The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for...

Journal ofManagerialPsychology178

672

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol 17 No 8 2002 pp 672-691 MCB UP Limited 0268-3946DOI 10110802683940210450484

Received July 2001Revised May 2002Accepted July 2002

The revised self-leadershipquestionnaire

Testing a hierarchical factor structurefor self-leadership

Jeffery D HoughtonDepartment of Management Lipscomb University Nashville

Tennessee USA and

Christopher P NeckDepartment of Management Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University Blacksburg Virginia USA

Keywords Leadership Measurement Self-efficiency Factor analysis Models

Abstract Despite the popularity and potential of self-leadership strategies in modernorganizations no acceptably valid and reliable self-leadership assessment scale has heretoforebeen developed The present study tests the reliability and construct validity of a revised self-leadership measurement scale created on the basis of existing measures of self-leadership Resultsfrom an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) demonstrate significantly better reliability and factorstability for the revised scale in comparison to existing instruments Further results from aconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing structural equation modeling techniquesdemonstrate superior fit for a higher order factor model of self-leadership thus providingevidence that the revised scale is measuring self-leadership in a way that is harmonious with self-leadership theory Based on these results the revised scale appears to be a reasonably reliable andvalid instrument for the measurement of self-leadership skills behaviors and cognitionsImplications for future empirical self-leadership research are discussed

Self-leadership (Manz 1983 1986 1992 Manz and Neck 1999 Manz and Sims2001) is a process through which people influence themselves to achieve theself-direction and self-motivation necessary to behave and perform in desirableways Self-leadership is rooted in several related theories of self-influenceincluding self-regulation (Kanfer 1970 Carver and Scheier 1981) self-control(Cautela 1969 Mahoney and Arnkoff 1978 1979 Thoresen and Mahoney1974) and self-management (Andrasik and Heimberg 1982 Luthans andDavis 1979 Manz and Sims 1980) Self-leadership is generally portrayed as abroader concept of self-influence that subsumes the behavior-focused strategiesof self-regulation self-control and self-management and then specifiesadditional sets of cognitive-oriented strategies derived from intrinsicmotivation theories (eg Deci 1975 Deci and Ryan 1985) social cognitivetheory (Bandura 1977 1986 1991) and positive cognitive psychology (Beck etal 1979 Burns 1980 Ellis 1977 Seligman 1991) Thus drawing from thesewell-established theoretical foundations self-leadership comprises specific sets

The research register for this journal is available at

httpwwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregisters

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

httpwwwemeraldinsightcom0268-3946htm

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association New OrleansLouisiana USA

Revised self-leadership

questionnaire

673

of behavioral and cognitive strategies designed to shape individualperformance outcomes

Self-leadership strategies may be divided into three general categoriesbehavior-focused strategies natural reward strategies and constructivethought pattern strategies (Anderson and Prussia 1997 Manz and Neck 1999Prussia et al 1998) Behavior-focused strategies are aimed at increasing self-awareness leading to the management of behaviors involving necessary butperhaps unpleasant tasks (Manz 1992 Manz and Neck 1999) These strategiesinclude self-observation self-goal setting self-reward self-correcting feedbackand practice Self-observation of onersquos own behavior can lead to an awarenessof when and why one engages in certain behaviors This heightening of self-awareness can in turn lead to the identification of specific behaviors thatshould be changed enhanced or eliminated (Mahoney and Arnkoff 1978 1979Manz and Sims 1980 Manz and Neck 1999) Based on this foundation of self-assessment the individual can effectively set personal goals that may lead toimproved performance (Manz 1986 Manz and Neck 1999 Manz and Sims1980) A multitude of research has shown that the act of setting and acceptingchallenging and specific goals can have a dramatic effect in motivatingindividual performance (Locke and Latham 1990) In addition self-rewards canbe effectively used to reinforce desirable behaviors and goal attainments(Mahoney and Arnkoff 1978 1979 Manz and Sims 1980 Manz and Neck1999) Self-rewards can be something tangible like a nice restaurant meal or aweekend vacation following the completion of a difficult project at work orself-rewards can be something abstract and simple such as congratulatingoneself or mentally visualizing a favorite place or experience Like self-rewardsself-correcting feedback can also be used to shape desirable behaviorseffectively An introspective yet positively framed examination of negativebehaviors or performance failures can be more effective in correctingperformance than excessive self-punishment based on habitual guilt and self-criticism (Manz and Sims 2001) Finally the rehearsal or practice of desiredbehaviors before actual performance can allow for the correction of problemsand the avoidance of costly miscues (Manz 1992 Manz and Neck 1999 Manzand Sims 1980 Thoresen and Mahoney 1974) In short behavior-focused self-leadership strategies are designed to encourage positive desirable behaviorsthat lead to successful outcomes while suppressing negative undesirablebehaviors that lead to unsuccessful outcomes

Natural reward strategies emphasize the enjoyable aspects of a given task oractivity Natural or intrinsic rewards result when incentives are built into thetask itself and a person is motivated or rewarded by the task itself (Manz 1992Manz and Neck 1999) Naturally rewarding activities tend to foster feelings ofincreased competence self-control and purpose (Manz 1986 Manz and Neck1999) Natural reward strategies include efforts to incorporate more pleasantand enjoyable features into a given task or activity and efforts to changeperceptions of an activity by focusing on the taskrsquos inherently rewardingaspects (Manz and Neck 1999) For instance a person might attempt to create a


674

more enjoyable work environment by playing soft music hanging pictures oradding other personal touches Alternatively a person could shift attentiontoward job features that they particularly enjoy such as working outdoors orengaging customers in conversation Through natural reward strategies suchas these an individual can increase performance levels by focusing on thepleasant aspects of the job or task

