Você está na página 1de 15

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228883801

Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team


performance: The mediating influence of job satisfaction

Article  in  Leadership & Organization Development Journal · April 2006


DOI: 10.1108/01437730610657721

CITATIONS READS
46 2,428

1 author:

John Politis
Neapolis University
22 PUBLICATIONS   676 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Politis on 25 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

The mediating
Self-leadership influence of job
behavioural-focused strategies satisfaction
and team performance
203
The mediating influence of job satisfaction
Received April 2005
John D. Politis Revised September 2005
Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, UAE Accepted October 2005

Abstract
Purpose – Examines the relationship between the dimensions of self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies, job satisfaction and team performance. It also evaluates the extent to which job satisfaction
mediates the influence of self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on team performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Involves a questionnaire-based survey of employees from a
manufacturing organisation operating in Australia. A total of 304 useable questionnaires were
received from employees who are engaged in self-managing activities. These were subjected to a series
of correlational and regression analyses.
Findings – There are three major findings in this research. First, the relationship between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction is direct, positive and significant.
Second, the relationship between job satisfaction and team performance is positive and significant.
Finally, the results have clearly shown that job satisfaction mediates the relation between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance.
Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional nature of the study renders it vulnerable
to some problems so that future studies should measure self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies,
job satisfaction and performance using longitudinal data and/or data from multiple sources.
Practical implications – The study suggests that organisations emphasising empowerment should
utilise training programs aimed at developing employees’ self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies that focus on self-assessment, self-reward and self-discipline.
Originality/value – The paper is the first to examine self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies
influences through a covariance structure analysis. It also clarifies the mediating affects of job
satisfaction on the self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies/team performance relationship.
Keywords Empowerment, Job satisfaction, Team performance, Self-development,
Leadership development
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Markets are becoming more complex, turbulent, unpredictable and extremely
competitive. In order to succeed in these markets, organisations need to adopt practices
leading to “large-scale” change. Although there is a number of typical approaches
leading to change, such as transformational change (Burnes, 2001); reengineering
(Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999); and quality management (Dale, 2000), it is suggested that Leadership & Organization
large-scale change must involve people at a fundamental level. Critical perspective Development Journal
Vol. 27 No. 3, 2006
writings (Grint, 1995; Willmott, 1995) consider the emancipation of employees as pp. 203-216
crucial to the success of large-scale change. Consequently, self-management practices q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
and self-leadership strategies continue to be the topics of interest to practicing DOI 10.1108/01437730610657721
LODJ managers and researchers (Manz, 1986; Manz and Sims, 1987, 2001; Politis, 2003;
27,3 Robbins, 2003; Stewart and Manz, 1995). Although self-leadership strategies are
popular in team development and have been recommended for managerial workshops
(Manz, 1992; McShane and Travaglione, 2003), there has been a gap in the literature
examining how self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies translate into
performance. It may be that self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies have their
204 initial influence on attitudinal perceptions regarding performance within specific task
domains. That is, the utilisation of self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies may
influence job satisfaction perceptions, which subsequently affect performance. The
objective of this paper is to examine the relationship between self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies, job satisfaction and team performance, and evaluate
the extent to which job satisfaction mediates the influence of self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies on team performance.

