


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

120 

 

Self-Leadership Change Project: An Ongoing Experiential Program  
 

Jim Phillips, Northeastern State University 

David Kern, Northeastern State University 

Jitendra Tewari, Northeastern State University 

Kenneth Jones, Northeastern State University-Broken Arrow 

Nicole Carden, Northeastern State University-Tahlequah 
 

 

Self-leadership Change Project (SLCP) is an ongoing program for senior level students at a regional university 

designed to provide hands-on experience in building self-management skills, which is considered a pre-requisite by 

many leaders and scholars (e.g., Drucker, 1996; Schaetti, Ramsey and Watanabe, 2008). A majority of students 
participating in the projects reported achieving change in targeted behavior, with intentions to continue to utilize 

the SLCP approach for future “projects”. Additionally, students who successfully completed a self-leadership 

change project reported that observers noted change in others as a result of the project. Students who received 

positive feedback from observers reported that they were likely to engage in a self-leadership project in the future. 

This is relevant to the current business environment, in that shared leadership, empowerment, and participative 

management require business graduates to attain some level of leadership ability to function effectively in 

organizations. Self-leadership is a beginning step in that process. 
 

 

“He that would govern others, first should be the master of himself” - Philip Massinger 
   
The initial impetus for the Self-Leadership Change Project was to help students, in a classroom setting, develop 

self- leadership skills, and prepare them for leadership roles in their careers. Although Massinger’s quote is from a 

play, its message resonates with recent scholars and leaders who consider self-mastery a prerequisite for a broad 

range of team and leadership roles that are critical to success in the modern organization (e.g., Lawrence and Lorsch, 

1967; Whetten and Cameron, 2011). As importantly, the self-leadership literature suggests an external benefit of 

self-leadership change in its positive influence on others. This article documents the initial results from the SLCP 

“experiment”, which provide encouragement for continuing and improving the experiment.   

The modern business environment requires autonomy, initiative, and self-management from employees in many 

organizations. Managers and executives are expected to enact an empowered, participative style of leadership to 

develop and support the self-managed worker (DeGraff and Lawrence, 2002; Drucker, 1988; Lawrence and Lorsch, 

1967; Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997; Whetten and Cameron, 2011). Leadership skills are required at virtually all levels 

of organizations, beginning with individuals managing themselves, and ultimately, acting as models for others.  

Dwight Eisenhower (Lyon, 1974), heavily influenced by George Marshal, recognized that effective leaders must 

themselves develop leaders and delegate responsibilities. Peter Drucker (1996) emphasized that executives must 

learn to manage themselves before they can successfully expect to manage others. John Kotter, in “A Force for 

Change: How Leadership Differs from Management” notes the need for recognizing and rewarding those who 

develop leaders in their businesses. Empowered leaders are required at all levels of the organization (Manz & Sims, 

1991; Manz, 1992). "Being responsible for ourselves ... is where formal leadership begins; it is the first step in being 

able to effectively lead others" (Schaetti, Ramsey and Watanabe, 2008, p. 4).     

The foundation of the SLCP is anchored in the self-leadership theory introduced by Charles Manz (1983, 1986), 

and supported by stream of research supporting the positive relationship between self-leadership behaviors/strategies 

and positive outcomes (Stewart, Courtright and Manz, 2011). Self-leadership has been defined as “a self-influence 

process through which people achieve the self-direction and self-motivation necessary to perform … consist(ing) of 

specific behavioral and cognitive strategies designed to positively influence personal effectiveness” (Neck and 

Houghton, 2006). The emphasis on personal responsibility inherent in self-leadership theory and strategies is 

particularly important to the SLCP experiment. Participants who take ownership of their personal project can be 

expected to realize stronger commitment to their goals, with the potential to realize lifelong learning and change 

skills. Individuals self-select objectives designed to capitalize on the advantages of intrinsic motivation.   

The SLCP structure also encouraged peer interaction between participants and those who observed (observers) 

the changes realized by participants. Peer interaction provided the opportunity for participants to influence others 

(i.e., exerting external influence consistent with the managerial modeling role). According to Manz and Sims (1980), 

“if a leader reinforces self-management in one subordinate, a self-management model is available for other 

subordinates. … the leader’s own self-management behavior inevitably serves as a model to subordinates.” The 



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

121 

 

SLCP experiment extends the concept of internal (self) leadership to incorporate influence with observers of the 

change. The SLCP thus encourages two integrated concepts of leadership, both internal (self-leadership), and 

external (influence with others).       

