Article in Group & Organization Management · January 014 citations reads 13,031 authors: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects

Corresponding Author:
Jessie Ho, Hong Kong Community College, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, PolyU HKCC 
(West Kowloon Campus) 9 Hoi Ting Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 
Email: [e-mail]
539389
GOMXXX10.1177/1059601114539389Group & Organization ManagementHo and Nesbit
research-article2014
 by guest on July 31, 2014
gom.sagepub.com
Downloaded from 

---

390 
Group & Organization Management 39(4)
Keywords
self-leadership, work performance, job satisfaction, job autonomy
Today’s employees are working in turbulent, complex business environments 
that are characterized by globalization and rapid technological advances 
(Reichard & Johnson, 2011). To succeed in increasingly competitive business 
markets, organizations often adopt decentralized, organic-type organizational 
structures, in which employees are required to take greater responsibility 
for their own job tasks and career development (Sturges, Conway, & 
Liefooghe, 2010). Staff with high levels of capacity and skills in self-direc-
tion and self-influence could respond more effectively to the dynamic 
changes of organization structures and environments (Brown & Fields, 
2011). Such self-direction capacity and skill is inherent in the construct of 
self-leadership, which is defined as “a self-influence process through which 
people achieve the self-direction and self-motivation necessary to perform” 
(Neck & Houghton, 2006, p. 2).
Despite the importance of employees’ self-leadership strategies to the new 
organizational environment, the majority of self-leadership publications are 
conceptual in nature, with relatively few empirical studies examining self-
leadership in organizational contexts (Andressen, Konradt, & Neck, 2012; 
Neck & Houghton, 2006). In particular, research examining the positive 
effects of self-leadership on job performance in organizational settings 
remains sparse (Brown & Fields, 2011; Neck & Houghton, 2006). There are 
only two notable exceptions. First, Carmeli, Mietar, and Weisberg (2006) 
found that greater use of self-leadership practices was positively related with 
self and supervisor ratings of innovative behaviors at work in a sample of 
Israeli employees. Second, Konradt, Andreβen, and Ellwart (2009) examined 
employees in German organizations and demonstrated positive relations of 
self-leadership with individual performance in teams.
While these results provide support for the self-leadership–performance 
relationship that is suggested by self-leadership theory, the majority of self-
leadership research has been conducted in the United States and research on 
the relevance of self-leadership theory across cultures has lagged behind 
(Alves et al., 2006; Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 
2011). With the globalization of the world economy and the rapid develop-
ment of the Southeast Asian economies, there are increasing numbers of mul-
tinational corporations (MNCs) establishing operations in non-Western 
countries such as China. Employees in China are becoming more exposed to 
Western management practices. Consequently, they are increasingly likely to 
be required to lead themselves to achieve organizational goals without 
 by guest on July 31, 2014
gom.sagepub.com
Downloaded from 

---

Ho and Nesbit 
391
depending on the guidance of their supervisor. However, it is not clear 
whether employees’ practice of self-leadership results in higher job perfor-
mance and job satisfaction in a Chinese context, where individuals are accus-
tomed to centralized and paternalistic leadership (Farh & Cheng, 2000; 
Pellegrini, Scandura, & Jayaraman, 2010).
Paternalism is a common leadership style in Chinese societies that “com-
bines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral 
integrity” (Farh & Cheng, 2000, p. 84). Like the father in a Chinese family, 
the superior in a company is expected to be nurturing, caring, and depend-
able, yet also authoritative, demanding, and a disciplinarian. In paternalistic 
relations, subordinates reciprocate the leader’s benevolent care and protec-
tion by showing loyalty, deference, and compliance. Given the paternalistic 
control of Chinese leaders and the compliant mind-set of the subordinates in 
Chinese organizations, the practice of self-leadership, which requires employ-
ees to be independent self-leaders without depending on the guidance of their 
supervisor, would appear to be less relevant for Chinese employees.
It can be argued that paternalistic controls in organizations may not be 
incongruent with employees’ practice of self-leadership. As noted by Stewart 
et al. (2011), even in the most intensive external control situations, employ-
ees are able to exercise some degree of self-leadership. Thus, Chinese work-
ers may be able to exercise self-leadership skills while being loyal and 
deferent to the superior because they could incorporate the input and guid-
ance of their leader in their self-regulation efforts. Furthermore, Confucian 
ethics in Chinese traditions stress the importance of reciprocity in social rela-
tions. Thus, the fatherly support, protection, and care provided by paternalis-
tic managers may generate indebtedness on the part of subordinates (Farh & 
Cheng, 2000; Pellegrini et al., 2010). As a result, Chinese subordinates may 
feel obligated to reciprocate the care and protection of their supervisors by 
leading themselves so as to lessen their leader’s burden in supervising their 
work progress.
The objective of the current study, therefore, is to examine whether self-
leadership influences work outcomes within Chinese organizational settings. 
This study also investigates the boundary conditions of self-leadership. 
Markham and Markham (1998) have questioned whether self-leadership is a 
“contingency theory that best fits certain boundary conditions” (p. 349). For 
example, routine tasks with predictable workflows allow management to 
install control systems that require little individual discretion and minimal 
cognitive involvement on the part of the individual (Slocum & Sims, 1980). 
In contrast, autonomous and non-routine jobs, such as marketing and sales, 
require greater flexibility and higher levels of cognitive involvement (Manz 
& Sims, 1980) on the part of the employee. These types of tasks place greater 
 by guest on July 31, 2014
gom.sagepub.com
Downloaded from 

---

392 
Group & Organization Management 39(4)
responsibilities on individuals and provide the occasion for workers to play 
an active role in their self-regulation (Manz, Mossholder, & Luthans, 1987). 
Consequently, work that gives employees higher degrees of discretion and 
freedom to perform their tasks may require a higher level of self-leadership 
skills for job success (Neck & Manz, 2010). To date, very little empirical 
research has been conducted to examine job autonomy as a potential modera-
tor to the relationship between self-leadership and work outcomes.
Some management theorists have also questioned whether self-leadership 
is a unique construct distinct from existing personality constructs (Guzzo, 
1998; Markham & Markham, 1998). In addition, previous research has 
shown that self-leadership is significantly related to conscientiousness 
(Marshall, Kiffin-Petersen, & Soutar, 2012), so there is a question of concept 
redundancy. We believe that controlling for the impact of conscientiousness, 
which has well-established relationships with the work outcomes of job per-
formance and job satisfaction (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & 
Mount, 2002), is important, as it provides a stringent test of the importance of 
the self-leadership construct. In the following section, we develop specific 
hypotheses for our research based on a review of research and theory regard-
ing the main effects of self-leadership on job performance and satisfaction as 
well as the role of job autonomy as a moderator of these relationships.