Literature review
Self-leadership theory
The literature clearly attests that self-leadership to a large extent overlaps with
self-management because of their common theoretical background (Manz, 1992).
Self-leadership addresses high-powered, right brain activity, and lays the foundation
for effective self-influence and continuous improvement. Self-leadership involves the
influence people exert over themselves to achieve the self-motivation and self-direction
needed to accomplish desirable outcomes (Manz, 1992). Three distinct categories of
self-leadership influence succeeding outcomes: behavioural-focused strategies, natural
reward strategies and constructive thought pattern strategies (Manz, 1986, 1992).
In relation to the behavioural-focused strategies, Manz has developed a theory,
which goes beyond the Bandura’s (1977, 1982) work of self-control. Manz’s (1992)
self-leadership (behavioural focused) theory is an expanded “self-leadership”
perspective that views employees as possessing an internal self-control system
(Manz, 1979) and engages in self-evaluation processes; self-administer rewards and
punishments in managing their daily activities (Bandura, 1977; Mahoney and
Thoresen, 1974; Manz and Sims, 1980). Self-leadership, with its emphasis on the
behavioural-focused strategies, suggests strategies that are self-discipline oriented to
manage ourselves in doing difficult, unattractive, but necessary tasks. Manz (1992)
labelled these strategies as self-observation, cueing strategies, self-goal setting,
self-reward, self-punishment, and practice.
According to Manz (1992), self-observation describes the extent to which employees
can (or try to) keep track of the progress of their work, or are aware of their own work
performance. Cueing strategies represent the extent to which employees use physical
cues to remind themselves of their important tasks. Self-goal setting represents the
extent to which employees provide self-direction using personal goals. Self-reward
represents the extent to which employees influence themselves using rewards at both a
physical and mental level. Self-punishment represents the extent to which employees
correct their undesirable behaviours through the feeling of guilt when they fail to do
something. Finally, practice represents the extent to which employees improve
themselves through the process of practicing an activity before performing it. Manz
(1992) has drawn on the literature of self-control, self-regulation and self-management
(Manz, 1983, 1986; Manz and Sims, 1980, 1989; Thoresen and Mahoney, 1974) and
developed scales which assess the above six behavioural-focused strategies of The mediating
self-leadership. These scales are referred to in the literature as the “self-leadership influence of job
questionnaire 1 (SLQ1)” and can be found in Manz’s (1992, pp. 19-21) book.
Although there is no direct empirical evidence suggesting a relationship exists satisfaction
between self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction, there is an
extensive literature arguing that there is a relationship between leadership and job
satisfaction (Bass, 1990; Hater and Bass, 1988). 205
Moreover, the use of self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies facilitates a
perception of control and responsibility, which positively affects performance
outcomes (Manz, 1983, 1992). Thus, there must be a dynamic interaction between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction in supporting and
encouraging employees’ positive attitudes towards their job, which in turn enhance
performance. Consequently, the dimensions of self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies and job satisfaction were employed in this study to predict team
performance.

Self-leadership ! job satisfaction


When people speak of employee attitudes, more often than not they mean job
satisfaction (Robbins, 2003). Job satisfaction has been defined as:
. . . an attitude that individuals have about their jobs. It results from their perception of their
jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit between the individual and the organisation
(Ivancevich et al., 1997, p. 91).
Considering job satisfaction has deep roots in various theories of motivation, including
the content and process theories and equity theory (Dunford, 1992), the writings are too
numerous to be listed in this paper. Among the plethora of these writings it is
acknowledged that there is an important connection between leadership and the
subordinate’s satisfaction and performance (Wall et al., 1986). Bass (1985, 1990) argued
that transformational leadership through the creation of meaning for employees,
results in an increased motivation and job satisfaction.
In relation to the initiating structure leadership, a study by Johns (1978) using 232
union employees found a small positive correlation between the leader’s initiation of
structure and the subordinates’ job satisfaction. However, one study specifically
emphasised self-management leader behaviour influences on job satisfaction.
Cohen et al. (1996) found that the Manz and Sims’ (1987) self-management leader
behaviours (self-management, self-rehearsal and self-criticism) positively influenced
overall job satisfaction (average correlation r ¼ 0:28; p , 0:01Þ: But Manz and Sims’
(1987) self-management scales contain certain themes, such as encouraging
self-observation, encouraging self-goal setting, encouraging rehearsal and reducing
habitual self-punishment patterns, common to those measured by Manz’s (1992)
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume
that the factors representing self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies will be
predictive factors of job satisfaction. This relationship represents the following
hypothesis.
H1. Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies have a direct, positive effect on
the level of job satisfaction.
LODJ Job satisfaction ! performance
27,3 Empirical research on job satisfaction indicates a strong and consistent link between
job satisfaction and subsequent outcomes. Researchers have linked job satisfaction to
demographics, employee-leader relations, performance appraisal, commitment,
turnover, absenteeism and organisational performance (Hackett and Guion, 1985;
Bass, 1990; Robbins, 2003). The positive influences of job satisfaction have been well
206 documented and strong empirical support exists for the effects of job satisfaction on
performance. Thus, it is reasonable to propose the following hypothesis.
H2. Job satisfaction has a direct, positive effect on team performance.

Self-leadership ! job satisfaction ! performance


As discussed earlier, job satisfaction results from attitudes (e.g. cognitive, affective and
behavioural) that are evaluative statements – either favourable or unfavourable –
concerning objects, people, or events (Robbins, 2003). Accordingly, these attitudes are
important to team performance because they affect employees’ self-efficacy, task
abilities, level of effort, and their satisfaction towards the job (Robbins, 2003). Spreitzer
et al. (1997, p. 684) reviewing the literature of self-efficacy argued that it “makes
intuitive sense that those who feel more competent about their work are likely to feel
more satisfied about their work”. As there is a connection between self-efficacy and job
satisfaction it is important to review whether self-efficacy operates as a mediator
between self-leadership and performance outcomes.
Previous research examined the mediating influence of self-efficacy in a variety of
task domains. For example, research done by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found
self-efficacy did not mediate the effects of visionary and charismatic leader behaviours
on performance. In contrast, a study by Prussia et al. (1998) examining the mediating
effects of self-efficacy on the relation between self-leadership behaviours (e.g.
behavioural-focused strategies, natural reward strategies and constructive thought
pattern strategies) and performance showed that self-efficacy fully mediate the
influence of self-leadership behaviours on performance. But it is argued that
self-efficacy increases intrinsic interest due to satisfaction from previous successes and
feelings of personal causation (Gist, 1987). Thus, job satisfaction may be a task-specific
attitude through which self-leadership strategies affect team performance. This
relationship represents the final hypothesis.
H3. Job satisfaction mediates the relation between self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies and team performance.

Method
Participants and procedures
Sample. Data were obtained from employees closely linked to manufacturing
operations and included plastics process workers, assembly workers, engineers,
quality inspectors, maintenance technicians, stores and dispatch handlers, production
controllers, clerical staff, and first line supervisors. All respondents were full-time
employees and volunteered to participate in the study. Three hundred and four useful
questionnaires were received from the survey; yielding an 81.5 per cent response rate.
Twenty-one returned questionnaires (5.6 per cent) were excluded from the sample
because they were incomplete. The sample is predominantly male (94.1 per cent), with
only 5.9 per cent females. The vast majority of employees (94.1 per cent) were engaged The mediating
in day shift activities. There is a wide range of ages represented in the sample with 22.8 influence of job
per cent being in the 31-35 age group. The majority of the respondents (62 per cent) had
a technical college associate diploma and craft/technical certificates, and 17.5 per cent satisfaction
had university qualifications. They had a range of tenure from 6 months to 41 years,
with 75.4 per cent in the range of 1-10 years and only 12.2 per cent had tenure with the
organisation over 15 years. 207
Analytical procedure. The proposed hypotheses were tested using covariance
structure analysis. Covariance-based structures are exemplified by software packages
such as LISREL, EQS and AMOS. The analysis of moment structures (AMOS, Version
5) software (Arbuckle, 2003) was used for the factor analysis (measurement model) and
for the regression analysis (structural model). The combination of factor analysis and
regression analysis is known as causal modelling (Hair et al., 1995) or structural
equation modelling (SEM). Following the recommendations of Sommer et al. (1995), a
measurement model was developed and then, with this held, a structural model. Using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) the factorial validity of the measurement models
was assessed. Given adequate validity coefficients of those measures, the number of
indicators in the model was reduced by creating a composite scale for each latent
variable (Politis, 2001, 2005).
As a test of the measurement and the structural models, a mixture of fit-indices was
employed to assess model fit. The ratio of x 2 to degrees of freedom (x 2/df) has been
computed, with ratios of less than 2.0 indicating a good fit. However, since absolute
indices can be adversely affected by sample size (Loehlin, 1992), three other relative
indices, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and
the Tucker and Lewis index (TLI) were computed to provide a more robust evaluation
of model fit (Tanaka, 1984; Tucker and Lewis, 1973). For GFI, AGFI and TLI,
coefficients closer to unity indicate a good fit, with acceptable levels of fit being above
0.90 (Marsh et al., 1988). For root mean square residual (RMR) and root mean square
error approximation (RMSEA), evidence of good fit is considered to be values , 0.05;
values from 0.05 to 0.10 are indicative of moderate fit and values . 0.10 are taken to be
evidence of a poorly fitting model (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).

Results
Measurement models
The variables measured on the survey are the self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies, job satisfaction and team performance.
Independent variables. Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies were assessed
using Manz’s (1992) 18-item questionnaire. The theory posits six dimensions of
self-leadership behaviour (e.g. self-observation, cueing strategies, self-goal setting,
self-reward, self-punishment and practice). The instrument employees a five-point
response scale (1 – does not describe me at all; 5 – describes me very well). A CFA of
all SLQ1 items was conducted to check for construct independence. The six-factor
model corresponding to that proposed by Manz (1992) was fitted to the data. The fit
indices of GFI, AGFI, TLI, RMR and RMSEA were 0.89, 0.84, 0.87, 0.07 and 0.08,
respectively, suggesting a poor model fit. It appears that certain factors should be
combined and solutions examined with fewer factors. A series of CFAs were, therefore,
performed by considering a hierarchy of competing models, from a simple null model
LODJ of zero common factors through to from one-, two-, three-, four-, five-, and six-factor
27,3 solutions. Substantial gains in model fit were obtained by moving from a four- to
five-factor solution. The fit indices of GFI, AGFI, TLI, RMR and RMSEA were 0.94,
0.91, 0.96, 0.04 and 0.05, respectively, suggesting that this five-factor model fits the
data fairly well. The x 2 to degrees of freedom ratio is below the recommended value of
2.0 ðx 2 =df ¼ 1:80Þ suggesting that the five-factor model provides good fit. Thus, the
208 data supported the independence of five factors, the first being the factor of
self-observation (four items, mean ¼ 3.91, a ¼ 0:74Þ; which consists of its original
items and one item from cueing strategies, and the factors of self-goal setting (three
items, mean ¼ 3.81, a ¼ 0:78Þ; self-reward (two items, mean ¼ 2.81, a ¼ 0:91Þ;
self-punishment (three items, mean ¼ 3.63, a ¼ 0:82Þ; and practice (three items,
mean ¼ 3.43, a ¼ 0:83Þ: Three items dropped from further analysis due to cross
loading and/or poor loading of the order of, or , 0.11.
Dependent variables. Job satisfaction was assessed using Warr et al. (1979) 15-item
job satisfaction scale (JSS). Among the plethora of job satisfaction instruments the
selection of Warr et al.’s (1979) JSS is justified for a number of reasons: first, the
questionnaire is easy to complete by unsophisticated respondents and its psychometric
properties are acceptable. Second, the scale has been previously tested on a sample of
blue-collar workers (Warr et al., 1979), which generally satisfies the needs of this study.
Third, it is short and it is easy to administer. Finally, its scoring is simple. Responses to
the 15 items were made on seven-point scale with response options from “definitely
satisfied” to “definitely dissatisfied”. JSS measures two distinct job satisfaction
variables: intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction. A CFA of all JSS
items was conducted in order to check for construct independence. A two-factor model
corresponding to that proposed by Warr et al. (1979) was fitted to the data. The fit
indices of CFA, AGFI, TLI, RMR and RMSEA were 0.93, 0.90, 0.89, 0.05 and 0.05,
respectively, suggesting that this model fits the data fairly well. The x 2 to degrees of
freedom ratio is below the recommended value of 2.0 ðx 2 =df ¼ 1:78Þ suggesting that
the two-factor model provides good fit. Thus, the data supported the independence of
two factors, namely, intrinsic job satisfaction (six items, mean ¼ 4.83, a ¼ 0:79Þ; and
extrinsic job satisfaction (seven items, mean ¼ 4.64, a ¼ 0:73Þ: Two items were
dropped due to cross loading.
Team performance was assessed using both non-financial and financial
measures. The non-financial measure of team performance was assessed using
Crouch’s (1980) five-scale of Crouch’s behavioural inventory instrument. Responses
to the five items were made on seven-point scale with response options from
“definitely agree” to “definitely disagree”. The five-item scale resulting from the
CFA of this study showed a good internal reliability coefficient (five items,
mean ¼ 5.37, a ¼ 0:83Þ:
Finally, the financial measure of team performance[1] was assessed using a
composite scale made from quality, schedule and profit (three items, mean ¼ 91.1,
a ¼ 0:76Þ: External team leaders of the self-managing teams reported the level of
performance for each indicator – schedule, quality and profit – as a per cent of target
value over the previous six months. Given adequate validity of above measures, the
number of indicator variables was reduced by creating a composite scale for each
latent variable (Politis, 2001, 2005). As a result of the CFAs, the theoretical model to be
tested contains the variables shown in Figure 1.
Self-leadership behavioural- Job satisfaction Team The mediating
focused variables variables performance
influence of job
Self-leadership Behavioural- Job Satisfaction Team Performance satisfaction
focused Strategies (Warret al. 1979)
(Manz, 1992)
• Self-observation • Non-financial Team
• Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Performance 209
• Self-goal setting (Crouch, 1980)
• Extrinsic Job
• Self-reward Satisfaction • Financial Team
Performance [1]
• Self-punishment Figure 1.
Summary of variables
• Practice used in the paper