Additionally, this project provides the opportunity to explore the effect of peer influence on the participant 

through their observers. Lock, Latham and Erez (1988), identified peer influence as a major component of goal 

commitment. Early studies (Mathewson, 1931; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939) focused on the negative aspects 

of peer pressure (e.g., restriction of output); however, there is also evidence in early studies of higher performance 

related to group commitment and peer influence (e.g., Seashore 1954; Zander & Uhlberg, 1971). The importance of 

peer effects are also supported in organizational research on social influence, whereas individuals are influenced by 

“relational others, that is, people with whom an individual has direct interactions, and enjoys close social proximity” 

(Ho and Levesque, 2005). Behavior is affected by input from friends and those important to the individual, as 

explored in network literature (e.g., Kilduff, 1990). Recently, peer intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were found to 

exert positive influence on players in an Online Game (Kong, Kwok and Fang, 2012), and peer based control was 

found to contribute to group cohesion and affect performance by both individuals and teams (Stewart, Courtright 

and Barrick, 2012).   

The SLCP experiment contributes to the application and study of leadership concepts, and specifically, self-

leadership in three ways. First, the theory is applied in a learning environment, providing hands-on experience for 

students in making structured changes in their behavior and lives. A number of self-leadership behavioral and 

cognitive strategies are incorporated into the structure of the project, focusing on autonomous decision-making, self-

observation, and intrinsic motivation. Second, the study extends the measurement of self-leadership outcomes to 

levels of influence exerted by “self-managed” individuals on those who observed behavioral changes. This is an 

important test of the external leadership potential that resides in self-leadership outcomes. Although external 

influence is suggested in the literature, it has received relatively little empirical attention. Third, the study tests the 

effect of peer influence exerted by observers on participants in terms of participant’s intentions to start another self-

leadership project in the near future. This is relevant to the two-way benefits associated with positive peer 

interaction.   

As importantly, the SLCP is substantially driven, managed and monitored by participants, supplemented by 

feedback from peers. Very little external leadership is exerted over participants other than that they are required to 

attempt a change project, keep a journal, and interact with peers. What they do and how they do it are fully self-

managed.  In this way, the SLCP experiment relies primarily on self-motivation. This could have important, 

practical implications for employing self-leadership change processes in a wide variety of circumstances and with a 

variety of populations.   
 

Relevant Literature: Self-Leadership and Influence with Observers 
 

The critical importance of autonomy and self-actualization for individuals in organizations was recognized in the 

humanistic perspective of leadership advanced by Argyris (1957) and McGregor (1960). Self-leadership theory 

further finds its roots in social cognitive theory and intrinsic motivation theory, while drawing heavily on the related 

research streams of self-regulation, self-management and self-control (Manz, 1983; Neck and Houghton, 2006).     

Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) places importance on the capacity of a person to manage or control 

oneself - particularly when faced with difficult yet important tasks. Social cognitive theory also recognizes the 

human ability to learn and experience tasks or events through vicarious and symbolic mechanisms (Neck and Manz, 

2010). As such, it provides the theoretical foundation for all forms of self-direction, including self-leadership, and 

suggests the benefits of many of the strategies associated with self-leadership.   

Intrinsic motivation theory (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 1980; Steers, Porter and Bigley, 1996) emphasizes the 

importance of the ‘natural’ rewards emphasizing “the potential to harness motivational forces available in doing 

things that we can really enjoy" (Neck and Manz, 2010, p. 5), which is expected to have a positive effect on an 

individual as he or she observes the positive effect of change on another. Intrinsic motivation theory is the reference 

point for a number of reward strategies integral to effective self-leadership.   