Constructive thought pattern strategies involve the creation and maintenanceof functional patterns of habitual thinking (Manz and Neck 1991 1999 Neckand Manz 1992 1996) Specific thought-oriented strategies include theevaluation and challenging of irrational beliefs and assumptions mentalimagery of successful future performance and positive self-talk Dysfunctionalthought processes a common and serious hindrance to individual performancegenerally result from underlying dysfunctional beliefs and assumptions thatare often triggered by stressful or troubling situations (Burns 1980 Ellis 1977)Through a process of self-analysis individuals may identify confront andreplace dysfunctional beliefs and assumptions with more rational ones (Burns1980 Ellis 1977 Manz and Neck 1999 Neck and Manz 1992) In a similarmanner negative and destructive self-talk should be replaced by more positiveand constructive self-dialogues Self-talk is defined as what we covertly tellourselves (Ellis 1962 Neck and Manz 1992 1996) Self-dialogues usually takeplace at unobservable levels as individuals evaluate instruct and mentallyreact to themselves (Ellis 1962 1977 Manz and Neck 1991 Neck and Manz1992) Through an analysis and evaluation of self-talk patterns an individualcan learn to suppress and discourage negative and pessimistic self-talk whilefostering and encouraging optimistic self-dialogues (Seligman 1991)

Finally mental imagery is generally defined as the symbolic covert mentalinvention or rehearsal of an experience or task in the absence of actual overtphysical muscular movement (see Driskell et al 1994 Finke 1989) Throughthe use of mental imagery it may be possible to create and symbolicallyexperience behavioral outcomes prior to actual performance (Manz and Neck1991 Neck and Manz 1992 1996) This technique has also been variouslyreferred to as imaginary practice (Perry 1939) covert rehearsal (Corbin 1967)symbolic rehearsal (Sackett 1934) and mental practice (Corbin 1972) Thoseindividuals who envision the successful performance of a task or activitybeforehand are much more likely to perform successfully when faced with theactual situation (Manz and Neck 1999) Empirical research evidence providessupport for this assertion Indeed a recent meta-analysis of 35 empirical studies(Driskell et al 1994) suggests that mental practice generally has both apositive and significant effect on individual performance outcomes

In recent years self-leadership concepts have gained considerablepopularity as evidenced by the large number of practitioner-oriented books andarticles on the subject (eg Blanchard 1995 Cashman 1995 Manz 1991 Manzand Neck 1999 Manz and Sims 2001 Sims and Manz 1996 Waitley 1995) andby coverage in an increasing number of management and leadership textbooks(eg Ivancevich and Matteson 1999 Kreitner and Kinicki 2001 McShane and


questionnaire

675

Von Glinow 2000 Nahavandi 2000) Given the popularity of self-leadershipconcepts and the recent emphasis on employee empowerment (eg Conger andKanungo 1988 Thomas and Velthouse 1990) and self-managing work teams(eg Cohen and Ledford 1994 Hackman 1986) self-leadership appears to haveimpressive potential for application in todayrsquos dynamic organizations Indeedself-leadership has often been presented as a primary mechanism in bothempowerment (eg Anderson and Prussia 1997 Manz 1992 Prussia et al1998 Shipper and Manz 1992) and the successful implementation of self-managing work teams (eg Neck et al 1996 Manz and Sims 1986 1987)

While a plethora of conceptual (non-empirical) self-leadership researchexists a sparse amount of empirical research has examined self-leadershiptheory and its application in organizational settings (Anderson and Prussia1997) One possible explanation for this lack of empirical research is that novalid scale of self-leadership has heretofore been developed The lack of aproven scale for the assessment of self-leadership skills makes it difficult toadvance empirical research in this promising area Until self-leadership and itscomponent dimensions can be effectively measured empirical research effortsin the area of self-leadership will remain scarce Indeed Markham andMarkham (1995 1998) in offering an agenda for future self-leadership researchcall for the construction and validation of self-leadership scales

Self-leadership measurementWhile no psychometrically-sound self-leadership measurement scale haspreviously been developed two noteworthy preliminary attempts have beenmade to develop a self-leadership questionnaire (SLQ) Both of these effortsutilized a prototype created by Manz and Sims and rooted in the self-leadershipliterature (Manz 1986 1992 Manz and Sims 1987 1991) as a basis for thedevelopment of a more advanced instrument Cox (1993) developed andassessed a 34-item SLQ Unrestricted factor analysis led to an eight-factorsolution with factors labeled as self-problem solving initiative efficacyteamwork self-reward self-goal setting natural rewards opportunity thoughtand self-observationevaluation Alpha coefficients (Cronbach 1951) for theCox (1993) SLQ sub-scales ranged from 069 to 093 Mean James coefficients(assessing interrater consensus James et al 1984) of 082 or better wereobtained for all eight SLQ behavior dimensions Based on these assessmentsCoxrsquos (1993) SLQ has shown some preliminary potential as a self-leadershipassessment scale Indeed Roberts and Foti (1998) recently employed the Coxscale as a measure of self-leadership in a field study They reported a coefficientalpha of 091 for the Cox SLQ thus providing additional preliminary evidenceof the scalersquos psychometric properties

More recently Anderson and Prussia (1997) have presented an alternativepreliminary effort toward thedevelopmentofa self-leadership scale In thisstudya 90-item SLQ prototype based on earlier work by Manz (1992) and Manz andSims (1991) was reduced to 50 items through a sorting process that assessed theagreement of 18 category judges The 50-item SLQ was then administered to a


676

sample of 194 students Factor analysis of the resulting data yielded ten uniquefactors Six factors (self-goal setting self-reward self-punishment self-observation self-cueing and self-withholding) assess self-leadershiprsquos behaviorfocused strategies one factor (focusing thoughts on natural rewards) representsself-leadershiprsquos natural reward strategies and three factors (visualizingsuccessful performance self-talk and evaluating beliefs and assumption)evaluate self-leadershiprsquos constructive thought pattern strategies Alphacoefficients (Cronbach 1951) ranged from 069 to 091 for each of the ten scalesub-dimensions However several items loaded on the wrong factor andordemonstrated minimally acceptable factor loadings (greater than 030) on morethanone factorTheAndersonandPrussia (1997) SLQ was then administered toasecond sample to further assess the construct validity of the scale In the secondadministration one sub-scale (ie focusing thoughtson natural rewards)droppedbelow Nunnallyrsquos (1978) recommended scale reliability threshold of 070 to analpha of 062 thus indicating significant instability across samples for thisdimensionof theSLQfactor structure (AndersonandPrussia 1997)Anothersub-scale (ie self-observation) was marginalwithan alphaof 070While the efforts ofCox (1993) and Anderson and Prussia (1997) represent significant and valuableprogress in the development of a valid self-leadership scale these efforts areclearly preliminary Further development of a psychometrically acceptable self-leadership scale is a pressing concern in the advancement of self-leadershipresearch