Control variables. To reduce the likelihood that individual’s demographics would


confound relations examined in this research, three characteristics were measured and
controlled in the analyses: age group in years, education and sex. It should be noted
that age is the only demographic variable significantly correlated with self-leadership
(e.g. self-reward) measure ðr ¼ 20:18; p , 0:05Þ: Non-financial team performance is
positively and significantly correlated with education ðr ¼ 0:13; p , 0:05Þ; and the
overall team performance is significantly correlated with age ðr ¼ 20:15; p , 0:05Þ:
Path modelling. Using the analytical procedure outlined in Politis’s (2001, pp. 358-9)
study, the computation of the parameters l and u was performed. These parameters
are used in the path model. Table I contains the means, standard deviations, reliability
estimates, the regression coefficient l and measurement error u estimates.
Once these parameters (regression coefficients (l) which reflect the regression of
each composite variable on its latent variable, and the measurement error variances
(us) associated with each composite variable) are calculated, this information is built
into the path model to examine the relationships among the latent variables.
The model of Figure 2 contains five self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies,
namely, self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward, self-punishment and practice. It

Reliability Loading Error variance


Meana SD (s) estimate a l ¼ sa u ¼ a 2(1 2 a)

Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies


Self-observation 3.91 0.62 0.74 0.53 0.100
Self-goal setting 3.81 0.74 0.78 0.65 0.120
Self-reward 2.81 1.19 0.91 1.14 0.127
Self-punishment 3.63 0.87 0.82 0.79 0.136
Practice 3.43 0.89 0.83 0.81 0.135
Job satisfaction
Intrinsic job satisfaction 4.83 1.20 0.79 1.07 0.302
Extrinsic job satisfaction 4.64 1.27 0.73 1.09 0.435
Team performance
Table I.
Non-financial performance 5.37 1.18 0.83 1.08 0.237
Means, standard
Overall performance 91.1 15.1 0.76 13.4 47.88
deviations, reliabilities
Note: aN ¼ 304 and l and u estimates
LODJ Self-leadership behavioural- Job satisfactio Team
focused strategies variables n performance
27,3
Self-
observation
γ1 = .34**

210 γ3 = .28** Intrinsic γ10 = .27***


Self-goal job
setting satisfaction Non-financial
team
γ4 = .32** γ5 = .21* performance
γ7 = .27**
γ12= .32***

Self- γ11 = .32***


reward γ2 = .29**

γ6 = .36*** Overall team


Extrinsic performance
job
satisfaction γ13 = .26**
Self-
punishment
γ8 = .30***

γ9 = .22**

Practice

Figure 2.
Standardised path coefficient; N = 304.
Structural estimates for
*p 0.05; ** p 0.01; *** p 0.001.
the hypothesised modela
All correlations of exogenous variables were statistical significant @ 0.001 level.

