Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-managers: Social contexts, personal traits, and organizational commitment

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study adopts self-determination theory to examine a path model that focuses on the effects of charismatic leadership and private self-consciousness on self-management, which in turn, leads to organizational commitment. We articulate that the relationships between self-management and each of charismatic leadership and private self-consciousness represent identified and integrated regulation, respectively. Thus, we test whether the relationship between self-management and private self-consciousness is stronger than that between self-management and charismatic leadership. The hypotheses are tested using data gathered from 981 employees. The result of the stronger path from private self-consciousness to self-management than the one from charismatic leadership is consistent with the literature on flow, organizational change, and followership. Moreover, our result of the mediating effects of self-management provides explanations for the little empirical research on follower processes in leadership effectiveness and on the association between private self-consciousness and organizational commitment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anatchkova, M. D., Ware, J. E., Jr., & Bjorner, J. B. 2011. Assessing the factor structure of a role functioning item bank. Quality of Life Research, 20: 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. 1970. Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2004. Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10): 2045–2068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, Y., Li, P. P., & Xi, Y. 2012. The distinctive effects of dual-level leadership behaviors on employees’ trust in leadership: An empirical study from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2): 213–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlew, D. E. 1979. Leadership and organizational excitement. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin & J. J. McIntyre (Eds.). Organizational psychology: 343–356. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. 1986. Motivational facets of the self. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, Vol. 1: 145–164. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3): 185–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.). Testing structural equation models: 136–162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnkrant, R. E., & Page, T. J. 1984. A modification of the Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss self-consciousness scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48: 629–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. 1996. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2): 197–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, A., Chen, I., Lee, A., Chen, H. C., & Lin, Y. 2011. Charismatic leadership and self-leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3): 299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, L., & Pierro, A. 2007. Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of employees’ work-group identification. International Journal of Psychology, 42(5): 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4): 637–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1994. Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5): 439–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 2003. A model of charismatic leadership. In L. W. Porter, H. L. Angle & R. W. Allen (Eds.). Organizational influence processes: 242–262. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., & Mathur, P. 1997. Measuring charisma: Dimensionality and validity of the Conger-Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(3): 290–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2004. Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4): 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. 1975. Public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43: 522–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, F. J., & Schaumberg, R. L. 2011. When feeling bad leads to feeling good: Guilt-proneness and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0024166.

  • Franzoi, S. L. 1983. Self-concept differences as a function of private self-consciousness and social anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 17: 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., & Markwiese, B. 1990. A motivational explanation for the existence of private self-consciousness differences. Journal of Personality, 58(4): 641–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froming, W. J., & Carver, C. S. 1981. Divergent influences of private and public self-consciousness in compliance paradigm. Journal of Research in Personality, 15: 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Krauss, S. W., Davison, H. K., & Bing, M. N. 2004. Private self-consciousness factors: Relationships with need for cognition, locus of control, and obsessive thinking in Iran and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 144(4): 359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Manz, C. C. 1985. Linking cognition and behavior: A script processing interpretation of vicarious learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 527–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. 1982. Ego task analysis. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.). Cognitive social psychology: 109–147. New York: Elsevier North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. 1986. The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.). Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment: 89–136. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmbeck, G. N. 1997. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4): 599–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan, P. M., DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. 2003. Working effects in self-esteem scales: Methodological artifact or response style?. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3): 435–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. 2002. The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8): 672–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. 2005. Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged?. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4): 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., & Shamir, B. 1993. Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chermers & R. Ayman (Eds.). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions: 81–107. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. M. 1988. Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & K. N. Kanungo (Eds.). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness: 213–236. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. P., Bowen, D. E., Dorfman, P. W., Kerr, S., & Podsakoff, P. M. 1990. Substitutes for leadership: Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(1): 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. 2006. Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. 1997. Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, R. E. 1992. The power of followership. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1): 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. 1961. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25: 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. 1974. Social influence and linkages between the individual and the social system: Further thoughts on the processes of compliance, identification, and internalization. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.). Perspectives on social power: 125–171. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knickerbocker, I. 1948. Leadership: A conception and some implications. Journal of Social Issues, 4(3): 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. 2002. Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.). Handbook of self-determination research: 101–121. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. 1996. Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, C. F., & Gurland, S. T. 2008. Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation?. Journal of Research in Personality, 42: 1109–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. 1999. Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations, 52(8): 969–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loi, R., Lai, J. Y. M., & Lam, L. W. 2012. Working under a committed boss: A test of the relationship between supervisors’ and subordinates’ affective commitment. Leadership Quarterly, 23: 466–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. 2004. Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C. 1986. Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. 1980. Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3): 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. 1983. Self-knowledge: An expanded view. Journal of Personality, 51(3): 543–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. 1996. Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4): 810–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. 2004. Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 991–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. 2010. Structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences: 371–383. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neck, C. P., & Houghton, J. D. 2006. Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4): 270–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, M. J., & Wu, J. C. 2006. An investigation of the generalizabilitiy of the Houghton and Neck revised self-leadership questionnaire to a Chinese context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4): 360–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 492–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53(3): 435–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, M. 2001. Hypnotic leadership: Leaders, followers, and the loss of self. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. 1998. Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 523–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowden, R. W. 2000. The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviors and organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(1): 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. 1981. Private and public aspects of self. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2: 189–216. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. 1985. The self-consciousness scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(8): 687–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., & Pennington, J. 1996. Impression regulation and management: Highlights of a theory of self-identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context: 118–147. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. 1990. Self-consciousness and self-presentation: Being autonomous versus appearing autonomous. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4): 820–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B. 1991. Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3): 405–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4): 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C., Manz, C. C., & Laforge, R. W. 1983. Self-management: A key to entrepreneurial survival. American Journal of Small Business, 8(1): 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.). Sociological methodology 1982: 290–312. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25: 78–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. 1996. The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior in a service setting. Personnel Psychology, 49: 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, Y. F., & Huang, J. 2006. Charismatic, paternalistic, and virtue leadership and follower effects. Sun Yat-sen Management Review, 14(4): 939–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. M., & Zanna, M. P. 1995. The conflicted individual: Personality-based and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality, 63(2): 259–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. 1974. Behavioral self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevor-Roberts, E., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Kennedy, J. C. 2003. The egalitarian leader: A comparison of leadership in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20(4): 517–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2004. Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 825–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., Self, R. M., & Seo, J. H. 1994. A critical examination of the internalization, identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management, 20: 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63(2): 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. 2009. Modeling theoretic propositions. In A. S. Huff (Ed.). Designing research for publication. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7(3): 418–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. 1997. Personality and self-leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 7(2): 139–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. L., Verble, J. S., Price, D. E., & Layne, B. H. 1995. Relationship of self-management to personality types and indices. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(3): 494–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P. 2006. The forgotten follower: A contingency model of leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4): 374–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. 2006. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2): 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Additional thanks are extended to Chi-sum Wong and Robert C. Liden for their helpful advice on an earlier version of this paper. Order of authorship is alphabetical to denote equal contribution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Human Resource Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, No. 70, Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung, 80424, Taiwan, Republic of China

    I-Heng Chen & Anyi Chung

Authors
  1. I-Heng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anyi Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anyi Chung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, IH., Chung, A. Self-managers: Social contexts, personal traits, and organizational commitment. Asia Pac J Manag 31, 621–642 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9337-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9337-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation