Natural Rewards Self-Management, Personality, andAchievement Outcomes

Felissa K. Lee1

Management DepartmentMarquette University

Daniel B. TurbanManagement Department

University of Missouri

The purpose of this paper is to test and examine a model of personality and self-regulation that specifies a possible self-regulatory route to increased performance inachievement contexts—the use of natural rewards self-management strategies, whichallow people to create motivating situations by modifying tasks through perceptualor physical means. This model is hierarchically organized with global personalitytraits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness) predicting use of naturalrewards, and natural rewards influencing attention and effort, which are positivelyrelated to performance. Participants were undergraduate students at 3 large stateuniversities, and data were collected at 4 points during the semester. Results fromstructural equation modeling provided support for the model. The theoretical andpractical implications of these results are discussed.jasp_660 2267..2294

The emerging field of positive organizational behavior (POB) has beenrecognized as a promising arena for studying performance in organizations.POB focuses on the positive psychological strengths and abilities thathelp individuals to achieve strong performance and well-being (Luthans,2002a, 2002b). Relatedly, natural rewards self-management (SM) (Manz,1986; Neck & Manz, 2007)2 is a positive practice that should help people toachieve success in both educational and work contexts. Individuals usenatural rewards SM to create environments that are as motivating as possibleby actively modifying tasks through perceptual or physical means.

Although the natural rewards model could make a promising contribu-tion to the POB literature, we are aware of no research that has focusedspecifically on this type of self-management. Therefore, the primary purposeof the present research is to propose and test a model that offers an initial stepin further understanding this positive form of self-management.

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Felissa K. Lee, ManagementDepartment, Marquette University, Straz Hall, #236, P. O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881. E-mail: felissa.lee@marquette.edu

2Although Manz (1986) and Neck & Manz (2007) call their broader theory self-leadershiptheory (SLT), we refer to their concepts as self-management, as their theory falls within thattradition. We use this label to avoid confusion, but we also wish to recognize the uniquecontribution that these researchers have made with their theory.

2267

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 40, 9, pp. 2267–2294.© 2010 Copyright the AuthorsJournal of Applied Social Psychology © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Relatedly, considerable research has indicated that personality has animpact on motivation and performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick,Mount, & Judge, 2001; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999), andscholars now emphasize the need to understand how personality influencessuch achievement-related outcomes (Barrick et al., 2001). Although scholarshave called for self-regulatory models that examine how personality influ-ences performance, relatively few such studies of such models exist (Barrick,Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Hoyle, 2006; Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997;Mount & Barrick, 1995; Tokar, Fischer, & Subich, 1998). Therefore, asecond purpose of this study is to consider motivationally related personalitycharacteristics in terms of natural rewards SM in an effort to examine oneself-regulatory route to performance in achievement (e.g., work and learning)contexts.

We begin by elaborating on the natural rewards concept and situating itwithin a hierarchically organized model that includes dispositional anteced-ents and domain-specific outcomes of natural rewards self-management. Thisframework reflects recommendations that such process models be organizedsuch that distal traits influence outcomes through progressively moreproximal processes (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000; Kanfer &Heggestad, 1997; Vallerand, 1997, 2000). Extraversion, neuroticism, andconscientiousness are personality traits related to the use (or marked absence)of positive, proactive forms of self-regulation and thus are proposed aspersonality traits that should influence the use of natural rewards SM. Inturn, natural rewards self-management should be positively related to effortand attention, thereby promoting effective performance.

Natural Rewards Self-Management

Natural rewards SM strategies are intended to increase motivation byenhancing the enjoyment of completing tasks. Natural rewards SM involvesconverting a task into a more positive experience in one of three ways: (a)selecting a favorable context, a setting that is pleasant for completing thetask; (b) modifying the task-completion process, changing the task so that itis more interesting or enjoyable to perform (e.g., using a preferred method);or (c) focusing attention on the pleasant aspects of the task, rather than theless desirable parts (Houghton & Neck, 2002; Manz, 1986; Neck & Manz,2007).3

3This definition of natural rewards reflects the theory as presented in Neck and Manz (2007).The definition of natural rewards has shifted somewhat since Manz introduced it as part ofself-leadership theory (Manz, 1986), although this discussion is beyond the scope of the presentarticle.

2268 LEE AND TURBAN

Although little research has examined the impact of natural rewardsself-management theory, findings from related concepts support the value ofnatural rewards. For instance, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) reportedthat some members of a hospital cleaning staff “crafted” their job by focusingon the positive aspects rather than on the negative aspects of job activitiesand by reconfiguring work responsibilities. Further, the employees whocrafted their job saw their role as more important and relevant to the hospi-tal’s caregiving mission and contributed more fully to work unit perfor-mance. More broadly, Sansone and Smith (2000) noted that “[an] activity isonly partially defined by objective task characteristics” (p. 343) and thatstrategies used in completing the task can change the activity physically,psychologically, or both (Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan, 1992). Theseexamples suggest that modifying an activity mentally, physically, or both canincrease effective activities that enhance performance.

We extend Kanfer and Heggestad’s (1997) theory of motivational traitsand skills in developing our model. These scholars argued that using con-structive self-regulation is a critical skill in achievement contexts. Motivationskills are described as strategies that influence task-related processes andperformance (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2000; Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad,1996; Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997, 1999). In their framework, personalitytraits associated with approach- or avoidance-oriented processes serve asantecedents of motivation skill development and use. Similarly, we concep-tualize natural rewards SM as a motivation skill that is influenced by per-sonality and that, in turn, influences subsequent task-related processes. Next,we turn to a discussion of extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness;traits that may be characterized by consistent motivational tendencies inachievement contexts.