also contains the dependent variables of intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job
satisfaction, non-financial team performance and overall team performance.
The analysis revealed that the structural model of Figure 2 fits the data well,
with x 2 ¼ 8:7; df ¼ 12; x 2 =df ¼ 0:72; GFI ¼ 0:97; AGFI ¼ 0:95; TLI ¼ 0:97;
RMR ¼ 0:049; and RMSEA ¼ 0:08: Figure 2 shows results of hypotheses testing using
SEM. Standardised path estimates (gs) are provided to facilitate comparison of regression
coefficients. It should be noted that only significant regression coefficients are reported.
As predicted, four of the five self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies had
positive effect on intrinsic job satisfaction, largely supporting H1. Specifically,
self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward and self-punishment are significantly
and positively related to intrinsic job satisfaction ðg1 ¼ 0:34; p , 0:01; g3 ¼ 0:28;
p , 0:01; g5 ¼ 0:21; p , 0:05; and g7 ¼ 0:27; p , 0:01;, respectively). Contrary to our
prediction, practice had no effect on intrinsic job satisfaction. Furthermore, the five
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies had positive effect on extrinsic job
satisfaction, supporting H2. Self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward,
self-punishment and practice are significantly and positively related to extrinsic job
satisfaction ðg2 ¼ 0:29; p , 0:01; g4 ¼ 0:32; p , 0:01; g6 ¼ 0:36; p , 0:001; The mediating
g8 ¼ 0:30; p , 0:001; and g9 ¼ 0:22; p , 0:01;, respectively). influence of job
H2 proposed that correlations between job satisfaction and team performance will be
direct and positive. This hypothesis was supported by the data of this study, in that satisfaction
intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction are significantly and positively related to
non-financial team performance ðg10 ¼ 0:27; p , 0:001; g12 ¼ 0:32; p , 0:001;,
respectively). Furthermore, intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction are significantly and 211
positively related to the overall team performance ðg11 ¼ 0:32; p , 0:001; g13 ¼ 0:26;
p , 0:01;, respectively). Adding direct paths from self-management behavioural-focused
strategies to team performance led to a significantly worse model fit. Alternative models
were also examined with either paths added or removed, but all led to significantly worse
model fit.
Finally, H3 predicts that job satisfaction would mediate the self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies/team-performance relations. If a variable is to be
considered a mediator, four conditions should be met:
(1) the independent variable should make a significant contribution to the outcome;
(2) the independent variable should make a significant contribution to the
mediator;
(3) the mediator should make a significant contribution to the outcome; and
(4) when the influence of the mediator is held constant, the contribution of the
independent variable to the outcome should become non-significant (Baron and
Kenny, 1986).

H3 was tested using hierarchical regression analyses. First, the block of control
variables and team performance were introduced into the equation, followed by
the appropriate independent and mediating variables. The results showed that
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies measures made significant contributions
to team performance (non-financial b ¼ 0:37; p , 0:01; overall b ¼ 0:91; p , 0:05Þ;
thereby meeting condition 1. Next, it was examined whether the self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies measures contributed to the mediators (intrinsic and
extrinsic job satisfaction). Results show that self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies measures made significant contributions to job satisfaction (intrinsic
b ¼ 0:79; p , 0:001; extrinsic b ¼ 0:87; p , 0:001Þ; thereby meeting condition 2.
To examine condition 3, the controls and two job satisfaction variables were entered into
an equation predicting team performance. The results show that both job satisfaction
measures contributed to team performance. Specifically, intrinsic job satisfaction made
significant contributions to both team performance measures (non-financial b ¼ 0:49;
p , 0:001; overall b ¼ 0:84; p , 0:05Þ: Furthermore, extrinsic job satisfaction made
significant contributions to both team performance measures (non-financial b ¼ 0:63;
p , 0:001; overall b ¼ 1:20; p , 0:05Þ: Hence, intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic
job satisfaction remain potential mediators. To examine condition 4, the controls,
intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, and the self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies were introduced into an equation predicting team performance. Results show
that condition 4 is met – by controlling for both intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction,
the bs for self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies become non-significant.
Specifically, controlling for intrinsic job satisfaction, the results show that
LODJ self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies made non-significant contributions to
27,3 team performance (non-financial b ¼ 0:09; p . 0:05; overall b ¼ 0:07; p . 0:05Þ:
Similarly, controlling for extrinsic job satisfaction, the results show that self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies made non-significant and near zero contributions to
team performance (non-financial b ¼ 0:06; p . 0:05; overall b ¼ 0:01; p . 0:05Þ;
suggesting that the effect of self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on
212 team performance is fully mediated by extrinsic job satisfaction (Judd and Kenny,
1981). In total, these results support H3, and indicate that job satisfaction mediates
the relation between self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team
performance.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to:
.
extend the field of leadership research by investigating the relationship between
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies, job satisfaction and team
performance; and
.
evaluate the extent to which job satisfaction mediates the influence of
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on team performance.