The purpose of the present study is to test the construct validity of a revisedself-leadership measurement scale created on the basis of the two existingmeasures of self-leadership (ie Anderson and Prussia 1997 Cox 1993) In shortexploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to examine to the factor structure ofthe revised scale and to facilitate comparisons with existing measures of self-leadership while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing structural equationmodeling techniques was used to examine the extent to which the revised scalefit a hierarchical model of self-leadership as specified by self-leadership theory

MethodSample and procedureThe data were collected from two independent samples of students in twointroductory management courses at a large southeastern university in theUSA (Sample 1 n = 477 Sample 2 n = 381 60 percent male 40 percent femalemean age = 2112 across both samples) Listwise deletion for missing dataresulted in final sample sizes of 442 and 357 for Samples 1 and 2 respectivelyAs part of a class lecture on individual differences students completed therevised self-leadership instrument The questionnaires were completedanonymously and participation was voluntary

InstrumentationSelf-leadership was measured using the revised self-leadership questionnaire(RSLQ) The RSLQ (shown in the Appendix) consists of 35 items in nine


questionnaire

677

distinct sub-scales representing the three primary self-leadership dimensionsTable I provides a summary of the relationships between the nine RSLQ sub-scales and the three self-leadership dimensions The behavior-focuseddimension is represented by five sub-scales labeled

(1) self-goal setting (five items)

(2) self-reward (three items)

(3) self-punishment (four items)

(4) self-observation (four items) and

(5) self-cueing (two items)

A single sub-scale consisting of five items represents the natural rewardsdimension The constructive thought dimension is represented by three sub-scales labeled

(1) visualizing successful performance (five items)

(2) self-talk (three items) and

(3) evaluating beliefs and assumptions (four items)

The RSLQ was developed by building on the previous versions of self-leadership questionnaires (eg Anderson and Prussia 1997 Cox 1993)described above Anderson and Prussiarsquos (1997) 50-item SLQ served as theprimary basis for the RSLQ To create the RSLQ 17 ambiguous items weredeleted from the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale and two items were addedfrom the Cox (1993) instrument Specifically items with primary loadings on anincorrect factor (ie loading on a dimension the item was not intended torepresent) items with low primary factor loadings on the correct factor andoritems with high cross-factor loadings (ie high secondary loadings on anincorrect factor) were dropped from the scale For example the item ` I try tobuild activities into my work that I like doingrsquorsquo was intended to assess the` focusing on natural rewardsrsquorsquo dimension However in an earlier EFA this itemdemonstrated a primary loading of 059 on the ` visualizing successful

Dimensions Sub-scales Scale itemsFactornumber

Behavior-focused Self-goal setting 2 11 20 28 34 2strategies Self-reward 4 13 22 4

Self-punishment 6 15 24 30 6Self-observation 7 16 25 31 7Self-cueing 9 18 9

Natural rewardstrategies

Focusing thoughts on naturalrewards 8 17 26 32 35 8

Constructive thought Visualizing successful performance 1 10 19 27 33 1pattern strategies Self-talk 3 12 21 3

Evaluating beliefs and assumptions 5 14 23 29 5Table I

RSLQ sub-scales


678

performancersquorsquo factor while showing a secondary loading of 036 on the` focusing on natural rewardsrsquorsquo factor (Anderson and Prussia 1997) Clearly thisitem is loading on the wrong factor Ambiguous items such as this were deletedfrom the revised scale Further the two items comprising the ` self-withholdingrsquorsquofactor were dropped from the revised scale This dimension does not appear toeffectively represent self-leadership theory Indeed the idea of ` self-withholdingrsquorsquo is not a primary concept within self-leadership (see Manz andNeck 1999)

In addition five items from the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale werereworded to better reflect self-leadership theory For instance the phrase ` Ioften physically rehearse rsquorsquo was changed to ` I often mentally rehearse rsquorsquo tobetter reflect the ` visualizing successful performancersquorsquo dimension Along thesame lines the wording of the three items representing the ` self-talkrsquorsquodimension was changed from ` talk out loud to myselfrsquorsquo to ` talk to myself (outloud or in my head)rsquorsquo to better reflect self-leadershiprsquos conceptualization ofinternalized self-talk Finally two items from the Cox (1993) scale were addedto represent the ` focusing thoughts on natural rewardsrsquorsquo dimension in an effortto increase the reliability of this sub-scale As mentioned above this sub-scaleshowed the poorest reliability estimates (not = 069 and 062) of any of thedimensions in the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scale

AnalysisThe data were analyzed in two primary stages First in order to make a fairand consistent comparison between the psychometric properties of the RSLQand the Anderson and Prussia (1997) SLQ an exploratory factor analysis(EFA) with principle components extraction and varimax rotation was appliedto the data from Sample 1 Consistent with Anderson and Prussia (1997) acritical value of 035 was chosen as the cut-off point in determining whether anitem defined a factor In addition the ` eigenvalue greater than one testrsquorsquo and thescree test were used to define factors (Gorsuch 1974) Second in an effort toexamine the extent to which the RSLQ effectively represents self-leadershiptheory a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model of self-leadership (see Figure 1) was tested on the data from Sample 2 through ananalysis of covariance structures using LISREL 8 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993)Established item-parceling procedures (eg Collins and Gleaves 1998) wereutilized to create composite indicators Items in each of the sub-scales weresummed and averaged to create five composite indicators for the behavior-focused dimension and three composite indicators for the constructive thoughtdimension Three single items served as indicators for the natural rewarddimension

In order to assess the relative fit of the theoretically-based hierarchical modelof self-leadership (Figure 1) a one-factor model (ie all indicators loading on asingle factor see Figure 2) and a three uncorrelated factors model (see Figure 3)were tested for comparison In accordance with the recommendations of Hoyleand Panter (1995) the following fit indexes were used to assess the fit of the


questionnaire

679

three models Chi-square (Agrave2 eg Bollen 1989a) the goodness-of-fit-index (GFIJoreskog and Sorbom 1981) the non-normed fit index (NNFI Bentler andBonnett 1980) the incremental fit index (IFI Bollen 1989b) and thecomparative fit index (CFI Bentler 1990) The use of multiple fit indexes isgenerally advisable in order to provide convergent evidence of model fit Thevalues of GFI NNFI IFI and CFI range from 0 to 10 with values closer to 10indicating a well-fitting model (Bentler and Bonnett 1980 Hoyle and Panter1995)