Personality Traits

Extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness are the traits from thefive-factor model that were found to be related to performance motivation ina recent meta-analysis (Judge & Ilies, 2002). More broadly, extraversion andneuroticism are present in most major models of personality and, as such, aretwo of the most studied personality traits in the psychology literature(Morossanova, 2003; Watson & Clark, 1997). Both traits have been linked tofundamental self-regulatory activities (Clark & Watson, 1999).

Further, as discussed in more detail later in this paper, each trait is relatedto the positivity (or negativity) of one’s thinking and to associated copingbehaviors while under stress. Similarly, conscientiousness has receivedconsiderable attention in recent years as a trait consistently related to

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2269

performance and motivational processes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge &Ilies, 2002; Mount & Barrick, 1995). Finally, study of a broader SM theory(Manz, 1986; Neck & Manz, 2007) has indicated that natural rewards self-management is positively related to extraversion and to conscientiousnessand is negatively related to neuroticism (Houghton, Bonham, Neck, & Singh,2004). Based on evidence that extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientious-ness are associated with motivationally related perceptions and behaviorin achievement settings, we include all three in examining natural rewardsself-management.

Extraversion

Extraversion has been linked to approach forms of motivation (Elliot &Thrash, 2002; Houghton et al., 2004; Stewart, 1996) and to achievementgoals (Elliot & Church, 1997). Extraversion also appears to be associatedwith constructive perceptions of the world and with efforts to focus on thepositive aspects of a situation. For instance, when coping with a stressor,extraverts tend to use strategies that involve constructive thinking(McCrae & Costa, 1986), such as positive reinterpretation and growth(Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001). These strategies involve seeingthe situation as a learning experience and considering what might belearned from it or how one might grow from the experience. That is, theperson defines the experience as a challenge to be learned from, rather thanas a debilitating or depressing threat (David & Suls, 1999; Hemenover &Dienstbier, 1996).

Because extraverts tend to cope with stressors by reframing them asopportunities for growth (Kanfer et al., 2001), we expect that they also willself-regulate in a parallel manner in achievement situations. More specifi-cally, those higher in extraversion should be more likely to construe tasks asmore positive and potentially rewarding. Further, because extraverts tend toengage the environment actively, it is likely that an extravert will be inclinedto change achievement-related activities, by either modifying the task or byselecting a favorable context in which to complete the task. Therefore, wepropose the following:

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion will be positively related to the useof natural rewards self-management.

Neuroticism

Considerable evidence has indicated that neuroticism is linked to prob-lematic self-regulation patterns that influence achievement outcomes

2270 LEE AND TURBAN

(Eysenck & Morley, 1994; Judge & Ilies, 2002), although no research hasspecifically examined natural rewards SM. Nonetheless, neuroticism hasbeen associated with avoidance behaviors (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), whichseem to be incompatible with natural rewards strategies.

Research has also indicated that neuroticism is associated with negativeinformation processing patterns that have implications for self-regulation inachievement contexts. For example, those high in neuroticism tend to havea pessimistic outlook, focusing on the negative in themselves and in theworld around them (Hankin, Fraley, & Abela, 2005; Martin, 1985; Mar-tin & Clark, 1985; Wallace & Newman, 1997). Hemenover and Dienstbier(1996) found that people who are high in neuroticism (and low in extra-version and mastery orientation) were likely to appraise life situations asthreatening and, in turn, to appraise an upcoming exam as threatening andstressful.

The appraisal of a situation as a threat or a challenge has implicationsfor subsequent behavior (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985). When peopleperceive a situation as threatening, they tend to overlook opportunities toimprove that situation creatively through positive, proactive means (Neck &Manz, 1996). Further, with the tendency to engage in negative thinking,those high in neuroticism are also less likely to notice the positive aspects ofa situation and, therefore, do not perceive opportunities to improve theexperience. Instead, those high in neuroticism may remain preoccupied withnegative feelings, perceptions, and nonproductive behaviors, rather thanapplying natural rewards SM to an achievement task. Therefore, we proposethe following:

Hypothesis 2. Neuroticism will be negatively related to the useof natural rewards self-management.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness reflects the degree to which someone is achievement-oriented and self-disciplined. Considerable evidence has indicated that, of theBig Five factors, conscientiousness shows the strongest relationship to per-formance (Barrick et al., 2001), perhaps because conscientious individualsare more likely than those who are low in conscientiousness to plan andorganize their work, to set goals, and to persist in pursuing excellent perfor-mance (Hogan & Ones, 1997). For example, in a sample of sales representa-tives, conscientiousness predicted autonomous goal setting and goalcommitment, which were subsequently related to performance (Barrick,Mount, & Strauss, 1993). More broadly, a recent meta-analysis found that

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2271

conscientiousness was related to goal setting, self-efficacy, and successexpectancy (Judge & Ilies, 2002).

Overall, conscientious individuals tend to approach (rather than avoid)achievement opportunities and to engage in proactive motivational strategies(Barrick et al., 2002). Perhaps because they are achievement-oriented, con-scientious individuals are more likely to set goals and to persist in pursingthese goals than are individuals lower on conscientiousness (Barrick et al.,1993; Hogan & Ones, 1997). As such, conscientious people are likely to bewell practiced at finding a variety of ways to motivate themselves to achievethese goals and to complete work when necessary, including modifying tasksthrough natural rewards SM. Consistent with this logic, we propose thefollowing:

Hypothesis 3. Conscientiousness will be positively related tonatural rewards self-management.

Task Management Processes and Performance

Consistent with Kanfer and Heggestad’s (1997) theory of motivationaltraits and skills, we theorize that natural rewards SM influences attention andeffort (Kanfer et al., 1996; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2000; Kanfer & Heggestad,1997, 1999). As noted by various scholars, attention plays an importantrole in self-regulation (Dobson, 2000; Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997; Sarason,Pierce, & Sarason, 1996; Smith, 1996). However, attention can be difficult togenerate or sustain in some situations. For instance, performance anxietydisrupts concentration (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990). Paradoxically,boredom also may interfere with focus, making it more likely that the mindwill drift to unrelated topics. Task boredom may occur because intrinsicinterest is lacking, little challenge exists, or personal relevance is not evident.We theorize that the use of natural rewards SM should strengthen attentionby making the task seem more interesting or personally relevant.

