ARI Technical Report 1173

Understanding, Predicting, and Supporting Leader

Self-Development

Lisa A. Boyce

George Mason University

Consortium Research Fellows Program

Michelle M. Wisecarver

U.S. Army Research Institute

Stephen J. Zaccaro

George Mason University

20060120 121

November 2005

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the Department of the Army

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1

Authorized and approved for distribution:

MICHELLE SAMS ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Technical Director Director

Technical review by

Stanley M. Halpin, U.S. Army Research Institute

Sena Garven, U.S. Army Research Institute

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPC-ARI-MS,

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

November 2005 - Final May 2002 - May 2004

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

Understanding, Predicting, and Supporting Leader Self- 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

Development 622785

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

Lisa A. Boyce (George Mason University), A790

Michelle M. Wisecarver (U.S. Army Research Institute), 5d. TASK NUMBER

and Stephen J. Zaccaro (George Mason University) 103

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 Technical Report 1173

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Subject Matter POC: Michelle Wisecarver

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Systematic research was performed to better understand and support individual professional selfdevelopment. Over 400 junior-military leaders participated in detailed longitudinal research to test a

structural model of leader self-development. Results provide a unifying framework for understanding the

effects of individual characteristics on propensity for self-development. The model depicts a person with a

mastery, work, and career-growth orientation as more motivated to perform leader self-development and

more skilled at performing instructional and self-regulatory processes and therefore more likely to perform

leader self-development. Further, results indicated that an organizational support tool moderated the

actual performance of leader self-development activities. The implications of the results for selfdevelopment theory and for leader self-development in the Army are discussed.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Leader self-development, officer self-development, predicting self-development, organizational support for

self-development

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

ABSTRACT OF PAGES

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Ellen Kinzer

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified 43 Technical Publications Specialist

703-602-8047
ii
Technical Report 1173

Understanding, Predicting, and Supporting Leader

Self-Development

Lisa A. Boyce

George Mason University

Consortium Research Fellows Program

Michelle M. Wisecarver

U.S. Army Research Institute

Stephen J. Zaccaro

George Mason University

Leadership Development Research Unit

Stanley M. Halpin, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

November 2005

Army Project Number Personnel Performance

622785A790 and Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Col Greg Lynch and Mr. Bob Garven of the Combined Arms Services Staff

School (CAS3) at the Combined Arms Center for their support of this research. We would also like to

thank the 498 Captains attending CAS3 in June of 2002 who volunteered to participate in this research,

with a special thanks to the 141 who took the time to complete all three surveys.

We would like to thank Dr. Stan Halpin and Dr. Sena Garvin for their reviews of this report and helpful

comments and suggestions. We would also like to express appreciation to Dr. Richard Klimoski and Dr.

Edward Jones for their helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.

v
vi
UNDERSTANDING, PREDICTING, AND SUPPORTING LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

The Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA Pam) 350-58, Leader Development for America's Army,

describes three development methods that serve as the foundation for developing Army officers:

Institutional Training and Education, Operational Assignments, and Self-Development. Self-Development

is intended as a method to enhance, sustain, and expand their leadership capabilities. Although selfdevelopment holds a central role in Army leader development doctrine, very little is known about who

engages in self-development, what types of activities they do, and how organizations can facilitate selfdevelopment. Research is needed in a number of areas related to self-development. This research

proposed a model to measure an individual's propensity to engage in leader self-development and to

predict their actual performance of leader self-development activities. It also examined the effects of

organizational support on self-development performance.

Procedure:

Based on a review of the training and development literature we identified an initial set of individual

characteristics that were expected to predict leader self-development performance. Using the basic tenet

that performance is a function of an individual's motivation and skill, a model was proposed in which

motivation and skills mediated the relationships between identified individual attributes and the

individual's propensity to self-develop. It was predicted that individuals with higher levels of work

orientation, achievement-striving orientation, and mastery orientation would have higher motivation for

leader self-development, and that individuals with higher levels of mastery orientation, career-growth

orientation, and cognitive ability would have higher levels of the skills required for leader selfdevelopment.

In order to investigate the effects of organizational support, a website was created for this research on the

topic of Leader Self-Development that served as an organizational support tool. We predicted that an

organizational level support tool such as the website could increase the likelihood that an individual

would engage in self-development activities, although not for those with extremely low or high

propensity to self-develop.

Data were collected from 498 officers attending the Combined Arms Services Staff School. Two surveys

were collected during the course in June 2002 to measure individual characteristics and propensity to selfdevelop. Following the administration of the surveys, half of the students were informed about and

provided access to the website, while half were not, simulating a situation in which only half were

provided with organizational support. Follow up data regarding the officers' performance of selfdevelopment activities was then collected four months later via electronic mail.