ResultsExploratory factor analysis Sample 1Based on this sample the RSLQ demonstrated significantly better reliabilityand factor stability in comparison to the Anderson and Prussia (1997)instrument Coefficient alphas for each of the nine RSLQ sub-scales are shownin Table II For comparison purposes coefficient alphas from the Anderson andPrussia (1997) instrument are also shown in parentheses As demonstrated inthe table alphas for the RSLQ either remained relatively unchanged or showed

Figure 1Second order factor

model of self-leadershipand its primary

dimensions withstandardized parameterestimates (all parameter

loadings weresignificant at the not =

005 level)


680

significant increases in comparison to the Anderson and Prussia (1997) scaleFor instance the alpha for the self-observation sub-scale (Factor 7) increasedfrom 073 to 082 while the alpha for the self-talk sub-scale (Factor 3) raisedfrom 084 to 092 These results indicate greater reliability of measurement forthe RSLQ as compared to the Anderson and Prussia (1997) SLQ

In addition EFA results indicated an impressively stable factor structure forthe RSLQ as shown in Table II As anticipated the ` eigenvalues greater thanonersquorsquo test and the scree test (Gorsuch 1974) indicated nine interpretable factorsFurthermore all factor loadings exceeded 035 and all items loadedunambiguously on the correct factors with virtually no cross-factor loadingsgreater than 035 Finally the factor structure of the RSLQ boasted unusuallyhigh factor loadings many in excess of 070

Confirmatory factor analysis Sample 2Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among indicator variables arepresented in Table III Reliability estimates for the nine sub-scales remained

Figure 2One-factor model of self-leadership withstandardized parameterestimates (all parameterloadings weresignificant at thenot = 005 level)


questionnaire

681

fairly stable in Sample 2 relative to the reliability estimates reported forSample 1 demonstrating only negligible fluctuations across the two samplesFit indexes for the covariance structure models tested are shown in Table IVThe standardized solutions for the three models tested are shown in Figures 1-3with measurement error effects omitted for clarity As anticipated the secondorder factor model fit the data fairly well (Agrave2 [41 N = 357] = 12849 GFI = 094NNFI = 088 IFI = 091 CFI = 091) demonstrating the best fit of the threemodels tested By way of comparison the one-factor model demonstratedsignificantly worse fit (Agrave2 [44 N = 357] = 19167 GFI = 091 NNFI = 081IFI = 085 CFI = 085) than the hierarchical model while the three uncorrelatedfactors model proved to be the worst fitting model (Agrave2 [44 N = 357] = 42768GFI = 082 NNFI = 050 IFI = 061 CFI = 060) In addition Agrave2 difference tests(Anderson and Gerbing 1988 Bollen 1989a) indicated statistically significantAgrave2 differences between each of the three models Accordingly the second orderfactor model (Figure 1) was retained as the best fitting model In harmony withself-leadership theory this model suggests that the behavior focused natural

Figure 3Three uncorrelated

factors model of self-leadership (all parameter

loadings weresignificant at the

not = 005 level


682

Factor loadings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Factor 1 visualizing successful performance (scale not = 085 (085))1 I use my imagination to picture

myself performing well onimportant tasks 0763

10 I visualize myself successfullyperforming a task before I do it 0815

19 Sometimes I picture in my mind asuccessful performance before Iactually do a task 0814

27 I purposefully visualize myselfovercoming the challenges I face 0686

33 I often mentally rehearse the wayI plan to deal with a challengebefore I actually face the challenge 0512

Factor 2 self-goal setting (scale not = 084 (085))2 I establish specific goals for my own

performance 073711 I consciously have goals in mind for my

work efforts 069020 I work toward specific goals I have

set for myself 076728 I think about the goals that I intend

to achieve in the future 066734 I write specific goals for my own

performance 0567

Factor 3 self-talk (scale not = 092 (084))3 Sometimes I find Irsquom talking to myself

(out loud or in my head) to help me dealwith difficult problems I face 0907

12 Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud orin my head) to work through difficultsituations 0909

21 When Irsquom in difficult situations I willsometimes talk to myself (out loud or inmy head) to help me get through it 0853

Factor 4 self-reward (scale not = 093 (091))4 When I do an assignment especially well

I like to treat myself to some thing oractivity I especially enjoy 0908

13 When I do something well I rewardmyself with a special event such as agood dinner movie shopping trip etc 0908

22 When I have successfully completed atask I often reward myself withsomething I like 0909

Factor 5 evaluating beliefs and assumptions (scale not = 078 (079))5 I think about my own beliefs and

assumptions whenever I encounter adifficult situation 0790

(continued)

Table IIFactor structure of theRSLQ (sample 1 data)


questionnaire

683


14 I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy ofmy own beliefs about situations I amhaving problems with 0757

23 I openly articulate and evaluate my ownassumptions when I have a disagreementwith someone else 0618

29 I think about and evaluate the beliefsand assumptions I hold 0650

Factor 6 self-punishment (scale not = 086 (075))6 I tend to get down on myself in my mind

when I have performed poorly 083915 I tend to be tough on myself in my

thinking when I have not done well on atask 0857

24 I feel guilt when I perform and taskpoorly 0791

30 I sometimes openly express displeasurewith myself when I have not done well 0783

Factor 7 self-observation (scale not = 082 (073))7 I make a point to keep track of how well

Irsquom doing at work (school) 076116 I usually am aware of how well Irsquom

doing as I perform an activity 069825 I pay attention to how well I am doing in

my work 066331 I keep track of my progress on projects

Irsquom working on 0541

Factor 8 focusing on natural rewards (scale not = 074 (069))8 I focus my thinking on the pleasant

rather than the unpleasant aspects of myjob (school) activities 0490

17 I try to surround myself with the objectsand people that bring out my desirablebehaviors 0376

26 When I have a choice I try to do mywork in ways that I enjoy rather thanjust trying to get it over with 0765

32 I seek out activities in my work that Ienjoy doing 0711

35 I find my own favorite way to get thingsdone 0727

Factor 9 self-cueing (scale not = 091 (082))9 I use written notes to remind myself of

what I need to accomplish 091918 I use concrete reminders (eg notes and

lists) to help me focus on the things Ineed to accomplish 0897

Notes N = 442 Extraction method principal component analysis Rotation methodVARIMAX with Kaiser normalization Coefficient alphas (not) from the Anderson and Prussia(1997) scale are shown in parentheses for comparison

Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)

Table IIIMeans standarddeviations andintercorrelations amongindicator variables(sample 2 data)


questionnaire

685

rewards and constructive thought factors have a higher order factor namelyself-leadership

DiscussionThe results of this study provide support for the validity and reliability of theRSLQ as an acceptable measure of self-leadership skills and behaviorsReliability estimates for the RSLQ improved significantly or remainedrelatively stable in comparison to Anderson and Prussiarsquos (1997) SLQ Mostnotably the scale reliability estimate for the ` focusing on natural rewardsrsquorsquodimension of the RSLQ increased above the commonly recommended level(070) to a coefficient alpha of 074 a significant improvement over thereliability estimates (069 and 062) reported by Anderson and Prussia (1997) Inaddition EFA results suggest a remarkably stable factor structure for theRSLQ As expected nine interpretable factors emerged representing distinctself-leadership dimensions as specified by self-leadership theory Behavior-focused strategies were represented by five factors natural reward strategieswere represented by one factor and the constructive thought pattern strategieswere represented by three factors The RSLQ items loaded strongly on thecorrect factors with virtually no significant cross-factor loadings

The construct validity of the RSLQ was further examined through a CFAthat examined the fit of a theoretically-based hierarchical model of self-leadership to the data from a separate large sample The superior fit of thissecond order factor model over competing one-factor and three-factor modelssuggests that the RSLQ is measuring self-leadership in a way that isharmonious with the specifications of self-leadership theory thus providingadditional evidence of the RSLQrsquos construct validity Based on the results ofboth the EFA and CFA it appears that the RSLQ is a fairly reliable and validmeasurement instrument that effectively reflects self-leadership theory in theassessment of self-leadership skills behaviors and cognitions

This study contributes to the self-leadership literature in at least threeimportant ways First the RSLQ a revised self-leadership measurement scalewas presented and described Second evidence of the reliability and constructvalidity of the revised scale was demonstrated across two large independentsamples using EFA and CFA techniques Third a theory-based hierarchicalmodel of self-leadership was examined empirically for the first time The resultsof this study provide support for this model of self-leadership and for the RSLQ

Model Agrave2 df GFI NNFI IFI CFI Agrave2 difference df

1 Second order factor 12849 41 094 088 091 0912 One-factor 19167 44 091 081 085 085

Model 1-2 difference 6318 33 Three-factors 42768 44 082 050 060 061

Model 1-3 difference 29919 34 Null 10199 55

Table IVFit indexes for

covariance structureanalyses


686

as an effective instrument for the measurement of self-leadership and itsdimensions By empirically confirming the generally accepted theoretical modelof self-leadership and by providing a psychometrically sound instrument forthe measurement of self-leadership the results of this study could beinstrumental in the advancement of future empirical self-leadership research

Despite its significant contributions the present study has at least threeimportant limitations First both of the samples consisted of undergraduatestudents which could affect the generalizability of these results Howeverbecause the primary focus of the present study is the examination andmeasurement skills behaviors and psychological concepts this sample ofundergraduates though convenient seems as appropriate as any other largesample at this preliminary stage Nevertheless future research shoulddetermine whether the results found here generalize to other samples ofinterest Second while the current study assessed the RSLQrsquos stability acrosstwo large samples scale stability could also have been effectively tested acrosstime through an examination of test-retest reliability Ideally a subset of one ofthe large samples would have completed the entire scale a second time to assessthe reliability of measurement across the two administrations In the currentstudy however data collection constraints prohibited a second administrationof the scale Future research should examine the test-retest stability of theRSLQ to more completely examine the scalersquos reliability Third although thisstudy generally assessed the construct validity of the RSLQ it did notspecifically examine the scalersquos convergent and discriminant validityConvergent validity suggests that scores on a given scale designed to measurea certain construct should correlate with scores on another instrument designedto measure the same construct while discriminant validity suggests that scoreson the given scale should be uncorrelated with scores on scales that are notdesigned to measure the said construct

Future research should attempt to assess both the convergent anddiscriminant validity of the RSLQ For example because they have onlytwo items in common the RSLQ could easily be compared to the Cox (1993)self-leadership scale for convergence Alternatively for a partial assessment ofconvergent validity the RSLQ could be compared to the lifestyle approaches(LSA) a well-established 16-item measure of self-management developed byWilliams et al (1992) Specifically LSA items could be assessed forconvergence with the behavior-focused items on the RSLQ because these itemsare intended to assess self-management skills The discriminant validity of theRSLQ could be examined by comparing RSLQ results to the results from ascale designed to measure a similar but theoretically distinct construct such asthe personality construct of conscientiousness In following these suggestionsfuture researchers will be able to more thoroughly examine both the reliabilityand construct validity of the RSLQ thus overcoming some of the limitations ofthe present study Messick (1995) stresses the importance of such furtherexaminations suggesting that construct validation requires an accumulation ofevidence and cannot be accomplished in a single study


questionnaire

687

Ultimately the results reported here support the use of the RSLQ as arelatively effective and psychometrically sound measure of self-leadership thathas the potential to facilitate new and exciting empirical research in the self-leadership domain In short the existence of a validated scale can enhance theefficacy of self-leadership as an organizational intervention an importantimplication for practicing managers For managers and theorists alike agreater understanding of ` whyrsquorsquo and ` howrsquorsquo self-leadership traininginterventions impact various dependent variables could be achieved if theRSLQ were administered before and after the intervention Self-leadershiptraining interventions currently found in the literature (eg Neck and Manz1996) show that self-leadership enhances various outcomes but can at bestonly partially explain ` whyrsquorsquo or ` howrsquorsquo the interventions impacted the selecteddependent variables One reason for this is that no validated self-leadershipinstrument existed at the time these interventions were carried out and hencethe researchers could only measure outcome-related variables as opposed to` processrsquorsquo variables Thus by using the RSLQ in future self-leadershipinterventions researchers will be able to ask questions that they could not haveasked in the past such as `Was the impact of the training on performanceaccompanied by increases in the practice of self-leadership behaviors by thetraineesrsquorsquo In conclusion the RSLQ presented and validated in this study couldpotentially serve as the catalyst for training interventions and other empiricalresearch endeavors that may highlight the importance of self-leadership skillsin twenty-first century organizations characterized by new decentralizedstructures and a greater reliance on individual initiative