In terms of effort, considerable evidence has indicated that individualsexert more effort in completing activities that feel personally relevant andimportant (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Similarly, and not surprisingly, evidence hasindicated that enjoying an achievement activity is positively related to exert-ing effort toward that activity (Mitchell, 1997). More broadly, and relevantto the use of natural rewards SM, evidence has indicated that by modifyingtasks, people increase their interest and commitment to an activity and thusare more likely to devote effort to completing the task (Sansone, Wiebe, &Morgan, 1999). We extend such findings to investigate whether the use ofnatural rewards SM is related to effort.

2272 LEE AND TURBAN

Finally, as attention requires exertion, we expect that attention, a focusedprocess, will be influenced by effort. Furthermore, effort should be positivelyrelated to attention because strong task effort may prompt a person to (a)make concerted attempts to limit distractions and refocus wanderingthoughts; and (b) discover aspects of the activity that were not initiallyevident and that are interesting and personally relevant (Elliot, McGregor, &Gable, 1999). Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 4. Use of natural rewards self-management will bepositively related to attention.

Hypothesis 5. Use of natural rewards self-management will bepositively related to effort.

Hypothesis 6. Effort will be positively related to attention.

In addition to the indirect effects through natural rewards SM, we alsoexpect that neuroticism and conscientiousness will have direct effects on thesetask-management processes. Considerable evidence has indicated that indi-viduals with higher neuroticism experience greater anxiety (Judge & Ilies,2002; Schneider, 2004), which leads to greater cognitive interference andreduced ability to focus on a specific task (Dobson, 2000; Sarason et al., 1990,1996). Thus, we expect that neuroticism will have a direct relationship withattention.

Hypothesis 7. Neuroticism will be negatively related toattention.

As we noted previously, conscientious individuals are achievement-motivated and self-disciplined; thus, we theorized that they are likely toengage in more natural rewards SM. In addition, however, given their disci-pline and accomplishment striving, we also expect that highly conscientiousindividuals are likely to have increased effort and attention, irrespective ofthe degree of natural rewards SM. Thus, we expect a direct effect of con-scientiousness on effort and to attention.

Hypothesis 8. Conscientiousness will be positively related toattention.

Hypothesis 9. Conscientiousness will be positively related toeffort.

Finally, evidence has indicated that attention is related to performancein academic, work, and athletic arenas (Dobson, 2000; Lee, Sheldon, &Turban, 2003; Sarason et al., 1996; Schwarzer, 1996; Smith, 1996). Theoryand research have also suggested that sustained effort should be positively

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2273

related to performance (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1999; Kanfer & Heggestad,1997).

Hypothesis 10. Effort will be positively related to performance.

Hypothesis 11. Attention will be positively related toperformance.

In sum, we propose a process model of natural rewards SM that highlightsthe role of positive, proactive strategies in managing achievement-relatedtasks. In this framework, global personality traits (i.e., extraversion, neuroti-cism, conscientiousness) are related to natural rewards SM, and naturalrewards SM is positively related to attention and effort, which, in turn, arepositively related to performance. We will test the overall fit of this model, inaddition to testing the individual paths. Figure 1 presents an overview of themodel.

Our study participants were upper-division undergraduate businessstudent in a class, which is a naturalistic setting where performance outcomeshave significance for the participants. In addition, and importantly, becausestudents operate in a relatively autonomous setting—one that requiresongoing self-regulation over time—we thought that these individuals wouldhave the opportunity to use (or not use) natural rewards SM, thus providinga setting that offers an opportunity to detect variability in the use of thisstrategy. Furthermore, most of the students were within 2 years of enteringthe full-time work force and thus provide some insight into the mechanismsthat early-career individuals might employ during their first years in a busi-ness setting.

Natural Rewards

Performance

H1 +

H6+

H11 +

H2 -

H3 +

EffortH5+

H10 +

Attention

Neuroticism

Conscientiousness

Extraversion

H4 +H7-

H8+

H9+

Figure 1. Proposed model.

2274 LEE AND TURBAN

Method

Procedure

Participants were undergraduate students who were enrolled in upper-division management courses at one of three universities: University ofMissouri–Columbia, Utah State University, and California State UniversityBakersfield. Data were collected at four points; we include only thosestudents from whom we obtained complete data.

Students were offered extra course credit for participating in the researchstudy by completing all three surveys. As recommended, we collected thesurvey data at multiple points in an effort to minimize common methodvariance, a potential source of measurement error that may occur whenmeasures are all collected in the same format (i.e., self-report survey) at thesame time (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Of the 496students who completed the first survey, 351 completed all three surveys fullyand were included in the analysis. The 351 participants (197 males, 154females) were primarily White (86%) and were a mean age of 23.0 years(SD = 4.3).

Analyses were conducted to determine if any differences existed betweenthe final sample and the group of 145 people who completed the first surveybut were not included in the study (i.e., did not complete all surveys or hadmissing data). In terms of those variables collected at Time 1, the analysesindicate no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex,age, race, extraversion, or neuroticism. However, there were significant dif-ferences in conscientiousness and grade point average (GPA), with thoseremaining in the study being more conscientious and having higher GPAs.This difference between the two groups implies a possible range restriction inthe sample, suggesting that this study will serve as a conservative test of thehypotheses.

Further, as these data were collected from 11 different instructors, we alsoconducted a MANOVA to determine whether or not there were significantdifferences in outcomes among the groups. The results indicate that therewere differences among groups for performance, with grades for students inone class being lower than those in other classes. In order to complete amulti-group analysis with structural equation modeling, we would need totest the hypothesized model with all 11 groups and compare fit across thesegroups to confirm that the model fits in each case. Given the sample charac-teristics, it was not feasible to conduct such analyses, as the sample sizes foreach group were too small (range = 6–70 students) for structural equationmodeling. Therefore, we standardized the final grades by instructor andcompared the results when we used the unstandardized grades. We also

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2275

compared the results when we excluded the class with the lower performancescores with the results from the full sample. Because the results and conclu-sions were consistent across these various analyses, we report the resultswhen we used the complete sample with unstandardized performance scores.

The data-collection episodes are described in more detail later. Instruc-tors were provided packets of survey materials, and students mailed theircompleted surveys (using pre-addressed, stamped envelopes) to the firstauthor.

Time 1. The first data collection occurred during the second week of thesemester. Students were distributed packets that contained consent formsand a survey. The consent form outlined the terms of the study and requestedpermission for researchers to check their end-of-semester grades and enroll-ment status. The first survey measured demographic characteristics, controlvariables, extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Students weregiven 10 days to complete their surveys.

Time 2. The second set of survey packets was distributed by instructors atthe midpoint of the semester. This survey included the natural rewards SMstrategies. Participants were again asked to return their surveys within 10days.

Time 3. Students received their final packets from their instructors duringthe last 3 weeks of the semester and were asked to post the surveys within 10days. This survey asked students to rate their attention and effort whilestudying for the class.

Time 4. Within a week after the close of the semester, students’ coursegrades were obtained from the instructors.

Measures

Extraversion. Extraversion was assessed with 10 items (a = .88) from theInternational Personality Item Pool (IPIP, 2002; Goldberg, 1999). The itemswere rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (veryaccurate). Sample items include “I feel comfortable around people,” and “Ikeep in the background.”

Neuroticism. Neuroticism was also assessed with 10 items (a = .86) fromthe IPIP (Goldberg, 1999). The items were rated on a 5-point scale rangingfrom 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Sample questions include “I getstressed out easily,” and “I get upset easily.”

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was also assessed with 10 items(a = .79) from the IPIP (Goldberg, 1999). The items were rated on a 5-pointscale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Sample questionsinclude “I am always prepared,” and “I pay attention to details.”

2276 LEE AND TURBAN

Natural rewards. We used the Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire(Houghton & Neck, 2002) to measure natural rewards SM strategies. Ques-tions were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (veryaccurate) and were modified slightly to fit the current context. All five items(a = .77) were used. Sample items are “I focus my thinking on the pleasant,rather than the unpleasant aspects of activities in this class,” and “When Ihave a choice, I try to do my work in ways that I enjoy, rather than just tryingto get it over with.”

Effort. We adapted three items (a = .87) from the effort scale used byElliot et al. (1999). Items include “I put a lot of effort into preparing forexams,” “I work very hard to do well in this class,” and “I put a lot of timeinto studying for this class.” The items were rated on a 5-point scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Attention. Attention was measured using a six-item scale (a = .86) thatwas developed in a previous study (Lee et al., 2003). Participants rated theiragreement with the items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true ofme) to 5 (very true of me). Students were asked to rate the level of attentionexperienced while studying for the class with items such as “I become easilyabsorbed in the study material,” “I have good concentration,” and “I have towork hard to keep my mind on task” (reverse-scored).

Performance. The performance measure was final course grade, in termsof percentage of points earned overall.

GPA. GPA was collected on the first survey as a control variable forperformance.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. The cor-relations provide support for all of the proposed paths, except for the rela-tionship between effort and performance.

Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) recommended two-step approach tostructural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesizedmodel. These steps include estimating the measurement model and thenestimating the measurement and structural models simultaneously.

We used several indexes to evaluate goodness of model fit. The chi-squaretest provides an overall indication of model fit, with small chi-square valuesand a nonsignificant test result indicating a good fit to the data. However, thechi-square test is very sensitive to sample size, so it is common for this statisticto be significant. Therefore, researchers have often used a c2/df ratio of 3 orless as an indication of good overall fit (Kline, 1998). In terms of the com-parative fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI), values above .90 are

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2277

Tab

le1

Des

crip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

and

Cor

rela

tion

s

Var

iabl

eM

SD

12

34

56

78

1.E

xtra

vers

ion

(T1)

3.46

.73

(.88

)2.

Neu

roti

cism

(T1)

2.69

.70

-.23

**(.

86)

3.C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

(T1)

3.76

.54

.04

-.03

(.79

)4.

Nat

ural

rew

ards

(T2)

3.50

.72

.22*

*-.

14**

.16*

*(.

77)

5.A

tten

tion

(T3)

3.10

.79

.03

-.22

**.2

5**

.15*

*(.

86)

6.E

ffor

t(T

3)3.

39.9

2.0

2-.

04.2

1**

.20*

*.3

3**

(.87

)7.

Per

form

ance

(T4)

89.6

56.

84-.

03-.

01.0

8-.

0217

**.0

2(n

/a)

8.G

PA

(T1)

3.21

.38

.03

-.01

.19*

*-.

06.1

2*.0

3.4

1**

(n/a

)

Not

e.N

=35

1.T

1=

Tim

e1

surv

ey;T

2=

Tim

e2

surv

ey;T

3=

Tim

e3

surv

ey;T

4=

final

data

colle

ctio

npo

int.

Coe

ffici

ent

alph

ais

onth

edi

agon

alin

pare

nthe

ses.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.

2278 LEE AND TURBAN

generally taken as indicators of good model fit (Hatcher, 1994). A root meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA) of less than .08 is considered agood fit (Loehlin, 1998).

Measurement Model

It is recommended that at least three indicators be assigned to each latentconstruct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Effort had three individual itemsserving as the indicators. In the cases of extraversion, neuroticism, conscien-tiousness, natural rewards, and attention, we grouped scale items into threeparcels and used the parcels as indicators of the underlying construct. Per-formance and GPA were manifest variables. Fit indexes indicated that thesix-factor model provided a good fit to the data, c2(120, N = 351) = 267.04,p < .0001, c2/df = 2.23 (CFI = .95, IFI = .95, RMSEA = .06). Thus, we exam-ined the factor loadings (standardized path coefficients) for the proposedmeasurement model. All were significant and greater than .30.