Drawing on multiple self-regulation concepts developed prior to 1983 (e.g., Manz and Sims, 1980; Neck and 

Houghton, 2006), self-leadership theory provides a more comprehensive framework for the enactment and 

application of self-development (e.g., Manz, 1983; Neck and Houghton, 2006; Stewart, Courtwright and Manz, 

2011), prescribing specific behavioral and cognitive strategies that contribute to successful self-leadership. These 

strategies, designed to positively enhance personal effectiveness, can be grouped into three primary categories – 

behavior-focused, natural reward and constructive thought pattern (Manz and Neck, 2004; Manz and Sims, 2001; 

Prussia, Anderson and Manz, 1998). Behavior-focused strategies include self-observation, self-goal setting, self-



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

122 

 

reward, self-punishment and self-cueing; natural reward strategies involve designing the task itself to be naturally 

rewarding and enjoyable, and reducing focus on the unpleasant aspects of the task; constructive thought pattern 

strategies address mental imagery, positive self-talk, and dealing with dysfunctional beliefs (Neck and Houghton, 

2006). Of these categories, behavior-focused and reward strategies are most relevant in application of the SLCP 

experiment. A comprehensive review of self-leadership research and theory can be found in a Journal of Managerial 

Psychology article by Neck and Houghton (2006).   

Building on the self-regulation orientation of self-leadership theory and research, social cognitive theory 

identifies the benefit of modeling (Bandura, 1986) as a way in which individuals influence others to successfully 

engage in personal change. “If knowledge and skills could be acquired only through direct experience, the process of 

human development would be greatly retarded, not to mention exceedingly tedious, costly and hazardous.  

Fortunately, people can expand their knowledge and skills on the basis of information conveyed by modeling 

influences (Wood and Bandura, 1989). Consequently, social cognitive theory addresses both self-mastery and 

influence in terms of the individual who is involved in learning (Bandura, 1986). The observer of the “model” (the 

individual engaging in self-leadership behavior) employs this knowledge gained through observation in practicing 

the observer’s own behavior, which ultimately contributes to the recipient’s self- mastery.    

Although a great deal has been researched and studied relative to the negative aspects of peer pressure (e.g., 

Janis, 1972), and the benefits of group pressure in a structured business setting or in formal teams (e.g., Castilla, 

2005; Jones and Kavanough, 1996; Mas and Moretti, 2008; Pierce & Snyder, 2008), few studies have addressed the 

positive effects of peer influence on behavior in an autonomous setting such as the SLCP experiment. Locke and 

Latham, and Erez’ (1988) work on goal commitment found support for a positive relationship between peer 

influence on goal commitment, which is encouraging considering the structure of the SLCP (self-chosen and 

directed). Work in network theory (e.g., Kilduff, 1990) and peer motivation in online gaming (Kong, Kwok and 

Fang, 2012) reinforce a general acceptance of the positive benefit of peer influence. Yet, research of this type 

provides evidence of only a general effect of peer influence, while the SLCP experiment specifically addresses the 

positive effect of peer influence on self-directed change outside of an organizational setting.   
 

Self-Leadership Change Project Design 
 

The structure of the Self-Leadership Change Project (SLCP) capitalizes on the participants’ self-direction.  

Although students are exposed to the essentials of the self-leadership strategies described in this section, there is no 

formal study involved in the project preparation. Accordingly, the SLCP is substantially under the control of the 

participant, and relies in their self-motivation and self-direction. The only requirements for participation in the 

project are that participants choose a project that they really want to tackle, investigate external information that will 

help them in their project, keep a journal recording their actions and progress, and engage 3-5 observers. The 

structure itself incorporates four specific self-leadership strategies (self-goal setting, natural rewards, self-

observation, and self-cueing). The project is also structured to provide the opportunity for participants influencing 

observers and others, and to receive reinforcement from their peer observers.   

The first and most critical step in the SLCP is to set a personal goal without direction from instructors. Students 

are given ideas that other students have considered in the past as thought starters, and are asked to freely choose 

their project. Students are encouraged to discuss ideas among themselves and with friends or family, but are strongly 

encouraged to embrace a project that they really want to do. In that the project is self-determined, it provides 

personal involvement and commitment. The research on goal setting (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988; Locke and 

Latham, 1990) provides strong support for this as a critical element of effective self-leadership (Boss and Sims, 

2008). This selection process also contributes to incorporating natural rewards by encouraging students to select a 

project that can be made to be inherently enjoyable and rewarding, that is well within their control, and that avoids 

difficult or negative elements. By making the project desirable and clearly achievable, actually performing the 

project tasks and making progress act as natural reward.    

Self-observation is built into the journaling process. Students are required to keep a journal of their activities 

associated with their change project, recording personal observations periodically. They record their actions on the 

project frequently (daily is recommended), and are encouraged to periodically evaluate their project structure and 

process. This not only contributes to self-observation, but acts as a self-cueing strategy, acting as a reminder to take 

action and follow-through. An additional feature of the SLCP design, feedback from observers, may reinforce the 

participants’ self-observation and self-cueing. Feedback encourages self-evaluation and acts as a reminder to stay on 

task. Some students even involve their observers in the tasks, such as working out with the participant to improve 

their healthy living project.   



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

123 

 

Although not a requirement of the project, participants are encouraged to develop self-rewards. If the natural 

reward of the project design is sufficiently strong, the participant may find the task in itself rewarding. Students are 

also coached to select and structure projects that provide early successes, following Weick’s (1984) notion of a 

“small wins” strategy. Success becomes a reward in itself. Participants are also encouraged to reward themselves 

with simple ideas - a special treat or a time to do something that they enjoy, and are cautioned to avoid negative 

feedback and penalties. Periodically, students are asked to reassess their progress and their project in a class 

discussion with peers, and encouraged to restructure projects to take advantage of natural and external rewards.   

External Feedback: Although not addressed specifically in self-leadership literature, feedback is integral to 

authors approach to learning and implementing this self-leadership project. Observers provide feedback and 

encouragement that reinforces self-observation, self-evaluation, self-cueing combined with intrinsic rewards.  

Students generally ask for periodic feedback from observers, who not only give them a sense of progress, but are 

often very positive about students’ changes and progress. 

SLCP, in its current structure, does not include an emphasis on cognitive focused strategies (e.g., mental 

imagery, mental rehearsal, self-talk, and managing beliefs and assumptions). The circumstances involved do not 

permit sufficient time allocation to train and rehearse in these strategies; however, this is a potential opportunity for 

improving the effectiveness of self-leadership projects in the future.  

The incorporation of observers in the process acts as a vehicle for participants to influence others, while acting as 

positive feedback that encourages the participant in working on their SLCP tasks. This allows for an evaluation of 

external influence as a by-product of an individual’s self-leadership behavior and results. It also provides a way to 

evaluate the impact that observer peers have on participants.   
 

Hypotheses 
 

As noted in the introduction, the primary objectives of SLCP are to provide students an experiential 

understanding of the self-leadership process and to develop capabilities in implementing those processes. Students 

are encouraged to enlist observers who provide feedback during the life of the projects. This external interaction has 

multiple implications. The act of engaging observers has the potential to increase personal commitment, and self-

awareness of the participant. 
 

Hypothesis 1: Changes in behavior associated with successful self-leadership change projects will be 

apparent to others who have observed the change project. 
 

An important contribution of this study is to gauge the level of influence self-leadership change has on others in 

order to test the proposition that self-leadership is a starting point for developing broader leadership capabilities.   

By developing skills in influencing others, individuals are building their own capacity for external leadership.   

Individuals who exhibit self-leadership act as models for others and influence others (Bandura, 1986).   
 

Hypothesis 2: Successful completion of self-leadership change projects will influence the actions and 

behavior of those observing the change process. 
 

Hypotheses three addresses the learning value and motivation potential for SLCP participants. Students who 

successfully complete a SLCP project develop a level of knowledge and discipline in the practice of self-leadership.  

Two benefits can be realized. The first is learning and practicing effective techniques. The second reflects internal 

reinforcement generated by achieving the goal that the participant set, and gaining a sense of accomplishment.    
 

Hypothesis 3: Successful completion of self-leadership change projects will affect student intentions to 

employ the SLCP approach in the future: a) continue existing project; b) start a new project. 
 

Hypothesis 4 addresses the value of external feedback and reinforcement of positive responses by others during 

the SLCP. The existing stream of self-leadership research emphasizes personal strategies and techniques that help 

keep a self-leader focused on the objective and actions necessary to achieve the objectives. Our approach is to add 

external feedback as an important tool to reinforce the personal effort of the participant. In effect, we view the power 

of external influence as complementary. The self-leader influences the behavior and actions of observers, while the 

input and positive reinforcement of observers becomes a reciprocal benefit of the interactions. 
   

Hypothesis 4: The level of positive feedback from observers will relate positively to student intentions to 

employ the SLCP approach in the future. 

