetus in the womb has no control over his or her circumstances. As the fetus
emerges, the infant begins to influence his or her circumstances by crying and other
behaviors because individuals are driven by the need to survive (see Maslow, 1943). 315
As individuals age, the potential to initiate change increases. However, most often,
individual allow others to dictate the type of experiences that he or she is exposed to.
It is only through experience that changes in values, self-esteem and self-concept can
occur (Rosenberg, 1989). The passive approach involves letting serendipity determine
how experience influences the individual.
Individuals can proactively initiate change in his or her personal values, self-esteem
and self-concept. Acting proactively involves the individual selecting the types of
experience(s) that likely will result in a change in values, self-esteem and self-concept.
There is no assurance that change will occur or that a particular type of change will
result. What is certain is that by selecting certain types of experiences some form of
change likely will occur. Examples include selecting a new career, changing employers,
selecting new friends, getting married, having children, dealing with community crises
and helping others. These represent some of the many types of values, self-esteem and
self-concept changing experiences. However, the change in values, self-esteem and
self-concept is not the individual’s only focal point. These change as byproducts of
wanting something different. To live, act and be different from the present requires
personal change driven by some causal factor(s) that necessitate the need to be
different in some way from a current status.
Actively seeking to change values, self-esteem and self-concept is a difficult
undertaking. The difficulty stems from personal resistance to change (whether
individually induced or promoted by external sources). Change requires different
feelings, thoughts and actions to move the individual outside his or her comfort zone.
Keeping the status quo is often easier because change involves meeting new, more
challenging standards of behavior. Continuous change (where the individual seeks self-
improvement) represents a constant raising of standards (Power et al., 1989). This
process of facilitating change is a difficult and challenging proposition that often
overwhelms most people without a strong positive self -esteem and self-concept during
this process of changing values, self-esteem and self-concept. The difficulty occurs
because the individual must confront challenges, the unexpected and failure during
the change process. These experiences test the individual’s commitment to change.
However, if the individual wants to be effective in leading his or herself and
organizations want leader types of managers, the individual and organization need to
commit to a process that focusses on changing personal values, self-esteem and
self-concept (Ashford and Tsui, 1991; Boyatzis et al., 2006; Cameron and Caza, 2004;
Collins, 2001; Cunnington and Trevor-Roberts, 1986; Zaleznik, 2004).
An individual’s personal value system represents a set of guidelines that aid
the individual who must decide how to respond to non-traditional situations.
An individual’s personal value system can help him or her decide how to respond.
A personal value system can help to identify opportunities when negative situations
occur. A personal value system can enable the individual to realize that they have
control over the choice selection process. Knowing that there are choices is empowering
because the individual understands that he or she has personal power to make
JMD decisions that affects his or herself. This insight enables the individual to avoid the
33,4 pitfalls associated with letting others make the decisions or when the individual makes
a poor decision by assuming that there is only one choice.
A personal value system is also useful because the individual learns through the
application of his or her values that personal self-efficacy increases through setting
clear goals and believing that these goals are achievable. Goals provide the individual
316 with a focus and help the individual evolve through goal achievement. Achieving
personal goals helps the individual learn more about personal change and his or her
ability to influence personal change. This insight becomes incorporated into the
individual’s value system because the individual learns that achieving a goal is
beneficial in strengthening self-esteem and self-concept. The value of “I can” begins to
evolve and become more influential (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Bandura, 1977a; Shamir
et al., 1993; Yukl, 2010).
Conclusions
The preceding sections described the overall self-leadership development model, the
important dimensions (internal mediators or influencers) of the model, and the way the
dimensions interrelate as part of a dynamic process that can lead to personal growth.
In this section, the focus is on the broader implications of self-leadership development.
Self-leadership development represents a dynamic process that the self-leader
demonstrates through varying degrees of self-efficacy. In striving to exercise greater
self-control, self-leaders shape their own personal development over and drive and
shape personal growth.
Self-leaders also show self-confidence and positive attitudes through their actions.
The implication is obvious. A self-leader must possess the values, self-esteem and self-
concept that help the individual be self-confident. One of the important benefits of
having a positive attitude is that a leader identifies opportunities to pursue (Ryan and
Deci, 2000). This means that a leader is able to avoid the pitfall of thinking “can’t” that
associate with a negative attitude. The leader with a positive attitude identifies several
choices of possible actions to pursue in dealing with a situation or, in achieving a goal,
to satisfy the needs for competence and self-autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The non-
leader type looks for reasons to justify inaction or minimal action. For a non-leader,
inaction or minimal action are the only available options because these individuals do
not see the available choices and none of the choices represent viable options because
the non-leader individual fears failure (Rosenberg, 1989).
Leaders make decisions that lead to action. Leaders assess the viability of different
actions and select the action to pursue that offers the greatest potential gain.
Correspondingly, leaders fail. But leaders act decisively after determining a course of
action to follow characterize such leaders as decisive leaders. The non-leader type
actively looks for reasons to not take action and thereby entirely avoids the risk of
failure (Yoe, 2011).
Leaders take risks. Risk has the connotation of either success or failure because
associate risk with the concept probability (Yoe, 2011). Leaders make decisions which
represent the output of a decision-making process that includes assessing the
probabilities of a particular outcome occurring and the risks that the desired outcome
will not occur. Non-leaders’ pre-occupation with the risks associated with failure often
leads to inaction. Leaders do not focus on failure. Leaders think in terms of success
(through an assessment of the probability of success referred to as risk analysis)
knowing that failure is entirely possible. Leaders identify available alternative
decisions, collect information about these alternatives and then select the optimal Process of self-
choice of action to pursue at lower risk levels and maximum benefits. This is part leadership
of the process of risk assessment within the broader context of risk management
which in turn is a component of the decision-making process (Yoe, 2011). The goal of development
the information gathering process is to increase the probability of selecting an action
that results in success. Time constraints limit a leader’s ability to collect enough
information because of the urgency of the decision-making situation. Circumstances 317
frequently force quick decisions. Leaders often realize that the need for action hastens
the decision-making process (Simon, 1997). Leaders attempt to limit the risks
associated with having incomplete information by initiating risk-reducing actions that
generate feedback to help influence future decisions. Leaders recognize that
maintaining the status quo is an unacceptable choice whereas the non-leader
attempts to maintain the status quo in order to avoid risky actions. The leader pursues
actions that increase the likelihood of making good decisions (leads to a higher
probability of a successful outcome). The non-leader’s resistance leads to forced