Path modelling analyses examined the structural relations in the proposed model and
whether an alternative structural representation was justifiable. Covariance structure
analysis provided strong support for the relations shown in the model of Figure 2. The
GFI of 0.97 revealed that the model of Figure 2 accurately reproduced the observed
covariances. (Note: alternative models to that of Figure 2 resulted to worse model fit.)
The relationships derived from the model indicate that self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies enhance job satisfaction, which in turn affects
performance. This finding is consistent with previous research on the positive affects
of leadership on job satisfaction (Wall et al., 1986; Cohen et al., 1996; Bass, 1990). The
current results extend previous research findings by Prussia et al. (1998) and Cohen et al.
(1996). Prussia et al. (1998) supported the relationship between self-leadership,
self-efficacy and performance, but these authors did not examine the affect of the specific
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies on job satisfaction. Yet, Cohen et al. (1996)
did not examine the mediating effects of job satisfaction on the self-management
behaviour/performance relationship. The findings of the current study:
.
confirmed the previously unexplored relationship between self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction; and
.
contributed to the understanding of the mediating effects of job satisfaction on
the self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies/team performance
relationship.

These findings have implications for both research and management practices.
From a research perspective, this study is the first to examine self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies influences through a covariance structure analysis.
By analysing latent variables to assess the constructs of interest, the present study
avoided measurement bias inherent in single indicator models (James et al., 1982).
Moreover, this study supported the operationalisation of Manz’s (1992) five The mediating
self-leadership behavioural-focused latent constructs. influence of job
From the more applied perspective, these findings seem to highlight the importance
of the direct and indirect affects of job satisfaction and self-leadership on team satisfaction
performance. The results of this study suggest that it would be beneficial for managers
to encourage employees to develop specific behaviours that focus on self-observation,
self-goal setting, self-reward, self-punishment and practice, as these 213
behavioural-focused strategies alone explained over 29 and 36 per cent of the
variance of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, respectively. Thus, organisations
should develop and deliver training programs aimed at equipping and allowing
employees to apply self-leadership strategies at work, and improve employees’ job
satisfaction, confidence and performance outcomes. The findings suggest that
organisations must create more complex empowerment interventions – in addition to
pay for performance and design jobs meaningful to employees, organisations must
create a supportive organisational culture, provide training and development to
enhance feelings of competence, and allow employees to self-identify – apply
motivational rewards (Manz, 1992), and have impact in their work through
involvement in strategic goal setting (Spreitzer et al., 1997).

Limitations and directions for future research


Several limitations of the current study are worth noting. First, although Roberts and
Glick (1981) argued that the issue of common methods variance (CMV) is not new and
has not slowed research efforts utilising monomethod designs, the cross-sectional
nature of the present study renders it vulnerable to problems typically associated with
CMV and attributional processes. While the results from the ratings of the external
team leaders on team performance provided some evidence that common method bias
was not an overriding concern in the current study, the possibility of such bias is
always present in survey research (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Thus, future
researchers should measure self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies, job
satisfaction and performance using longitudinal data, and/or data from multiple
sources.
The second limitation involves implications regarding the causal relationship
between self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and job satisfaction. Given the
cross-sectional nature of the study, causality cannot be tested directly, although the
predictions imply causation. It is conceivable that job satisfaction perceptions drive
self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies, but that possibility was not examined
in this research. Although theoretical rationale for the proposed relationships was
provided, and the results indicate that the proposed model is a plausible representation
of the relationship between the constructs, future research should examine the causal
relationship between the constructs of interest by using experimental or longitudinal
methodologies.
Finally, this research limited its focus to a key set of self-leadership
behavioural-focused strategies, job satisfaction and team performance. Although the
variables of job satisfaction used in this study were considered important in capturing
employees’ attitudes towards their work (Robbins, 2003), future research must examine
the relationship of various leadership styles to other work characteristics including
self-efficacy, task complexity, emotional demands, role conflict, social contact and team
LODJ skill variety, and to organisational outcomes, such as turnover, accidents, innovation or
27,3 customer satisfaction.