References

Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) ` Structural equation modeling in practice A review andrecommended two-step approachrsquorsquo Psychological Bulletin Vol 103 pp 411-23

Anderson JS and Prussia GE (1997) ` The self-leadership questionnaire Preliminaryassessmentof construct validityrsquorsquo The Journal of Leadership Studies Vol 4 pp 119-43

Andrasik F and Heimberg JS (1982) ` Self-management proceduresrsquorsquo in FrederiksonLW (Ed)Handbook of Organizational Behavior Management Wiley New York NY pp 219-47

Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action A Social Cognitive TheoryPrentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Bandura A (1991) ` Social cognitive theory of self-regulationrsquorsquo Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes Vol 50 pp 248-87

Beck AT Rush AJ Shaw BF and Emery G (1979) Cognitive Theory of Depression GuilfordPress New York NY

Bentler PM (1990) ` Comparative fit indices in structural modelsrsquorsquo Psychological BulletinVol 107 pp 238-46

Bentler PM and Bonnett DG (1980) ` Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis ofcovariance structuresrsquorsquo Psychological Bulletin Vol 88 pp 588-606

Blanchard K (1995) ` Points of power can help self leadershiprsquorsquo Manage Vol 46 No 3 p 12

Bollen KA (1989a) Structural Equations with Latent Variables Wiley New York NY


688

Bollen KA (1989b) `A new incremental fit index for general structural equation modelsrsquorsquoSociological Methods and Research Vol 17 pp 303-16

Burns DD (1980) Feeling Good The New Mood Therapy William Morrow New York NY

Carver CS and Scheier MF (1981) Attention and Self-regulation A Control Theory Approachto Human Behavior Springer-Verlag New York NY

Cashman K (1995) `Mastery from the inside outrsquorsquo Executive Excellence Vol 12 No 12 p 17

Cautela JR (1969) ` Behavior therapy and self-control techniques and applicationsrsquorsquo inFranks CM (Ed) Behavioral Therapy Appraisal and Status McGraw-Hill New YorkNY pp 323-40

Cohen SG and Ledford GE Jr (1994) ` The effectiveness of self-managing teams a quasi-experimentrsquorsquo Human Relations Vol 47 pp 13-43

Collins JM and Gleaves DH (1998) ` Race job applicants and the five-factor model ofpersonality implications for black psychology industrialorganizational psychology andthe five-factor theoryrsquorsquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 83 pp 531-44

Conger J and Kanungo R (1988) ` The empowerment process integrating theory and practicersquorsquoThe Academy of Management Review Vol 13 pp 639-52

Corbin CB (1967) ` Effects of mental practice on skill development after controlled practicersquorsquoResearch Quarterly Vol 38 pp 534-8

Corbin CB (1972) `Mental practicersquorsquo in Morgan WP (Ed) Ergogenic Aids and MuscularPerformance Academic Press San Diego CA pp 93-118

Cox JF (1993) ` The effects of superleadership training on leader behavior subordinate self-leadership behavior and subordinate citizenshiprsquorsquo unpublished doctoral dissertationUniversity of Maryland College Park MD

Cronbach LJ (1951) ` Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of testsrsquorsquo PsychometrikaVol 16 pp 297-334

Deci EL (1975) Intrinsic Motivation Plenum New York NY

Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human BehaviorPlenum New York NY

Driskell JE Copper C and Moran A (1994) ` Does mental practice enhance performancersquorsquoJournal of Applied Psychology Vol 79 pp 481-92

Ellis A (1962) Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy Lyle Stuart New York NY

Ellis A (1977) The Basic Clinical Theory of Rational-Emotive Therapy Springer New York NY

Finke RA (1989) Principles of Mental Imagery MIT Press Cambridge MA

Gorsuch R (1974) Factor Analysis SaundersPhiladelphia PA

Hackman JR (1986) ` The psychology of self-management in organizationsrsquorsquo in Pollack MSand Perlogg RO (Eds) Psychology and Work Productivity Change and EmploymentAmerican Psychological Association Washington DC pp 85-136

Hoyle RH and Panter AT (1995) `Writing about structural equation modelsrsquorsquo in Hoyle RH(Ed) Structural Equation Modeling Concepts Issues and Applications Sage ThousandOaks CA pp 158-76

Ivancevich JM and Matteson MT (1999) Organizational Behavior and Management 5th edIrwinMcGraw-Hill Boston MA

James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G (1984) ` Estimating within-group interrater reliabilitywith and without responsebiasrsquorsquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 69 pp 85-98

Joreskog K and Sorbom D (1981) LISREL V Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by theMethod of Maximum Likelihood National Educational Resources Chicago IL


questionnaire

689

Joreskog K and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL 8 Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLISCommand Language Erlbaum Hillsdale NJ

Kanfer FH (1970) ` Self-regulation research issues and speculationsrsquorsquo in Neuringer C andMichael JL (Eds) Behavioral Modification in Clinical Psychology Appleton-Century-Crofts New York NY pp 178-220

Kreitner R and Kinicki A (2001) Organizational Behavior 5th ed IrwinMcGraw-HillBoston MA

Locke EA and Latham GP (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Luthans F and Davis T (1979) `Behavioral self-management (BSM) the missing link inmanagerial effectivenessrsquorsquo Organizational Dynamics Vol 8 pp 42-60

McShane SL and Von Glinow MJ (2000) Organizational Behavior IrwinMcGraw-HillBoston MA

Mahoney MJ and Arnkoff DB (1978) ` Cognitive and self-control therapiesrsquorsquo in Garfield SLand Borgin AE (Eds) Handbook of Psychotherapy and Therapy Change Wiley NewYork NY pp 689-722

Mahoney MJ and Arnkoff DB (1979) ` Self-management theory research and applicationrsquorsquo inBrady JP and Pomerleau D (Eds) Behavioral Medicine Theory and Practice Williamsand Williams Baltimore MD pp 75-96