decisions that often lead to self-fulfilling results (i.e. failure) because the non-leader
resisted making a decision until the last moment when risk became too great to not
make a decision.
Leaders strive to grow professionally and personally know this intuitively because
only individuals who acquire the knowledge, skills and self-leadership abilities
gain leadership positions (Neck and Houghton, 2006). The individual must apply
for the position or say “yes” when nominated to fill a leadership role. At every
leadership level within an organization, the individual prepares for moving to the next
leadership level and this involves adapting to the demands of the new position.
No individual is ever totally “ready” to assume a new leadership position. This is
because wearing the leadership mantle is not the same as being ready to wear the
leadership mantle. Preparation is important, but preparation never can replace
on-the-job experience. Either the individual learns how to succeed in the position
or fails. Agreeing to lead assumes the self-assessment of a positive self-esteem,
positive self-concept and self-confidence because no individual accepts a leadership
position without these types of assessments. A management position yes, but not
a management position that requires a leader to lead (Yukl, 2010).
Leaders know that their success represents the success of others (Hamel and
Prahalad, 1994; Miner, 2005; Shamir et al., 1998; Yukl, 2010; Zaleznik, 2004).
The knowledge enables leaders to create a quid pro quo arrangement by selecting
individuals who can enhance the leader’s chance to succeed and, in turn, assist these
individuals in achieving their personal goals. Forming a mutually beneficial social
relationship represents the leader’s efforts to create a pact to achieve organizational
success along with achieving personal goals. The leader needs to be cognizant of the
reciprocity of the relationship to ensure that the leader is mindful of the need to assist
subordinates in achieving their personal goals too. This is what Ryan and Deci (2000)
refer to as the psychological need for relatedness.
Leaders create a learning process to facilitate personal growth and the personal
growth of subordinates. Personal growth, by its very nature, involves pushing through
comfort zone boundaries (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The learning process represents
an organized, systematic approach to extend the individual beyond comfort zone
boundaries. A systematic learning process increases the likelihood of successful
personal change and reduces the risk of failure because the leader aims to identify
actions that facilitate learning. There are many methods to facilitate learning.
JMD These include formal training programs, mentoring relationships, goal-setting
33,4 actions, performance reviews, incentive programs along with a myriad of other useful
approaches. The fundamental premise underlying the creation of a systematic learning
process is to shape behavior, enhance values, develop self-esteem and self-concept,
build self-confidence and a positive attitude, and build a team that creates a win-win
situation for all.
318 Leadership development represents a process in which an individual moves
through a series of developmental stages similar to the developmental stages every
individual follows during the course of a lifetime (Cunnington, 1985; Cunnington and
Trevor-Roberts, 1986; Knowles, 1984). What is different from the overall human
development process is that the leadership development process can be a subset of the
human development process. The primary focus is on becoming a leader and moving
through the different leadership levels an individual can attain. Everyone is capable of
being a leader because the starting point in the leadership development process is
learning how to lead oneself. There are those who seek to lead others and for these
individuals the process is the same because personal leadership and organizational
leadership are intertwined. The focus of personal leadership is to become a self-leader
by enhancing the individual’s ability to lead his or her self. Organizational leadership
entails learning how to lead others while exercising greater levels of authority over
organizational activities. A leadership development process is a necessary pre-condition
to facilitate leadership development. The creation of a process by an individual is in itself
an exercise in demonstrating leadership capabilities.
Developing into an effective leader is challenging because the individual needs to
participate in creating the leadership development process. The challenge occurs
because the individual and organization must continuously modify the leadership
development process because of the need to raise the standards that define the
expectations of the position held and as the circumstances change. The challenges
loom large because the individual either moves forward successfully or the momentum
associated with moving forward stops.
The individual must work diligently to push through his or her comfort zone
boundaries or barriers during each move through position after position. At each level,
the individual must adapt because the challenges of the position change as do the
performance expectations. Performing well is not the only possible driving force for
self-learning. Another motivator that drives self-learning is self-improvement (Ryan
and Deci, 2000). Self-improvement emphasizes self-motivation to change the individual’s
self-esteem, self-concept and self-confidence. While the focus is self-esteem and
self-concept the motivating reason can change (see Figure 3). As the individual succeeds
at developing the self (self-esteem, self-concept and self-confidence) the basis for making
further self-improvements changes. The individual’s self-accomplishments lead to
a more ambitious agenda to promote self-improvement.
Personal setbacks and personal crises occur because a trouble-free life is unrealistic.
Individuals do not seek setbacks or crises, but they occur regardless and ambitious
people who focus on self-improvement will experience more than most (Bennis, 2007).
Personal values aid the individual in understanding that setbacks and crises arise
because of decisions associated with self-improvement goals. A positive attitude
enables the individual to view these situations as opportunities instead of assuming
negative self-predations. The goal of leading requires the individual to make decisions
with risks because self-improvement is not a risk free endeavor. associate no risk
decisions with controlled, routine-driven non-threatening situations. Sometimes the
results of the individual’s efforts do not lead to achieving a goal. The self-improvement Process of self-
process will continue because the individual’s personal values, self-esteem and self- leadership
concept are sufficiently advanced that the individual learns from the experience and
continues to focus on developing his or her leadership abilities. development
A resume highlights an individual’s record of professional, educational and community
accomplishments. Creating a leadership development resume represents a wonderful
opportunity to highlight the successes of the individual’s leadership development process. 319
The goal is to use the resume (i.e. that is a self-reflection exercise) to enhance the
individual’s self-perception of the effectiveness of the leadership development process to
that point in time. The personal resume documents the individual’s accomplishments and
enables the individual to assess progress in moving through the various stages of the
leadership development process. Furthermore, the leadership development resume
provides the individual with the opportunity to link past accomplishments with future
plans that continue developing personal leadership abilities (i.e. personal values, self-
esteem, self-concept and self-confidence).

