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

Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study has a number of limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data 
means that cause and effect relationships cannot be inferred from the findings 
reported here. The results are vulnerable to opposite or bi-directional rela-
tionships, as we cannot rule out the possibility that poor performance and job 
satisfaction may lead to a reduction in self-leadership behaviors. An argu-
ment against such reversed causality is that existing longitudinal research has 
 by guest on July 31, 2014
gom.sagepub.com
Downloaded from 

---

Ho and Nesbit 
409
generally demonstrated that training in self-management and constructive-
thought self-leadership strategies are effective for improving aspects of job 
performance, such as attendance (Latham & Frayne, 1989), sales perfor-
mance (Frayne & Geringer, 2000), mental performance, and job satisfaction 
(Neck & Manz, 1996). Nevertheless, future research should adopt a longitu-
dinal design to affirm the causal relationship.
A second limitation relates to CMV, because this study involved the col-
lection of self-reported ratings of self-leadership behaviors and job satisfac-
tion at the same point in time from the same respondent. Although we have 
sought to demonstrate that it is not a serious problem in the current study, 
nevertheless, potential rating biases could be reduced by collecting data by 
means of two separate questionnaires at different points in time.
Third, we did not consider the effects of leadership styles of supervisors. 
Supervisors with different leadership styles may encourage employees’ self-
leadership behaviors differently as well as indirectly impact emotional reac-
tions (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002), which can affect employees’ 
work performance. Thus, future research could investigate how individual 
differences in supervisors’ leadership style (e.g., spiritual leadership) influ-
ence the outcomes of employees’ self-leadership behaviors.
Fourth, in this study, we only investigated the association between self-
leadership and three outcomes variables of job satisfaction, performance rat-
ing, and objective sales performance. Although these outcomes are important, 
future researchers should consider incorporating other outcome variables into 
their studies, such as organization commitment, turnover intention, and 
stress. Self-leadership theorists propose that individuals who influence them-
selves toward their self-set goals often develop a sense of ownership over 
their tasks and work processes (Manz & Sims, 2001). As a result, self-leading 
employees may demonstrate higher levels of commitment to their tasks and 
organization and have less intention to leave the organization than individu-
als who are not engaging in self-leadership. Likewise, individuals practicing 
self-leadership may experience greater feelings of control and autonomy, 
which is often identified as an essential component of effective stress man-
agement (Houghton, Wu, Godwin, Neck, & Manz, 2012).
Fifth, while our finding lends support to the contention that self-leadership 
is a unique construct distinct from the personality trait of conscientiousness, 
other personality traits may influence the extent to which employees engage 
in self-leadership behaviors (Furtner & Rauthmann, 2010; Houghton et al., 
2004) and the success of training interventions (Stewart, Carson, & Cardy, 
1996). For example, Williams (1997) proposed positive associations between 
the use of self-leadership skills and extraversion and emotional stability per-
sonality traits. Stewart et al. (1996) have shown that the least conscientious 
 by guest on July 31, 2014
gom.sagepub.com
Downloaded from 

---

410 
Group & Organization Management 39(4)
employees showed the greatest improvement in self-leadership behaviors as 
a result of training. Future self-leadership research should continue to inves-
tigate whether self-leadership training is more appropriate for those low in 
extraversion and emotional stability whose personalities naturally predis-
posed them to be ineffective self-leaders. Additional research is needed to 
further examine whether self-leadership makes a unique contribution in pre-
dicting work outcomes above and beyond the influence of extraversion and 
emotional stability.
Sixth, our research is limited to Chinese employees. It would also be of 
interest to examine whether the results found in this study could be general-
ized to other non-Western, collectivistic countries such as Japan, Korea, and 
Malaysia. We also recommend future researchers extend this study by exam-
ining Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions of power distance and uncer-
tainty avoidance as potential moderators to the relationship between 
self-leadership and work outcomes.