Manz CC (1983) The Art of Self-leadership Strategies for Personal Effectiveness in your Lifeand Work Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Manz CC (1986) ` Self-leadership toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes inorganizationsrsquorsquo Academy of Management Review Vol 11 pp 585-600

Manz CC (1991) `Developing self-leaders through SuperLeadershiprsquorsquo Supervisory ManagementVol 36 No 9 p 3

Manz CC (1992) Mastering Self-leadership Empowering Yourself for Personal ExcellencePrentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Manz CC and Neck CP (1991) ` Inner leadership creating productive thought patternsrsquorsquo TheExecutive Vol 5 pp 87-95

Manz CC and Neck CP (1999) Mastering Self-leadership Empowering Yourself for PersonalExcellence 2nd ed Prentice-Hall Upper Saddle River NJ

Manz CC and Sims HP Jr (1980) ` Self-management as a substitute for leadership A sociallearning perspectiversquorsquo Academy of Management Review Vol 5 pp 361-7

Manz CC and Sims HP Jr (1986) ` Leading self-managed groups a conceptual analysis ofparadoxrsquorsquo Economic and Industrial Democracy Vol 7 pp 141-65

Manz CC and Sims HP Jr (1987) ` Leading workers to lead themselves the external leadershipof self-managing work teamsrsquorsquo Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 32 pp 106-28

Manz CC and Sims HP Jr (1991) ` Superleadership beyond the myth of heroic leadershiprsquorsquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 19 pp 18-35

Manz CC and Sims HP Jr (2001) The New SuperLeadership Leading Others to LeadThemselves Berrett-Koehler San Francisco CA

Markham SE and Markham IS (1995) ` Self-management and self-leadership reexamineda level of analysis perspectiversquorsquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 6 pp 343-59

Markham SE and Markham IS (1998) ` Self-management and self-leadership reexamineda level of analysis perspectiversquorsquo in Dansereau F and Yammarino FJ (Eds)Leadership The Multiple-Level Approaches Classical and New Wave JAI Press StanfordCT pp 193-210


690

Messick S (1995) ` Validity of psychological assessmentrsquorsquo American Psychologist Vol 50pp 741-9

Nahavandi A (2000) The Art and Science of Leadership 2nd ed Prentice-Hall Upper SaddleRiver NJ

Neck CP and Manz CC (1992) ` Thought self-leadership the impact of self-talk and mentalimagery on performancersquorsquo Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 12 pp 681-99

Neck CP and Manz CC (1996) ` Thought self-leadership the impact of mental strategiestraining on employee behavior cognition and emotionrsquorsquo Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Vol 17 pp 445-67

Neck CP Stewart GL and Manz CC (1996) ` Self-leaders within self-leading teams toward anoptimal equilibriumrsquorsquo in Beyerlein M (Ed) Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of WorkTeams Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 43-65

Nunnally J (1978) Psychometric Theory McGraw-Hill New York NY

Perry HM (1939) `The relative efficiency of actual and imaginary practice in 5 selected tasksrsquorsquoArchives of Psychology Vol 4 pp 5-75

Prussia GE Anderson JS and Manz CC (1998) ` Self-leadership and performanceoutcomes Themediating influence of self-efficacyrsquorsquo Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 19 pp 523-38

Roberts HE and Foti RJ (1998) ` Evaluating the interaction between self-leadership and workstructure in predicting job satisfactionrsquorsquo Journal of Business and Psychology Vol 12 pp 257-67

Sackett RS (1934) ` The influence of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a maze habitrsquorsquoJournal of General Psychology Vol 10 pp 376-95

Seligman MEP (1991) Learned Optimism Alfred Knopf New York NY

Shipper F and Manz CC (1992) ` Employee self-managementwithout formally designated teamsAn alternative road to empowermentrsquorsquo Organizational Dynamics Vol 20 No 3 pp 48-61

Sims HP Jr and Manz CC (1996) Company of Heroes Unleashing the Power of Self-leadershipWiley New York NY

Thomas KW and Velthouse BA (1990) ` Cognitive elements of empowerment An interpretivemodel of intrinsic task motivationrsquorsquo The Academy of Management Review Vol 15 pp 666-81

Thoresen CE and Mahoney MJ (1974) Behavioral Self-control Holt Rinehart and WinstonNew York NY

Waitley D (1995) Empires of the Mind Lessons to Lead and Succeed in a Knowledge-basedWorld William Morrow New York NY

Williams RL Moore CA Pettibone TJ and Thomas SP (1992) `Construction and validationof a brief self-report scale of self-management practicesrsquorsquo Journal of Research inPersonality Vol 26 pp 216-34

Appendix The revised self-leadership questionnaire

INSTRUCTIONS Read each of the following items carefully and try to decide how true thestatement is in describing you

Not at all Somewhat A little Mostly Completelyaccurate accurate accurate accurate accurate

1 2 3 4 5

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

(2) I establish specific goals for my own performance

(3) Sometimes I find Irsquom talking to myself (out loud or in my head) to help me deal withdifficult problems I face


questionnaire

691

(4) When I do an assignment especially well I like to treat myself to some thing or activity Iespecially enjoy

(5) I think about my own beliefs and assumptions whenever I encounter a difficult situation

(6) I tend to get down on myself in my mind when I have performed poorly

(7) I make a point to keep track of how well Irsquom doing at work (school)

(8) I focus my thinking on the pleasant rather than the unpleasant aspects of my job (school)activities

(9) I use written notes to remind myself of what I need to accomplish

(10) I visualize myself successfully performing a task before I do it

(11) I consciously have goals in mind for my work efforts

(12) Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud or in my head) to work through difficult situations

(13) When I do something well I reward myself with a special event such as a good dinnermovie shopping trip etc

(14) I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy of my own beliefs about situations I am havingproblems with

(15) I tend to be tough on myself in my thinking when I have not done well on a task

(16) I usually am aware of how well Irsquom doing as I perform an activity

(17) I try to surround myself with objects and people that bring out my desirable behaviors

(18) I use concrete reminders (eg notes and lists) to help me focus on things I need toaccomplish

(19) Sometimes I picture in my mind a successful performance before I actually do a task

(20) I work toward specific goals I have set for myself

(21) When Irsquom in difficult situations I will sometimes talk to myself (out loud or in my head)to help me get through it

(22) When I have successfully completed a task I often reward myself with something I like