Findings:

Survey data from the officers at the end of the four months found that while nearly 50% reported

performing leader self-development activities for 20 or more hours, 14% indicating they had not spent

any time performing leader self-development. The specific leader competency for which officers reported

spending the greatest number of hours on self-development was technical/tactical proficiency. While

participants indicated that they valued being a more effective leader, they were less inclined to indicate

vii
that successful self-development of leadership skills would lead to actually becoming a more effective

leader, and even less likely to believe that they could successfully develop and conduct a personal

leadership self-development program. When asked to select the factors that prevented them from

performing leader self-development, the most commonly selected responses for all officers were "lack of

time," "job responsibilities" and "home/family responsibilities." The types of materials listed as most

useful for leader self-development were: (1) Reading (e.g., journals, magazines, books), (2) Internet, and

(3) Peers, co-workers, family.

Analysis of the predictors of self-development using structural equations modeling indicated that the data

fit the self-development model reasonably well. The model depicted a person with a mastery, work, and

career-growth orientation as more motivated to perform leader self-development and more skilled at

performing instructional and self-regulatory processes and therefore more likely to perform leader selfdevelopment. Results did not support the importance of Achievement-Striving Orientation as a predictor

of Motivation or Cognitive Ability as a predictor of Skills.

Results further showed that the existence of organizational support moderated the performance of leader

self-development activities. As predicted, individuals with low to moderately low propensity performed

self-development to a greater extent when they received the information about organizational support than

their counterparts who did not receive organizational support. One unexpected finding was that

individuals with high propensity performed more self-development if they were not in the group who

received information about the website.

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings:

Results of this research provide a description of the characteristics of leaders who have a propensity to

perform leader self-development. This information could be used to develop assessment and training tools

that would provide Soldiers and their leaders with individual feedback as well as support for future selfdevelop efforts. The results also provided empirical evidence for the importance of organizational

support for self-development.

Results can be used by proponents of Army leader development, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command, or other Army elements interested in promoting the accomplishment of leader selfdevelopment within the Army. Initial results were briefed to the Commandant of the Command and

General Staff College in August of 2003.

viii
UNDERSTANDING, PREDICTING, AND SUPPORTING LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT

CONTENTS

Page

IN TR O D U C T IO N ........................................................................................................................................ I

DEFINING LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 1

DEVELOPING A MODEL OF LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 1

M E T H O D ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

R E SU L T S ................................................................................................................................................... 12

D ISC U SSIO N ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1

RE FE R EN C E S ........................................................................................................................................... 29

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. MEASURES: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................... 11

TABLE 2. TRANSFORMATIONS DUE TO VARIABLE NORMALITY PROBLEMS ................... 13

TABLE 3. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, CORRELATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES

AMONG KEY VARIABLES .............................................................................................. 14

TABLE 4. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS VARIABLES FACTOR LOADINGS,

COMMUNALITY, VARIANCE, COVARIANCE, AND CORRELATIONS .................... 15

TABLE 5. LEADERSHIP SELF-DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE: TIME SPENT PERFORMING,

EXTENT LEADERSHIP SELF-DEVELOPMENT PERFORMED, AND EXTENT

LEADERSHIP SELF-DEVELOPMENT BEHAVIORS AND ACTIVITIES

PE R F O R M E D ........................................................................................................................... 17

TABLE 6. MOTIVATION AND SKILLS: OFFICER RATINGS OF MOTIVATION AND ABILITY

TO PERFORM LEADERSHIP SELF-DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 17

TABLE 7. SELF-DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETENCIES: TIME SPENT PERFORMING AND

EXTENT LEADERSHIP SELF-DEVELOPMENT BEHAVIORS AND ACTIVITIES

PER F O R M ED ......................................................................................................................... 18

TABLE 8. BARRIERS TO LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE ............................. 18

ix
CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL MODEL .......................................... 3

FIGURE 2. LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE: MEDIATION MODEL ............. 20

FIGURE 3. LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE: MODERATION MODEL ...... 22

FIGURE 4. INTERACTION EFFECT OF PROPENSITY FOR SELF-DEVELOPMENT OF

LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT ON TIME

SPENT PERFORMING LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT ........................................... 23

x
UNDERSTANDING, PREDICTING, AND SUPPORTING

LEADER SELF-DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

Army documents discussing leader development, such as the Department of the Army Pamphlet

(DA Pam) 350-58, Leader Development for America's Army, describe three development methods that

serve as the foundation for developing Army officers: Institutional Training and Education, Operational

Assignments, and Self-Development. The expectation is that an officer will develop their primary

leadership skills, knowledge, and behaviors during their institutional training, then practice and refine

these during operational assignments. Self-development is considered a continuous process that enhances,

sustains, and expands capabilities learned from institutional training and operational assignments.

Very little is known in the Army or in the public sector about self-development, or leader selfdevelopment, specifically. Given that it is projected as one of three critical pillars of the development of

Army leaders, research regarding self development practices in the Army and factors related to engaging

in self-development would be useful. From a theoretical perspective our goals in this research were to

define a model of personal attributes that predict propensity to participate in leader self-development

activities, and to determine whether organizational support is an important factor in determining actual

participation in self-development activities. In addition, from an applied standpoint, we were interested in

gaining insight into the prevalence of leadership self-development activities among a sample of mid-level

Army leaders.

After defining leader self-development, we will identify a model of individual characteristics

hypothesized to predict participation in leader self-development activities, and specify the expected

effects of organizational support within this model.

Defining Leader Self-Development

Self-development is an approach to training that relies on individuals to take the primary

responsibility for identifying, planning, carrying out, and evaluating their own learning experience. Two

key elements of this are that the individual controls both what to learn (i.e., the objective) and how to

learn (i.e., the process).

As a general rule, an individual's activities would be considered self-development when each of

the following is true: (1) the activities related to learning added up to at least seven hours, (2) "more than

half of the person's total motivation is to gain and retain certain fairly clear knowledge and skill, or to

produce some other lasting change in himself', and (3) the activities have definite beginning and ending

times, and the information is retained for at least two days after the learning episode takes place (Tough,

1971 in Brocket & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 41). Excluded from self-development are activities in which

learning was unintended, or was intended but serves only an immediate purpose and is quickly forgotten.

Leader self-development, then, refers to those deliberate activities that an individual undertakes

in order to gain and retain knowledge, skills, or abilities specifically in the domain of leadership.

Developing a Model of Leader Self-Development

Despite the potential importance of self-development, little systematic research has examined

characteristics associated with individuals who perform self-development or the effect of organizational

1
support in promoting self-development performance (Candy, 1991; Yukl, 1998). Prior to 2004 (v.

Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite, 2003; Simmering, Noe, Colquitt, & Porter, 2003) research on employee

development, while pioneering, was limited in several ways. First, it included few variables focused on

demographic predictors; second, it relied on quasi-experimental or cross-sectional designs and self-report

data; or third, it used non-managerial samples (e.g., Birdi, Allen, & Warr, 1997; Kozlowski & Farr, 1988;

London, Larsen, & Thisted, 1999, Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tharenou, 1997).

As a result, leaders in organizations still have little to no information regarding which employees

would be likely to engage in self-learning activities or how their organization could facilitate employee

participation in professional or job-related self-development such as leadership self-development.

In order to develop a model that would predict propensity to participate in leadership selfdevelopment activities, we started with the basic performance determinants tenet that performance in any

setting is a function of an individual's motivation and skill (Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler,

& Sager, 1993). Motivation and skills, therefore, were considered proximal indicators of propensity to

perform self-development, and provided a structure to understand why certain individuals have a greater

tendency to perform self-development (see Figure 1). As proximal indicators, these variables were

expected to partially mediate the relationship between stable dispositional attributes and the propensity to

self-develop.

Given the lack of research in the area of self-development, we reviewed the training and

development literature to identify an initial set of motivation and skill predictors. The characteristics

initially identified were either empirically or theoretically linked to participation or performance in

training (i.e., as opposed to self-development, specifically). Despite the parallels between training and

self-development, self-development is unique in that the individual, as opposed to the institution, is

ultimately responsible for multiple aspects of the training program. Essentially, the trainee is also the

trainer, in that the self-developer assesses their own training needs, plans and develops their training

objectives, selects and designs their instructional program, and evaluates their own training progress

(Piskurich, 1993). In light of these differences, the initial list of individual characteristics was reviewed

conceptually to include only those dispositions most relevant to the self-development situation and the

performance determinants model.

Three categories of individual characteristics were identified as likely antecedents for motivation: work

orientation, achievement-striving orientation, and mastery orientation. Three categories were also

identified as likely antecedents for skills: mastery orientation, career-growth orientation, and cognitive

ability. We will first describe motivation and the individual characteristics expected to predict motivation;

then describe the skills required for leader self-development and the individual characteristics expected to

predict these skills.

Motivation

Cognitive choice theories have remained a popular approach for understanding motivation. One

cognitive theory, Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964), is particularly applicable to understanding future

behaviors. The key elements of this theory are labeled expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.