Structural Model

Next, we estimated the measurement and structural models simulta-neously, achieving a good fit to the data, c2(154, N = 351) = 340.95, p < .01,c2/df = 2.21 (CFI = .94, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .06; see Table 2). All but two ofthe proposed relationships were significant: the paths from effort to perfor-mance and from natural rewards to attention (see Table 3). In terms of thepersonality paths, as hypothesized, personality variables measured at Time 1predicted use of natural rewards strategies measured at Time 2.

More specifically, extraversion and conscientiousness were positivelyrelated and neuroticism was negatively related to natural rewards (Hypoth-eses 1–3). In turn, use of natural rewards SM was positively related to effort(Hypothesis 5), but not to attention (Hypothesis 4; both measured at Time 3).Personality was also related to effort and attention, with conscientiousnessbeing positively related to both variables (Hypotheses 8 and 9) and neuro-ticism being negatively related to attention (Hypothesis 7). Finally, asexpected, individuals who exerted greater effort reported more attention(Hypothesis 6), although somewhat surprisingly, effort was not directlyrelated to performance (Hypothesis 10). Attention, however, was positivelyrelated to performance (Hypothesis 11).

In summary, there appears to be general support for the model and theidea that natural rewards SM are associated with positive, approach-orientedmotivational processes: Global personality traits influenced the use of

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2279

Tab

le2

Str

uctu

ralM

odel

Com

pari

sons

Mod

elc2

dfc2 /d

fC

FI

IFI

RM

SEA

Mod

elco

mpa

riso

nc2 D

dfD

p

Mea

sure

men

tm

odel

267.

0412

02.

23.9

5.9

5.0

6—

——

—H

ypot

hesi

zed

mod

el34

0.95

154

2.21

.93

.94

.06

——

——

Alt

erna

tive

Mod

el1:

Per

sona

lity

fully

med

iate

dby

natu

ral

rew

ards

340.

2015

72.

21.9

3.9

4.0

6H

M0.

750

ns

Alt

erna

tive

Mod

el2:

Add

itio

nal

pers

onal

ity

path

sto

atte

ntio

nan

def

fort

337.

2515

12.

23.9

3.9

4.0

6H

M3.

703

ns

Fin

alm

odel

340.

9315

62.

19.9

3.9

4.0

6—

——

—

Not

e.N

=35

1.H

M=

hypo

thes

ized

mod

el.

2280 LEE AND TURBAN

natural rewards SM and, in turn, natural rewards SM affected performancethough task-related self-regulation behaviors. However, it appears thatincreased effort in this instance improved performance only through aninfluence on focused attention.

Alternative Models

We selected two theoretically relevant alternative models a priori forcomparison against the hypothesized model to test for the possibility that the

Table 3

Structural Model Coefficients

Hypothesizedstructural

modelestimates

Finalstructural

modelestimates

Hypothesis 1: extraversion → naturalrewards

.24** .24**

Hypothesis 2: neuroticism → naturalrewards

-.16** -.16**

Hypothesis 3: conscientiousness →natural rewards

.19** .20**

Hypothesis 4: natural rewards →attention

.03 —

Hypothesis 5: natural rewards → effort .23** .23**Hypothesis 6: effort → attention .26** .27**Hypothesis 7: neuroticism → attention -.22** -.22**Hypothesis 8: conscientiousness →

attention.19** .20**

Hypothesis 9: conscientiousness → effort .22** .22**Hypothesis 10: effort → performance -.04 —Hypothesis 11: attention → performance .15** .13**GPA → performance .39** .39**

Note. All regression weights are standardized.*p < .05. **p < .01.

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2281

relationships between personality, natural rewards, and performance couldbe modeled more effectively. For the first alternative model, we tested amodel in which personality influenced downstream variables only throughnatural rewards SM (i.e., we removed the paths from conscientiousness toeffort and attention, and from neuroticism to attention). In the second alter-native model, we tested additional linkages between personality and thetask-related processes, with paths added between neuroticism and effort,extraversion and effort, and extraversion and attention. However, none ofthe added relationships were significant, nor were the chi-square differencetests significant for these models. These results indicate that these alternativemodels do not offer a better fit to the data than does the hypothesized model.

Our final model is illustrated in Figure 2. This model provides a good fitto the data, c2(156, N = 351) = 340.93, p < .0001, c2/df = 2.19 (CFI = .93,IFI = .94, RMSEA = .06). We removed two paths to reflect the informationgained through testing the hypothesized model: the relationship betweennatural rewards and attention, and the relationship between effort and per-formance. Although future research will be needed to confirm these relation-ships, the final model provides insight into the role of natural rewards SM inself-regulation processes. Consistent with Kanfer and Heggestad’s (1997)motivational skills framework, natural rewards appear to be proximal-levelself-management situated between global personality traits and task-specificself-regulation activities. It also appears that in the presence of strong neu-roticism, attention may be less subject to direct influence by natural rewards,with natural rewards exerting only indirect influence through effort.

Natural Rewards

Performance

.24**

.27**

.13**

-.16**

.20**

Effort.23**

Attention

Neuroticism

Conscientiousness

Extraversion

-.22**

.20**

.22**

Figure 2. Final model.Note. GPA was controlled by including it as a predictor of performance. It is not shown here asit is not theoretically relevant to the model and did not change the pattern of relationships.