 



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

124 

 

Methodology and Results 
 

Participants had from 10 to 16 weeks to complete their SLCP project. This survey was provided as a voluntary 

option to participants who wished to report their SLCP project results. A total of 141 participants used this survey in 

six different classes instructed by two different professors. This survey was first used in the fall of 2010. Not all 

questions were completely answered throughout each survey by each participant. Reported were 76 female students 

and 62 male students. Their ages ranged from 19 years to 51 years with full-time work experience ranging from 

none to thirty years. It should be noted that classes had a mixture of traditional and non-traditional students. 

An underlying objective of the SLCP project is to foster self-leadership skills and intentions in college students.  

In this study, the authors employed a survey that is completed by students at the end of the semester in which they 

participate in the project. The time period in which students participate varies from 10-15 weeks, which is adequate 

time to complete a self-leadership project that is self-selected and appropriate for the time frame.   

The survey includes two types of questions. A series of questions addressed the degree to which an outcome was 

realized or observed, using a Likert scale: 1-None, 2-Little, 3-Somewhat, 4-Much, 5-A Great Deal (Hinkin, 1998).  

Only one question had a yes or no answer and was coded as a categorical variable. This section of the paper 

provides an overview of the basic results for the questions of primary interest.   

Regression was employed for the analysis of hypotheses 1 and 2.  For hypotheses 3 and 4 a t-test of two samples 

assuming unequal variances, was used. The means of the variables were compared for those who are planning to 

start a new SLCP project with the means of the students who do not plan a new SLCP.  

Table 1 summarizes hypotheses 1 and 2, the variables and methods involved, as well as the results for the test of 

these hypotheses.  
 

Table 1: Summary of Methods and Results: Hypotheses 1 and 2 
 

Short Statement of Hypothesis Method and Basis of Hypothesis Test Summary Results 

Hypothesis 1 

 

Changes in behavior associated with  
SLCP projects will be apparent to others  

who have observed the project 

Method: Regression 

 

Dependent Variable: Change in the  
Respondent as a result of the respondent’s  

SLCP  

 
Independent Variable: Degree of goal 

achievement in the SLCP 

- Observations: 139 

- R Sq : 0.20 

- Adj. R Sq : 0.19 
- P value (I.V.): 3.1E-08 

- Result: I.V. Significant at 95% level 

- Intercept: 2.4 
- Coefficient of I.V. 0.39 

- Directionality of coefficient: positive, as 

predicted 

Hypothesis 2 

 

Successful completion of SLCP projects 
influences the behavior of those observing  

the change process 

Test 1: Method: Regression 

 

Dependent Variable: Change observed in  
others ‘by Respondent’ who has adopted  

SLCP  

 
Independent Variable: Extent of goal 

achievement in SLCP 

 
Test 2: Method: Regression 

 

Dependent Variable: Change observed   
in others ‘by Observers’  

 

Independent Variable: Extent of goal 
achievement in SLCP 

- Observations: 131 

- R Sq : 0.11 

- Adj. R Sq : 0.10 
- P value (I.V.): 9.54 E-05 

- I.V. Significant at 95% level 

- Intercept: 1.05 
- Coefficient of I.V. 0.43 

- Directionality of coefficient: positive as 

predicted 
- Observations: 131 

- R Sq:  0.20 

- Adj. R Sq: 0.20 
- P value (I.V.): 3.8 E-08 

- I.V. Significant at 95% level 

- Intercept: 0.67 
- Coefficient of I.V. 0.59 

- Directionality of  coefficient: positive as 

predicted 

NOTE: D.V. is dependent variable; I.V. is independent variable 

 

Analysis of Hypotheses 1 and 2 
 

Hypothesis 1 is supported at the 95% significance level. The greater the degree of success in the SLCP the 

greater the changes in behavior reported (in the respondent who has undertaken the SLCP) associated with the 

project. The importance of this finding is that it indicates that the change is apparent to those who are observing the 

student as they engage in self-change, and the greater the goal accomplishment the greater the change observed. This 

is critical in supporting the theory that self-leadership impacts more than just the participant.   



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

125 

 

Hypothesis 2 postulates that successful completion of a SLCP influences the actions and behavior of those 

observing the change process. This was tested through two independent regressions. The first treated the dependent 

variable as the change observed by the Respondent in others, and the independent variable as the degree of goal 

achievement in the SLCP. The second regression used the same independent variable, but for the dependent variable 

used the response to the question: ‘Did your observers notice any change in others around you as a result of the 

SLCP?’ The two dependent variables are highly correlated, and in fact measure the same concept and therefore the 

use of two regressions is confirmatory or a form of triangulation. The results confirm this and both regressions 

indicate the independent variable to be significant, acceptable at the 95% level. Results show that influence is 

extended to observers of the change process as well as others not specifically selected as observers by the 

participant. This suggests that self-leadership plays an important role in the development of individuals’ “external 

leadership capabilities.” 