Finally, self-leadership requires actions that move the individual progressively
forward. Thus, self-leadership is all about self-improvement which requires doing
something constructive. Leaders act decisively and focus on achieving results.
Becoming a leader involves being proactive (by achieving goals) and creating the
momentum needed to evolve through the leadership development process.
Note
1. ETVBAMA refers to “emotional, think, values, believe, attitude, motivation, action.”
References
Ashford, S.J. and Tsui, A.S. (1991), “Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness, the role of active
feedback seeking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 251-280.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identify theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Bandura, A. (1977a), “Self-efficacy, toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1977b), Social Learning Theory, General Learning Press, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1978), “The self system in reciprocal determinism”, American Psychologist, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 344-358.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficiency mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1989), “Human agency in social cognitive theory”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44
No. 9, pp. 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. and Jourden, F.J. (1991), “Self-regulatory mechanisms governing social comparison
effects on complex decision making”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 941-951.
Barling, J. and Beattie, R. (1983), “Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-51.
Bass, B.B. (1990), Bass and Stogdgill’s Handbook of Leadership, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bennis, W. (2007), “The challenges of leadership in the modern world”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 2-5.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders, The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Boyatzis, R.E., Smith, M.L. and Blaize, N. (2006), “Developing sustainable leaders through
coaching and compassion”, Learning & Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-24.
JMD Brockner, J. and Higgins, E.T. (2001), “Regulatory focus theory, implications for the study of emotions
at work”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 35-66.
33,4 Cameron, K. and Caza, A. (2004), “Introductions, contributions to the discipline of positive
organizational scholarship”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1-9.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R.E. (2003), “Foundations of positive organizational
scholarship”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational
Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-13.
320
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R. and Weisberg, J. (2006), “Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at
work”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Chan, K.Y. and Drasgow, F. (2001), “Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership,
understanding the motivation to lead”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 481-498.
Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great, Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t,
Harper Business, New York, NY.
Courtright, S.H., Manz, C.C. and Stewart, G.L. (2011), “Self-leadership, a multilevel view”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 185-196.