2282 LEE AND TURBAN

Discussion

The capacity to perceive—and act upon—positive ways to manageone’s motivational environment is a potentially powerful form of self-management. Our findings contribute to the growing positive organizationalbehavior literature by demonstrating that some individuals (i.e., those high inextraversion and conscientiousness, and low in neuroticism) are particularlyadept at motivating themselves via the use of natural rewards SM. Impor-tantly, this outcome offers insight into one means for individuals to exercisecontrol over their work: the nature of a task and the subjective experience ofcompleting it. Our results also contribute to understanding the mechanismsby which personality influences motivation and achievement, as well as fur-thering theory development on the natural rewards concept, which to datehas received minimal empirical study.

Natural Rewards

Our results indicate that the process of modifying work tasks can improveperformance by increasing the amount of energy directed toward the taskand, thereby, the attention directed toward the task. Perhaps applyingnatural rewards SM to tasks makes the work process less draining, thusenabling people to exert more effort toward the task. This argument isconsistent with an underlying principle of natural rewards theory, which isthat good performance will be enhanced when tasks are approached in waysthat draw on positive attitudes, personal interests, and a sense of purpose(Neck & Manz, 2007).

More broadly, our results are consistent with evidence that framing tasksas play (in contrast to work) results in greater motivation and performance(Glynn, 1994; Webster & Martocchio, 1993). The participants in our studywere in a relatively autonomous setting, and thus were able to alter tasks tocreate a more pleasant work environment. Future research might investigatewhether autonomy in work settings limits the effects of natural rewardsself-management. Nonetheless, our results suggest the potential value ofinvestigating how to provide employees with autonomous work settings thatallow them to alter tasks to increase their motivation and performance.

Although we found positive effects for natural rewards self-management, the use of natural rewards could detract from short-term per-formance if the strategies used to increase enjoyment of a task distract theperson from the specific content and goals most directly associated withimportant outcomes. This process may explain why the use of naturalrewards was not directly related to attention in the present study. Students

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2283

who identify what is personally interesting about a subject may take them-selves afield of performing well on an exam because they read intriguingmaterial that will not be tested. Employees who frequently socialize withothers to alleviate the boredom of producing financial reports may spendmore time at work, with no accompanying increase in tangible output. Inthese cases, the use of natural rewards may not improve performance on animmediate task, but may contribute to interest and commitment over thelonger term, which in itself could contribute to longer term occupational orcareer success. Perhaps using natural rewards SM (to improve the process)in combination with a specific goal (to maintain focus) best facilitates per-formance over time.

Personality

The finding that extraversion was linked to natural rewards is notable, asit further clarifies how the approach motivational style of extraverts trans-lates into specific behaviors in achievement settings. More specifically, moreextraverted participants were more likely to report strategies such as modi-fying activities to make them more enjoyable, attempting to create positivecontexts for completing activities, and focusing on the pleasant rather thanthe unpleasant aspects of task activities, which resulted in greater effort andattention. As such, extraversion seems to manifest in active engagement withachievement tasks, in the form of natural rewards, in order to manage thetasks in positive ways. This interpretation is consistent with evidence thatextraverts tend to take a constructive approach to coping with stressors(Kanfer et al., 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1986). More broadly, our resultssuggest that extraversion may influence performance through influencinghow individuals view and modify tasks.

In contrast, individuals high in neuroticism were less likely to use naturalrewards SM than were those lower on neuroticism. Perhaps individuals whotend to focus on negative information in themselves and in the world andwho have negative emotions tend to overlook opportunities to modify andenjoy the process of completing necessary tasks. Our results contribute toearlier findings that neuroticism interferes with effective self-regulation andperformance (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Kanfer et al., 2001) by examining specificpaths through which neuroticism operates. Neuroticism was directly relatedto attention, as hypothesized, a result consistent with other studies showingthat anxiety (a facet of neuroticism) contributes to cognitive interference(Dobson, 2000; Sarason et al., 1990, 1996). Given evidence of negativethought patterns among people high in neuroticism (Hankin et al., 2005;Wallace & Newman, 1997), this trait may also influence perceptions of one’s

2284 LEE AND TURBAN

environment and, by extension, perceived opportunities for enjoyment andagency with respect to work tasks (i.e., use of natural rewards SM).

Our results also extend previous findings that conscientiousness is relatedto motivational processes (Judge & Ilies, 2002). In particular, we found thatconscientious people may be able to maintain their motivational energy overtime by using natural rewards SM (i.e., converting necessary tasks into moreenjoyable experiences). In addition, we found that conscientious individualsalso exerted more effort and had increased attention beyond the effectsthrough natural rewards SM. Such results are notable in describing thevarious mechanisms by which conscientiousness influences important self-regulation mechanisms that impact performance. Given the importance ofconscientiousness as a predictor of job performance (Barrick et al., 2001), weurge additional research that examines mechanisms by which conscientious-ness influences performance.

Finally, although we hypothesized that both effort and attention wouldbe directly related to performance, our results indicate that effort was linkedto performance only indirectly through attention. Although this effect wasnot expected, a recent study of students in Singapore also found that effortwas not directly related to performance, but only had an indirect effect onperformance through self-regulation processes, specifically meta-cognitivestrategies (Turban, Tan, Brown, & Sheldon, 2007). Taken in sum, suchresults suggest that the amount of effort exerted toward an achievement taskis only useful insofar as it is focused (mentally, in this case) in the rightdirection, on the specific content that will enable task performance. It ispossible to spend a great deal of time on an activity—or perceive that one isdevoting a great deal of time to an activity—when, in reality, spending onlya small percentage of that time on key performance-relevant elements.

Study Limitations

A few limitations of this study should be noted. The measurement ofperformance was students’ final grades. As students had different require-ments across classes, final grade was the one measure of performance thatcould be compared across participants. Nonetheless, future researchersmight consider using a variety of performance measures, such as those thatassess increased knowledge and understanding gained but not tested (e.g.,from doing additional readings not required by the class or applying theinformation to one’s life in some way) in order to have a more comprehensivemeasure of performance-related outcomes. It is also the case that the partici-pants who remained in the study were more conscientious and had higherGPAs than those who began but did not complete the study. Therefore, it is

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2285

possible that our results best reflect the use of natural rewards SM by thosewho are relatively achievement oriented. Finally, although we controlled forGPA, because grades can be strongly influenced by cognitive ability, theassociation between effort and performance might be limited in this setting.