In the case of both hypotheses 1 and 2 regression is used not to postulate a ‘complete and causative model’ of all 

variables. Therefore, it is not the values of R Square or Adjusted R Square that are so relevant - it is really an 

examination of the p value or significance of the explanatory variable that is critical. This in both cases indicates 

significance acceptable at the 95% level.  
 

Table 2 summarizes hypotheses 3 and 4, the variables and methods involved, as well as the results for the test of 

these hypotheses.  
 

Table 2: Summary of Methods and Results: Hypotheses 3 and 4 
 

Short Statement of Hypothesis Method and Basis of Hypothesis Test Summary Results 

Hypothesis 3 
 

Successful completion of SLCP projects 

affects the student intention to employ  
SLCP approach in the future (positively) 

Method: t test 
 

Comparing means of the ‘degree of goal 

achievement’ for those intending to employ  
SLCP approach in future versus those not  

planning to use SLCP approach in future.  

The postulate is that those intending to employ  
SLCP approach will have a higher degree of  

goal achievement in SLCP project undertaken. 

- Observations: Numbers in Group A  
and Group B are 80 and 58 

- Means: 3.88 and 3.77 

- P(T<  or = t) one-tail 0.107 
- t =1.24 

- t critical (one tail) =1.65 

- Result: Not Significant at the 95%  
level 

 

Hypothesis 4 

 
Positive feedback from observers relates 

positively to student intentions to employ  

SLCP approach in the future 

Method: t test 

 
Comparing the means for the ‘degree to which 

observers see change in the respondent carrying 

out SLCP’  for the two groups (a) those who 
intend to use SLCP in the future (b) those no 

planning to use the SLCP in the future . 

The postulate is that the group that intends to  
use SLCP approach in the future will have a 

higher mean. 

- Observations: Numbers in Group A  

and Group B are 80 and 58 
- Means: 3.7 and 3.13 

- P(T<  or = t) one-tail 0.00043 

- t = 3.41 
- t critical (one tail) =1.65 

- Result: Significant at the 95% level 

 

 

Analysis of Hypotheses 3 and 4 
 

For the analysis of hypotheses 3 and 4 the categorical classification of  the two groups (A) students who were 

planning to start on a new change project, and,  (B) students who were not planning to start on a new change project 

was used. One tailed t tests, assuming unequal variances, comparing means were carried out. 

In the case of hypothesis 3 it was found that the mean degree of goal accomplishment for Group A was greater 

than the mean degree of goal accomplishment for Group B, hence the directionality of the results was consistent 

with the hypothesis. However the t test was not significant at the 95% level. The relevant p value was 0.107, which 

indicated that the hypothesis was acceptable (nearly) at the 90% level. The fact that the p value was just over the 

0.10 level potentially indicates the need for an improvement in the survey/measurement process, and an additional 

exploration of this relationship. 

Using a similar t test, Hypothesis 4 is supported. Here we compare the mean ‘degree to which observers see 

change in the respondent carrying out the SLCP’ for Group A and Group B. In keeping with the hypothesis the mean 

for Group A was 3.7 versus 3.13 for Group B, confirming as postulated, that students of the Group that experienced 

greater observer positivity would be more inclined to adopt a new SLCP. One of the expected outcomes of the 

project was that participants would increase their knowledge of self-leadership and recognize its benefits for future 

self-development. The relationship between future intent and the participants’ reported recognition of the extent to 

which observers “noticed” appears to provide some level of positive feedback or monitoring mechanism. Not only 

do participants influence observers positively but observers influence participants positively.  



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

126 

 

It’s notable in question five that a substantial majority of participants reported success in achieving their SLCP 

project. This observation supports the practical objective of exposing students to self-leadership change through the 

project. The majority of students reported that they achieved their SLCP goal (completing a change project 

successfully) and over 90% of the students reported some success.   
 

Discussion 
 

The first objective of the Self-Leadership Change Project was to encourage students to develop skills in self-

leadership through an experiential exercise. Although our hypotheses did not measure this objective specifically, we 

found that 67% of the students reported “much” or “a great deal of” success in achieving their self-leadership goal.  