Cross, S. and Markus, H. (1994), “Self-schemas, possible selves and competent performance”,
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 423-438.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993), The Evolving Self, A Psychology for the Third Millennium, Harper
Collins, New York, NY.
Cunnington, B. (1985), “The process of educating and developing managers for the year 2000”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 566-579.
Cunnington, B. and Trevor-Roberts, B. (1986), “Developing leaders for the organization of
tomorrow”, Business Education, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 37-47.
Davies, J. and Esterby-Smith, M. (1984), “Learning and developing from managerial work
experiences”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 169-183.
Deci, E.L. (1976), “Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 130-145.
Deci, E.L., Nezlek, J. and Sheinman, L. (1981), “Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic
motivation of the rewardee”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 1-10.
Erikson, E.H. (1994), Identify and the Life Cycle, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY.
Fineman, S. (2006), “On being positive, concerns and counterpoints”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 270-291.
Frayne, C.A. and Latham, G.P. (1989), “Application of social learning theory to employee
self-management of attendance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 387-392.
Gecas, V. (1982), “The self-concept”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Ghiselli, E.E. (1968), “Interaction of traits and motivational factors in the determination of the
success of managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 480-483.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy, implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 472-485.
Hambrick, D.C. (2007), “Upper echelons theory, an update”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 334-343.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Higgins, E.T. (1987), “Self-discrepancy, a theory relating self and affect”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Higgins, E.T., Roney, C.J.R., Crowe, E. and Hymes, C. (1994), “Ideal versus ought predilections for
approach and avoidance, distinct self-regulatory systems”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 276-286.
Houghton, J.D. and Neck, C.P. (2002), “The revised self-leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Process of self-
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 672-691.
House, R.J. (1973), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, Working Paper Series No. 76-06,
leadership
Toronto University, Toronto, pp. 2-38. development
Isaac, R.G., Zerbe, W.J. and Pitt, D.C. (2001), “Leadership and motivation, the effective application
of expectancy theory”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 212-226.
Kahn, W.A. (1998), “Relational systems at work”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 321
No. 10, pp. 39-76.
Kark, R. and Dijk, D.V. (2007), “Motivation to lead, motivation to follow, the role of self-regulatory
focus in leadership processes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 500-528.
Knowles, M.S. (1984), The Adult Learner, A Neglected Species, 3rd ed., Gulf, Houston, TX.
Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F. and Swanson, R.A. (2005), The Adult Learner, 6th ed., Elsevier,
Houston, TX.
Kovach, B.E. (1989), “Successful derailment, what fast-trackers can learn while they’re off the
track”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 33-47.