(23) I openly articulate and evaluate my own assumptions when I have a disagreement withsomeone else

(24) I feel guilt when I perform a task poorly

(25) I pay attention to how well Irsquom doing in my work

(26) When I have a choice I try to do my work in ways that I enjoy rather than just trying toget it over with

(27) I purposefully visualize myself overcoming the challenges I face

(28) I think about the goals that I intend to achieve in the future

(29) I think about and evaluate the beliefs and assumptions I hold

(30) I sometimes openly express displeasure with myself when I have not done well

(31) I keep track of my progress on projects Irsquom working on

(32) I seek out activities in my work that I enjoy doing

(33) I often mentally rehearse the way I plan to deal with a challenge before I actually face thechallenge

(34) I write specific goals for my own performance

(35) I find my own favorite ways to get things done


questionnaire

673

of behavioral and cognitive strategies designed to shape individualperformance outcomes

Self-leadership strategies may be divided into three general categoriesbehavior-focused strategies natural reward strategies and constructivethought pattern strategies (Anderson and Prussia 1997 Manz and Neck 1999Prussia et al 1998) Behavior-focused strategies are aimed at increasing self-awareness leading to the management of behaviors involving necessary butperhaps unpleasant tasks (Manz 1992 Manz and Neck 1999) These strategiesinclude self-observation self-goal setting self-reward self-correcting feedbackand practice Self-observation of onersquos own behavior can lead to an awarenessof when and why one engages in certain behaviors This heightening of self-awareness can in turn lead to the identification of specific behaviors thatshould be changed enhanced or eliminated (Mahoney and Arnkoff 1978 1979Manz and Sims 1980 Manz and Neck 1999) Based on this foundation of self-assessment the individual can effectively set personal goals that may lead toimproved performance (Manz 1986 Manz and Neck 1999 Manz and Sims1980) A multitude of research has shown that the act of setting and acceptingchallenging and specific goals can have a dramatic effect in motivatingindividual performance (Locke and Latham 1990) In addition self-rewards canbe effectively used to reinforce desirable behaviors and goal attainments(Mahoney and Arnkoff 1978 1979 Manz and Sims 1980 Manz and Neck1999) Self-rewards can be something tangible like a nice restaurant meal or aweekend vacation following the completion of a difficult project at work orself-rewards can be something abstract and simple such as congratulatingoneself or mentally visualizing a favorite place or experience Like self-rewardsself-correcting feedback can also be used to shape desirable behaviorseffectively An introspective yet positively framed examination of negativebehaviors or performance failures can be more effective in correctingperformance than excessive self-punishment based on habitual guilt and self-criticism (Manz and Sims 2001) Finally the rehearsal or practice of desiredbehaviors before actual performance can allow for the correction of problemsand the avoidance of costly miscues (Manz 1992 Manz and Neck 1999 Manzand Sims 1980 Thoresen and Mahoney 1974) In short behavior-focused self-leadership strategies are designed to encourage positive desirable behaviorsthat lead to successful outcomes while suppressing negative undesirablebehaviors that lead to unsuccessful outcomes

Natural reward strategies emphasize the enjoyable aspects of a given task oractivity Natural or intrinsic rewards result when incentives are built into thetask itself and a person is motivated or rewarded by the task itself (Manz 1992Manz and Neck 1999) Naturally rewarding activities tend to foster feelings ofincreased competence self-control and purpose (Manz 1986 Manz and Neck1999) Natural reward strategies include efforts to incorporate more pleasantand enjoyable features into a given task or activity and efforts to changeperceptions of an activity by focusing on the taskrsquos inherently rewardingaspects (Manz and Neck 1999) For instance a person might attempt to create a


674






questionnaire

675






676






questionnaire

677



















RSLQ sub-scales


678






questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































674






questionnaire

675






676






questionnaire

677



















RSLQ sub-scales


678






questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

675






676






questionnaire

677



















RSLQ sub-scales


678






questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































676






questionnaire

677



















RSLQ sub-scales


678






questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

677



















RSLQ sub-scales


678






questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































678






questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

679







005 level)


680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































680






questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

681





not = 005 level


682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































682













performance 0567











(continued)



questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

683

























Table II


684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































684

Indic

ator

var

iable

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1C

23

940

675

ndash2

C4

399

096

00

252

ndash

3C

63

810

862

028

8

018

4

ndash4

C7

404

063

70

577

0

219

0

360

ndash

5C

93

981

060

319

0

137

0

151

0

124

ndash6

V26

368

097

60

372

0

235

0

034

022

5

013

9

ndash7

V32

400

089

50

492

0

301

0

098

040

0

024

1

046

1

ndash8

V35

387

091

70

445

0

319

0

055

022

5

015

2

045

4

041

8

ndash9

C1

362

081

60

492

0

299

0

113

027

9

014

3

034

4

041

2

034

8

ndash10

C

34

040

927

029

6

012

90

145

0

189

0

191

0

190

0

183

0

256

0

385

ndash

11C

53

770

698

043

7

028

9

025

9

035

4

017

7

029

6

031

7

039

0

045

1

032

0

ndash

Note

s

N=

357

C1

=vis

ual

izin

gsu

cces

sful

per

form

ance

item

com

pos

ite

C2

=se

lf-g

oal

sett

ing

item

com

pos

ite

C3

=se

lf-t

alk

item

com

pos

ite

C4

=se

lf-r

ewar

dit

emco

mpos

ite

C5

=ev

aluat

ing

bel

iefs

and

assu

mpti

ons

item

com

pos

ite

C6

=se

lf-p

unis

hm

ent

item

com

pos

ite

C7

=se

lf-

obse

rvat

ion

item

com

pos

ite

C8

=nat

ura

lre

war

ds

item

com

pos

ite

C9

=se

lf-c

uei

ng

item

com

pos

ite

V26

=it

em26

ndashR

SL

Q

V32

=it

em32

ndashR

SL

QV

35=

item

35ndash

RSL

Q

p

lt0

05(t

wo-

tailed

)

plt

001

(tw

o-ta

iled

)



questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

685












686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































686





questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

687


References













688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































688


























questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

689























690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































690





















1 2 3 4 5





questionnaire

691


































questionnaire

691

































The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for...

Documents

Transcript of The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for...