Additionally, 58 % indicated that they intend to start a Self-leadership Change Project in the future. These outcomes 

have important practical implications. First, achieving success in an early encounter with self-management may 

increase an individual’s confidence in their own capabilities, and could be expected to increase future success in 

self-leadership. Second, the stated intention to continue with the SLCP approach provides some evidence of a longer 

term impact, in a world where continuous learning is considered crucial to adaptation and success. The fact that a 

number of observers noticed the change (the change was apparent to others) provides some evidence of the 

significance of the change    

The second objective of the study was to evaluate the level of influence exerted by self-managed individuals on 

those who observed the behavior and the changes experienced by these individuals. The results fully supported the 

idea that self-leaders influence others, as represented in results associated with hypothesis two. This relationship has 

been suggested in the literature but there have been few studies covering this relationship. This study extends that 

research, providing support for the concept that external leadership begins with self-leadership. The implication of 

this finding is that successful self-leadership change not only prepares an individual for external leadership roles, but 

may also provide active external leadership by providing a model for others.   

Furthermore, this study finds evidence of a two-way impact associated with self-leadership participants who 

engage observers in the self-change process. Current theory suggests that the self-leadership participant will 

influence others, as noted above. Our results show that this is not simply a one-way benefit. The self-leadership 

participants benefitted from positive feedback provided by their observers. This indicates an important role to be 

played by peer interaction during self-leadership change process. This finding was not considered in the initial 

stages of the SLCP. The authors observed this phenomenon in the feedback students provided in discussing their 

journey during the project. This aspect of the experiment will receive increased attention as we continue to develop 

SLCP approach.    
 

Limitations  
 

 Due to the nature of this experiment, data used in our analysis is exclusively self-reported information. We 

recognize the limitations associated with self-reported data and future studies may want to explore alternative 

approaches to observer measurement. However, our results are compatible with the information that students 

provide in end of project reports, and comments provided by outside observers. To some extent this provides some 

support for the value of the self-reported information. For future studies, additional reporting techniques will be 

considered.   

A second criticism is that the survey and results do not tie to previous studies that measure individuals’ aptitude 

for self-leadership as an indicator of success and development of self-leadership capabilities. This could be a 

welcome addition to this research model in the near future of SLCP literature and research.  

A final criticism may be that this study offers little in the way of acknowledging or determining the sustainability 

of changes desired. Sustainability could bear a strong relationship to some future approach to measuring 

effectiveness of the SLCP. For instance, does the SLCP model impact the ability to maintain changes, once made?  

Can goals be defined for the individual and collective SLCP research that incorporate sustained, even lifelong, 

success in the desired change? 

These are potentially rich research avenues that should be pursued in the future. Moreover, the opportunity to 

introduce dynamic self-leadership strategies into the project could provide additional information and greater levels 

of success by participants. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and organization. New York: Harper Collins. 
 



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

127 

 

Bandura, A. 1986. Social cognitive theory. New York: Free Press. 

 

Boss, A., & Sims, H. 2008. Everyone fails! Using emotion regulation and self-leadership for recovery. Journal of 

Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 135-150. 
 

Castilla, E. 2005. Social networks and employee performance n a call center. American Journal of Sociology, 

110(5), 1243-1283. 
 

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. 1980. The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowithz (ed.), 

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press. 
 

DeGraff, J., & Lawrence, A. 2002. Creativity at work: Developing the right practices to make innovation 

happen. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.   
 

Drucker, P. 1988. The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 45-53. 
 

Lyon, P. 1974. Eisenhower: Portrait of the hero. Boston: Little, Brown. 
 

Goleman, D. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.  
  

Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard R. 1996. The leader of the future - The Drucker Foundation. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 

Ho, V., & Levesque, L. 2005. With a little help from my friends (and Substitutes): Social referents and influence in 

psychological contract fulfillment. Organization Science, 16(3), 275-289. 
 

Janis, I. 1972. Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.  
 

Jones, G., & Kavanough, M. 1996. An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors 

on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 511-523.   
 

Kilduff, M., 1990. The interpersonal structure of decision-making: A social comparison approach to organizational 

choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(2), 270-288.  
 

Kong, J., Kwok, R., & Fang, Y. 2012. The effects of peer intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on MMOG game-based 

collaborative learning’. Information & Management, 49(1), 1-9. 
 