Note
1. A 1999 case study: “The introduction of flat organisational structure of the manufacturing
company selected for this study”.
214
References
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999), “BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success
and failure factors”, Business Process Reengineering Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2003), Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS), User’s Guide Version 5.0,
SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37,
pp. 122-47.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial
Application, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equations Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 136-62.
Burnes, B. (2001), Managing Quality, Pitman, London.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “A predictive model of self-managing work
team effectiveness”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 643-76.
Crouch, A.D.G. (1980), “Psychological climate, behaviour, satisfaction and individual
differences in managerial work groups”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of New South Wales, Sydney.
Dale, B. (2000), Managing Quality, Blackwell, London.
Dunford, R.W. (1992), Organisational Behaviour, an Organisational Analysis Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Sydney.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organisational behaviour and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85.
Grint, K. (1995), Management: A Sociological Introduction, Polity Press, London.
Hackett, R.D. and Guion, R.M. (1985), “A reevaluation of the absenteeism – job satisfaction
relationship”, Organisation Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35, pp. 340-81.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tathan, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Superior’s evaluations and subordinate’s perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73
No. 4, pp. 695-702.
Ivancevich, J.M., Olelelns, M. and Matterson, M. (1997), Organisational Behaviour and
Management, Irwin, Sydney.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.S. and Brett, J.M. (1982), Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models and Data, The mediating
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Johns, G. (1978), “Task moderators of the relationship between leadership style and subordinate
influence of job
responses”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 319-25. satisfaction
Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), Estimated the Effects of Social Interventions, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic 215
leadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81, pp. 36-51.
Loehlin, J. (1992), Latent Variables Models, Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ.
McShane, S. and Travaglione, T. (2003), Organizational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim,
McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Sydney.
Mahoney, M.J. and Thoresen, C.E. (1974), Self-control: Power to the Person, Brooks/Cole,
Monterey, CA.
Manz, C.C. (1979), “Sources of control: a behaviour modification perspective”, Proceedings:
Eastern Academy of Management, pp. 82-8.
Manz, C.C. (1983), The Art of Self-leadership: Strategies for Personal Effectiveness in Your Life
and Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. (1986), “Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 585-600.
Manz, C.C. (1992), Mastering Self-leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1980), “Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social
learning theory perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 361-7.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves. The external
leadership of self-managing work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32,
pp. 106-29.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1989), Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead Themselves,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2001), The New Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead
Themselves, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., New York, NY.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), “Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory
factor analysis: the effect of sample size”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 391-410.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Politis, J.D. (2001), “The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management”,
The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 354-64.
Politis, J.D. (2003), “QFD: the role of various leadership styles”, The Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 181-92.
Politis, J.D. (2005), “Dispersed leadership predictor of the work environment for creativity and
productivity”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 182-204.
Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S. and Manz, C.C. (1998), “Self-leadership and performance: the
mediating influence of self-efficacy”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 19,
pp. 523-38.
Robbins, S.P. (2003), Organisational Behaviour, 10th ed., Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
LODJ Roberts, K.H. and Glick, W. (1981), “The job characteristics approach to task design: a critical
review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 193-217.
27,3 Sommer, S., Bae, S-H. and Luthans, F. (1995), “The structure-climate relationship in Korean
organisations”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 23-36.
Spreitzer, G., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain”, Journal
216 of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.
Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995), “Leadership for self-managing work teams: a typology and
integrative model”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 747-70.
Tanaka, J.S. (1984), “Some results on the estimation of covariance structure models”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 45, p. 924B.
Thoresen, C.E. and Mahoney, M.J. (1974), Behavioural Self-control, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
New York, NY.
Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), “The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis”, Psychometrika, Vol. 38, pp. 1-10.
Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R. and Clegg, C.W. (1986), “Outcomes of autonomous
workgroups: a long-term field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 280-304.
Warr, P.B., Cook, J. and Wall, T.D. (1979), “Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes
and aspects of psychological well-being”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 129-48.
Willmott, H. (1995), “The odd couple? Reengineering business process, managing human
resources”, New Technology Work and Employment, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 89-98.

About the author


John D. Politis is pioneering Faculty and Subject Co-ordinator of the Bachelor of Engineering
Management Programs, Faculty of Business and Engineering, Higher Colleges of Technology,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is also the Chair for the Engineering Management Program.
John has earned a PhD in Management from University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; a
Master of Business Administration from Century University, USA; a Graduate Certificate on
Online Education and Training from the Institute of Education, University of London; a
Graduate Certificate in Enterprise Management from Swinburne University of Technology,
Australia; a Master of Science (Mechanical) from Aristotelion University, Greece; and a Bachelor
of Engineering from the University of Melbourne, Australia. John D. Politis can be contacted at:
John.Politis@hct.ac.ae

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


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats

Você também pode gostar