Kuvaas, B. and Dysuik, A. (2009), “Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic
motivation and work performance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 217-236.
Leach, M.P., Liu, A.H. and Johnston, W.J. (2005), “The role of self-regulation training in
developing the motivation management capabilities of salespeople”, Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 269-281.
Leonard, N.H., Beauvais, L.L. and Scholl, R.W. (1999), “Work motivation, the incorporation of
self-concept-based processes”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 969-990.
Lord, R.G. and Brown, D.J. (2001), “Leadership, values and subordinate self-concepts”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 133-152.
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 695-706.
McCall, G.J. and Simmons, J.L. (1978), Identities and Interactions, An Examination of Human
Associations in Everyday Life, Free Press, New York, NY.
McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power, The Inner Experience, Irvington Press, New York, NY.
Maddi, S.R. (2001), Personality Theories, A Comparative Analysis, 6th ed., Waveland Publisher
Inc, Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL.
Manz, C.C. (1986), “Self-leadership, toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 585-600.
Markham, S.E. and Markham, I.S. (1995), “Self-management and self-leadership reexamined:
a levels of analysis perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 343-359.
Maslow, A. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4,
pp. 370-396.
Miner, J.B. (2005), Organizational Behavior 1, Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership,
M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Amonk, NY.
Modupe, H.E. and Ositoye, A.O. (2010), “Emotional intelligence and self-esteem as predictors for
success in teaching practice exercise”, Academic Leadership, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1-3.
Neck, C.P. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Two decades of self-leadership theory and research”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 270-295.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996), “Thought self-leadership, the impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 445-467.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (2010), Mastering Self-Leadership, Empowering Yourself for Personal
Excellence, 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
JMD Norris, S.E. (2008), “An examination of self-leadership”, Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 43-61.
33,4 Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007), “The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, vulnerable
followers and conducive environments”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 176-194.
Parker, P., Hall, D.T. and Kram, K.E. (2008), “Peer coaching, a relational process for
accelerating career learning”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 487-503.
322
Piaget, J. (1965), The Moral Judgment of the Child, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Power, F.C., Higgins, A. and Kohlberg, L. (1989), Lawrence Kohlberg’s Approach to Moral
Education, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Roberts, L.M., Dutton, J.E., Spreitezer, G.M., Heaphy, E.D. and Quinn, R.E. (2005), “Composing the
reflected best self portrait, building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 712-736.
Rogers, C. (1945), “The nondirective method as a technique for social research”, The American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 279-283.