Kotter, J. 1990. A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. 
 

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organizations and environments, Homewood, IL: Irwin.   
 

Locke, E., & Latham, G. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall. 
 

Locke, E., Latham, G., & Erez, M. 1988. The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management 

Review, 13(1), 23-39. 
 

Manz, C. 1983. The art of self-leadership: Strategies for personal effectiveness in your life and work. Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 
 

Manz, C. 1986. Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy 

of Management Review, 11(3), 585-600. 
 

Manz, C. 1992. Self-leadership … The heart of empowerment. Journal for Quality and Participation, 15(4), 80-

85. 
 

Manz, C., & Neck, C. 2004. Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence. Pearson 

Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 
 



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

128 

 

Manz, C., & Sims, H. 1980. Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social learning theory perspective. 

Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361-7. 
 

Manz, C., & Sims, H. 1991. Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 

19(4), 18-35. 
 

Mas, A., & Moretti, E. 2008. Peers at work. American Economic Review, 99(1), 112-145. 
 

Massinger, P., Gifford, W., & Cunningham, F. 1897. The plays of Philip Massinger -The Bondman. London: 

Chatto & Windus. 
 

Mathewson, S. 1931. Restriction of output among unorganized workers. New York: Viking Press.    
 

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
 

Neck, C., & Houghton, J. 2006. Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past developments, present 

trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 270-95. 
 

Neck, C., & Manz, C. 2010. Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence. Upper 

Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall. 
 

Pierce, L., & Snyder, J. 2008. Ethical spillovers in firms: Evidence from vehicle emissions testing. Management 

Science, 54(11), 1891-1903. 
 

Prussia, G., Anderson, J., & Manz, C. 1998. Self leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of 

self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 523-538. 
 

Quinn, R., & Spreitzer, G. 1997. The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leader should consider.  

Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 37-49.   
  
Roethlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press.  
  
Schaetti, B., Ramsey, S., & Watanabe, G. 2008. Making a world of difference: Personal leadership. Seattle, WA: 

FlyingKite. 
 

Seashore, S. 1954. Group Cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, 

Institute for Social Research; University of Michigan. 
    
Steers, R., Bigley, G., & Porter, L. 1996. Motivation and leadership a work. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
 

Stewart, G., Courtright, S., & Manz, C. 2011. Self-leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 

37(11), 85-222. 
 

Stewart, G., Courtright, S., & Barrick, M. 2012. Peer-based control in self-managing teams: Linking rational and 

normative influence with individual and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 435-447.  
  
Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. 2011. Devloping management skills. Boston: Prentice-Hall. 
 

Wieck, K. 1984. Small Wins. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49.  
 

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Mangement 

Review, 14(3), 361-383. 
 

Zander, A., & Uhlberg, C. 1971. The group level of aspiration and external social pressures. Organization 

Behavior and Human Performance, 6(3), 362-378. 
 

 

Jim Phillips is an associate professor of management at Northeastern State University. He received his Ph.D. in 

management from New Mexico State University. He teaches selection and evaluation, compensation management, 



Phillips, Kern, Jitendra, Jones, and Carden                                                                                                                   Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 120-129 

129 

 

labor relations, strategic human resource management, and strategic management. He conducts research in personal 

& organizational transformation, strategic planning and self-leadership change and has been actively involved 

helping organizations conduct and implement strategic and tactical planning. 
 

Dave Kern is an associate professor of management at Northeastern State University. He received his Ph.D. in 

management from Oklahoma State University. His research interests include strategic decision-making, leadership 

and organizational change. He has published in Journal of Private Equity, Journal of Higher Education Theory and 

Practice, and others. 
 

Jitendra Tewari is an associate professor of marketing at Northeastern State University. He received his Ph.D. in 

marketing from Florida Atlantic University. His current research interests include international bidding practices, 

pricing, and supply chain management.  
 

Kenneth Jones is an assistant professor of information systems and supply-chain management at Northeastern State 

University-Broken Arrow. He received his DBA Anderson University in Anderson, IN. His current research 

interests include logistic metrics for TL/LTL transportation, remote work performance, product-specific incentives, 

pre/post assessment in course-specific objectives, and change leadership. He has published in Advances in Business 

Research, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching, and Learning for Christians in Higher Education. 
 

Nicole Carden is a student attending Northeastern State University-Tahlequah.  