Another study limitation is that, with the notable exception of perfor-mance, the data were all self-report measures collected via surveys from thesame source. Although surveys seemed to be the most appropriate researchtool, given our conceptual focus, self-report data can be susceptible to mono-method bias. We attempted to deal with such concerns by collecting data atseveral different time periods and by using established measures (Podsakoffet al., 2003). Further, it seems unlikely that method bias is an alternativeexplanation for the specific pattern of results found. As noted by statisticians,for any given model, there may be other, alternative models with differentpaths among the constructs that provide equivalent goodness of fit to thesample data (MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993). Althoughour final model is consistent with the data, it may capitalize on chanceassociations in the data, and the support found for it does not imply that it isthe only model that fits the data.

Finally, as the participants in the study were students in an educationalenvironment, generalizability to other work settings (especially those low inautonomy) is unknown. However, as the students were in a naturalisticenvironment engaging in activities that have meaning for them (Chen et al.,2000; Phillips & Gully, 1997), the results provide general insight into aspectsof the self-management process. For instance, most work settings require (atleast at times) completing projects that are not personally interesting or fun,engaging in concentrated thought and processing of information (verbal andwritten), and autonomously generating a final product and working towarda deadline. Thus, natural rewards SM may be useful in both educational andwork settings.

Future Research

Because contextual factors, both environmental and task-related, mayinfluence how readily and effectively motivation skills are utilized (Kanfer &Heggestad, 1997), future research should explore the ways that positive self-management operates in other settings. For instance, it would be interestingto study natural rewards strategy use among people in seemingly low-controlpositions (e.g., assembly-line work) or in sales positions, where the rate ofrejection is quite high. Natural rewards SM may be particularly relevant inthese occupations, in that they may help employees to focus on the positiveaspects of the work and, more broadly, to create meaning through how theyperceive their work contributions.

2286 LEE AND TURBAN

Furthermore, other personality variables may serve as approach-orientedcorrelates of positive self-management activity. Proactive personality couldbe associated with this type of self-regulation. We know that it is associatedwith attempts to modify the environment and to take active steps to improvework outcomes (Crant, 1995; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Do proac-tives do so in a way that helps them to enjoy the work process more?

Studies are also needed to examine other mechanisms by which naturalrewards and other positive self-management lead to performance outcomes.For instance, as natural rewards may increase intrinsic motivation, it wouldbe useful to determine to what degree different self-management increasesspecific feelings of meaningfulness, autonomy, competence, and progress:perceptions linked to intrinsic motivation (Thomas, 2000; Thomas & Velt-house, 1990). Similar to job-design approaches to work management (Hack-man & Oldham, 1976), it may be that natural rewards are best suited toimproving work quality, as opposed to work quantity (Glynn, 1994), as somenatural rewards SM may actually increase the amount of time devoted to aspecific task.

Future research should investigate the influence of natural rewards SM onother outcomes besides task performance. For instance, natural rewards mayimprove contextual performance, rather than or in addition to task perfor-mance. Further, since natural rewards SM influences motivation, one mightexpect that it would also be related to greater success in training programs,particularly self-directed programs.

Additional research might investigate how natural rewards SM interactswith external factors to maintain motivation over time. As argued bySansone and Harackiewicz (1996), extrinsic and intrinsic rewards may worktogether to maintain motivation over the long term. For example, goals maybe adopted, or activities started, for extrinsic reasons (e.g., pay), but theinternal experience of completing the task may be important for continuedmotivation over time (Sansone & Smith, 2000). Perhaps the extravertedstudents in this study were initially motivated to engage in class study becausethey desired an extrinsic outcome (i.e., a good grade), and then subsequentlythey used natural rewards SM to generate intrinsic motivation as a means tosustain their effort and concentration throughout the coursework process.

Similarly, in a work setting, an extrinsic reward (e.g., bonus, promotion)may induce an individual to adopt a particular goal, but intrinsic rewards(e.g., interest, enjoyment, sense of meaning, sense of competence) invokedthrough the use of natural rewards may help the individual to persist in thisgoal over time (Sansone & Smith, 2000). Although research is needed totrack individuals over time to examine such processes specifically, this logicis consistent with self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan,Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996), which proposes that individuals will

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2287

internalize (i.e., “own”) extrinsically defined tasks that are related to impor-tant personal values and interests.

Practical Implications

Although personality characteristics are relatively stable for adults, theself-regulatory behaviors associated with them are trainable (Kanfer & Heg-gestad, 1997; Neck & Manz, 1996). People high in neuroticism may benefitfrom natural rewards training (or informal coaching) to help them improvetheir effectiveness in academic or other work settings. In terms of leadershipand supervision, giving people the flexibility to engage in self-managementactivities (i.e., slightly modifying assignments) could benefit both the indi-vidual and the organization by increasing individuals’ motivation. Althoughthe use of natural rewards self-management will not overcome the effects ofpoor working conditions, creating a work setting in which natural rewardscan be effectively practiced should help to enhance work outcomes.

In sum, the results of this study should help to lay the groundwork forfuture exploration of natural rewards and self-regulation processes. Thesestrategies may be a tool that individuals can apply consistently to improvetheir own motivation and performance and to help others whom they super-vise to achieve positive outcomes. Hopefully, future process studies ofnatural rewards will continue to reveal ways in which individuals can draw oninner resources to perform well and enjoy achievement experiences.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling inpractice: A review and recommended two-step approach. PsychologicalBulletin, 103, 411–423.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioralchange. Psychological Review, 2, 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cogni-tive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin &O. P. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 154–196). New York:Guilford.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensionsand job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality andperformance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know

2288 LEE AND TURBAN

and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assess-ment, 9, 9–30.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness andperformance of sales representatives: Test of mediating effects of goalsetting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and jobperformance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among salesrepresentatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examina-tion of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-likeindividual differences, and learning performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 835–847.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm fortrait psychology. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 399–422). New York:Guilford.

Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job per-formance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,532–537.

David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of Big Fivetraits and problem appraisals. Journal of Personality, 67, 265–294.

Dobson, P. (2000). An investigation into the relationship between neuroti-cism, extraversion, and cognitive test performance in selection. Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 99–109.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach andavoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, studystrategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91, 549–563.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation inpersonality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.

Eysenck, M. W., & Morley, S. (1994). Neuroticism, extraversion, work locusof control, and work style. Journal of the Indian Academy of AppliedPsychology, 20, 111–115.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-agecommunity sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Studyof emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2289

Glynn, M. A. (1994). Effects of work task cues and play task cues oninformation processing, judgment, and motivation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79, 34–45.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personalityinventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models.In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personalitypsychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands:Tilburg University Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design ofwork: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,16, 250–279.

Hankin, B. L., Fraley, R. C., & Abela, J. R. (2005). Daily depression andcognitions about stress: Evidence for a traitlike depressogenic cognitivestyle and the prediction of depressive symptoms in a prospective dailydiary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 673–685.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system forfactor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute,Inc.

Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (1996). Prediction of stress appraisalsfrom mastery, extraversion, neuroticism, and general appraisal tenden-cies. Motivation and Emotion, 20, 299–317.

Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. InR. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology(pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Houghton, J. D., Bonham, T. W., Neck, C. P., & Singh, K. (2004). Therelationship between self-leadership and personality: A comparison ofhierarchical factor structures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 427–441.

Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The Revised Self-Leadership Ques-tionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 672–691.

Hoyle, R. H. (2006). Personality and self-regulation: Trait and information-processing perspectives. Journal of Personality, 74, 1508–1525.

International Personality Item Pool. (2002). Retrieved January 10, 2002, fromhttp://ipip.ori.org/newQform50b5.htm

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). TheBig Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career successacross the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performancemotivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,797–807.

2290 LEE AND TURBAN

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). Individual difference in work moti-vation: Further explorations of a trait framework. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 49, 470–482.

Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational skillsand self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Indi-vidual Differences, 8, 185–209.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: Aperson-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 19, 1–56.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1999). Individual differences in motivation:Traits and self-regulatory skills. In P. Ackerman, P. Kyllonen, & R. D.Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 293–313). Wash-ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search andemployment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analyticreview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837–855.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.New York: Guilford.

Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and thegoal-striving process: The influence of achievement goal patterns, goallevel, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 256–265.

Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path,and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizationalbehavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.

Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and man-aging psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16,57–75.

MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993).The problem of equivalent models in application of covariance structureanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185–199.

Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11,585–600.

Martin, M. (1985). Neuroticism as predisposition toward depression: A cog-nitive mechanism. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 353–365.

Martin, M., & Clark, D. M. (1985). Cognitive mediation of depressed moodand neuroticism. IRCS Medical Science: Psychology and Psychiatry, 13,352–353.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and copingeffectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2291

Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching strategies with organizational contexts.Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 57–149.

Morossanova, V. I. (2003). Extraversion and neuroticism: The typical pro-files of self-regulation. European Psychologist, 8, 279–288.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. J. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions:Implications for research and practice in human resources management.Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: The impact ofmental strategies training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 445–467.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empoweringyourself for personal excellence (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, needfor achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-settingprocess. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802.

Podsakoff, R. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of theliterature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,879–903.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitationof intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals arenot created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals andtheir regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychologyof action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 7–26). NewYork: Guilford.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). “I don’t feel like it”: The functionof interest in self-regulation. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Strivingand feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 203–228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sansone, C., & Smith, J. I. (2000). Interest and self-regulation: The relationbetween having to and wanting to. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz(Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivationand performance (pp. 341–372). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring taskalways a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 379–390.

Sansone, C., Wiebe, D. J., & Morgan, C. (1999). Self-regulating interest: Themoderating role of hardiness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personal-ity, 67, 701–733.

2292 LEE AND TURBAN

Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Domains of cognitiveinterference. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.),Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 139–152).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Anxiety, cognitiveinterference, and performance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,5, 1–18.

Schneider, T. R. (2004). The role of neuroticism on psychological and physi-ological stress responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,795–804.

Schwarzer, R. (1996). Thought control of action: Interfering self-doubts. InI. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interfer-ence: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 99–115). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactivepeople do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and careersuccess. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.

Smith, R. E. (1996). Performance, anxiety, cognitive interference, and con-centration enhancement strategies in sports. In I. G. Sarason, G. R.Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods,and findings (pp. 261–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationshipbetween extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 81, 619–627.

Thomas, K. W. (2000). Motivation at work: Building energy and commitment.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empow-erment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy ofManagement Review, 15, 666–681.

Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality andvocational behavior: A selective review of the literature, 1993–1997.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115–153.

Turban, D. B., Tan, H. H., Brown, K. G., & Sheldon, K. M. (2007). Ante-cedents and outcomes of perceived locus of causality: An application ofself-determination theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2376–2404.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. (2000). Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory: A viewfrom the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psycho-logical Inquiry, 11, 312–318.

NATURAL REWARDS SELF-MANAGEMENT 2293

Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (1997). Neuroticism and the attentionalmediation of dysregulatory psychopathology. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 21, 135–156.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotionalcore. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of person-ality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1993). Turning work into play: Implicationsfor microcomputer software training. Journal of Management, 19, 127–146.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioningemployers as active crafters of their work. Academy of ManagementReview, 26, 179–201.

2294 LEE AND TURBAN