Rosenberg, M. (1989), “Self-concept research, a historical overview”, Social Forces, Vol. 68 No. 1,
pp. 34-44.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Seligman, M.E. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “Positive psychology, an introduction”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership, a self-concept based theory”, Organizational Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E.B. and Popper, M. (1998), “Correlates of charismatic leader
behavior in military units, subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’
appraisals of leader performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 387-409.
Simon, H. (1997), Administrative Behavior, A Study of Decision-Making Processes, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Spreitezer, G., Quinn, R.E. and Fletcher, J. (1995), “Excavating the pathos of meaning, renewal,
and empowerment, a typology of managerial high performance myths”, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 16-39.
Steel, P. and Konig, C. (2006), “Integrating theories of motivation”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 889-913.
Stets, J.E. and Burke, R.J. (2003), “A sociological approach to self and identity”, in Leary, M.R.
and Tangney, J.P. (Eds), Handbook of Self and Identify, Guilford Press, New York, NY,
pp. 128-152.
Swann, W.B. (1985), “The self as an architect of social reality”, in Schlenker, B. (Ed.), The Self and
Social Life, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 100-125.
Tice, D.M. and Wallace, H. (2003), “The reflected self, creating yourself as (you think) others see
you”, in Leary, M.R. and Tangney, J.P. (Eds), Handbook of Self and Identify, Guilford Press,
New York, NY, pp. 91-105.
Tichy, N. and Sherman, S. (1993), Control Your Destiny or Someone Else Will, Wiley, New York, NY.
Weick, K. (1995), Sense Making in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. and Debebe, G. (2003), “Interpersonal sense making and the
meaning of work”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 95-135.
Yoe, C. (2011), Primer on Risk Analysis, Decision Making Under Uncertainty, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Yukl, G.A. (2010), Leadership in Organizations, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zaleznik, A. (1992), “Managers and leaders: are they different?”, Harvard Business Review, Process of self-
March-April, pp. 126-135.
Zaleznik, A. (2004), “Managers and leaders, are they different”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82
leadership
No. 1, pp. 74-81. development
Further reading
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S. (2002), “Social capital prospects for a new concept”, Academy of 323
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Ashby, M.D. and Miles, S.A. (2002), Leaders Talk Leadership, Top Executives Speak Their Minds,
Heidrick and Struggles International Inc and Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Avolio, B.J. (2005), Leadership Development in Balance, Made/Born, Lea Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Barris, J. (2010), “The logical structure of dreams and their relation to reality”, Dreaming, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Bennis, W. and Thomas, R.J. (2002), Geeks and Geezers, How Values and Defining Moments Shape
Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dalton, G. and Thompson, F. (1986), Novations, Strategies for Career Management, Scott
Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008), “Resistance to change, the rest of the story”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 362-377.
Frese, M. and Fay, D. (2001), “Personal initiative, an active performance concept for work in the
21st century”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 133-187.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), Primal Leadership, Realizing the Power of
Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Houghton, J.D., Bonham, T.W., Neck, C.P. and Singth, K. (2004), “The relationship between
self-leadership and personality”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 427-441.
Hunt, J.M. and Weintraub, J.R. (2007), The Coaching Organization, A Strategy for Developing
Leaders, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ibarra, H. (1999), “Professional selves, experimenting with image and identify in professional
adaptation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 764-791.
Johansen, B. (2009), Leaders Make the Future, Ten New Leadership Skills for an Uncertain World,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA.
Kahn, W.A. (2001), “Holding environments at work”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 260-279.
Lord, R.G. and Brown, D.J. (2004), Leadership Processes and Follower Identify, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Machida, M. and Schaubroeck, J. (2011), “The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leader development”,
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 459-468.
Ross, S. (2008), “Leadership development in corporate America”, Journal of Applied Business and
Economics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Schlenker, R.R. (1985), “Identify and self-identification”, in Schlenker, B.R. (Ed.), The Self and
Social Life, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, pp. 65-69.
Corresponding author
Dr Stanley Ross can be contacted at: sross@bridgew.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Junna Meng, Bin Xue, Bingsheng Liu, Ning Fang. 2015. Relationships between top managers’ leadership
and infrastructure sustainability. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 22:6, 692-714.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Personal Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personal Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management Development

A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership development and

Downloaded on: 08 March 2016, At: 23:58 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

leadership development Received 20 November 2012

As a result, the individual is seen to have lowered ambitious performance activities

researchers and practitioners. We attempt to avoid the theoretical quagmire associated

Behavior Motivation leadership development

The role of self-concept is twofold. First, self-concept protects an individual’s

oriented (i.e. goal setter).

want us as friends, possessions, feedback about ourselves from others, self-impressions,

individual is more willing to engage in unfamiliar actions to achieve the goals.

individual’s belief that achieving more challenging goals is possible (based on

during the process of achieving the goal.

Behavior of a self-motivated individual

of behaviors that confirms this commitment to being uncommitted. A leader with

Importance of personal values

probability of a successful outcome). The non-leader’s resistance leads to forced

esteem, self-concept and self-confidence).

Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 185-196.

track”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 33-47.

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 279-283.

Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like