Expectancy refers to an individual's belief about whether he or she can achieve a certain level of

performance in an area; in this case, whether he or she can successfully develop and conduct a leader selfdevelopment program. Instrumentality refers to the individual's belief regarding whether achieving that

performance will accomplish a secondary goal, such a becoming a better leader (post-1964 Vroom; e.g.,

Kanfer, 1990). In this case, then, it refers to the belief that engaging in leader self-development will result

in becoming a more effective leader. Finally, valence refers to the value that an individual places on the

2
-ae

0 0

Cd 

Cd Q

M

>0

4LU

~; _

cd~

emI- ' 4- 

> c C F) 0 w 0

> Z 1 4m .- C4:. = -C
secondary goal, in this case, the extent to which he or she values being an effective leader. These three

elements of Expectancy theory provided a framework to identify relevant individual characteristics. As

mentioned, three categories of individual characteristics were identified as relevant: work orientation,

achievement-striving orientation, and mastery orientation. Characteristics were identified that could be

expected to impact these three dimensions of motivation.

Work orientation. Three individual dispositions (career motivation, job involvement,

organizational commitment) are particularly linked to propensity through motivation as they provide an

indication of whether an individual values being professionally effective (i.e., valence). The literature

suggests individual career variables may enhance motivation to be involved in learning and development

activities (e.g., Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Tannenbaum et al., 1991).

Therefore, individuals with a work orientation as demonstrated by higher career motivation, job

involvement, and organizational commitment should have a greater desire to be involved in professional

learning and development.

Career motivation is defined as the resilience and self-esteem to overcome career barriers and

adapt to changing circumstances, realistic insight about self and career, and the extent to which one's

identity is tied to career goals and accomplishments (London, 1993; Noe, Noe, & Bachhuber, 1990).

Career motivation has been positively related to participation in development behavior (Noe & Wilk,

1993; Sugalski & Greenhaus, 1986).

Job involvement is defined as the degree to which an individual identifies psychologically with

work and the importance of work to a person's total self-image (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965). People who are

highly involved with their jobs are more likely to be motivated to engage in self-development because

participation in training can increase skill levels, improve job performance, and increase feelings of selfworth (Brown, 1996; Mathieu, Martineau, Tannenbaum, 1993). A consistent significant relationship has

been shown between job involvement and motivation to learn (Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Tracey, Hinkin,

Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2001).

Organizational commitment refers to an individual's involvement in and identification with an

organization, including an acceptance of and belief in the organization's goals and values, a willingness to

exert effort for the organization, and a desire to maintain membership in the organization (Meyer, Allen,

& Smith, 1993; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982). Organizational commitment, which is also associated

with prosocial organizational behaviors such as deliberate self-development, is positively related to

motivation to learn, reactions to training, and transfer of training (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Mathieu,

1988; Quinones, Ford, Sego, & Smith, 1995).

Taken together, these three constructs reflect an individual's work orientation, and were expected

to affect an individual's propensity to perform leader self-development through motivation.

Hypothesis 1. Motivation to perform leader self-development activities mediates the influences of

career motivation, job involvement, and organizational commitment on propensity for selfdevelopment of leader attributes (SDLA).

Achievement-striving orientation. Need for achievement and locus of control are linked to

propensity through motivation as they provide evidence that individuals will engage and persist in

training activities because they believe their efforts will influence achieving the secondary goal (i.e.,

Instrumentality). The literature indicates that variables with an achievement-striving orientation may

enhance motivation to initiate and sustain learning and development activities (e.g., Noe & Schmitt, 1986;

Phillips & Gully, 1997). Therefore, individuals with higher achievement-striving orientation as

4
demonstrated by higher need for achievement and an internal locus of control should have a greater

impetus to perform self-development.

Need for achievement is characterized by an individual's commitment to the pursuit and

accomplishment of goals (McClelland, 1975). Individuals who have high need for achievement seek

challenging tasks and responsibility and are described as having a drive to persist in attaining goals

(Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Maier, 1999). Phillips and Gully (1997) found that higher need for

achievement related to the pursuit of higher performance standards.

Locus of control reflects the degree to which individuals perceive events to be under their control

(internal locus) or under the control of others (external locus; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Baron

(1995) proposed that because individuals with an internal locus of control more strongly believe they can

influence their own outcomes, they attempt to do so more frequently than individuals with an external

locus of control. In addition, Noe (1986) suggested that individuals with an internal locus of control have

more positive attitudes toward training opportunities because they are more likely to feel that training will

result in tangible benefits.

Together, need for achievement and locus of control were predicted to affect propensity for

leadership self-development through motivation.

Hypothesis 2. Motivation to perform leader self-development activities mediates the influences of

need for achievement and locus of control on propensity for SDLA.

Mastery orientation I. General self-efficacy, conscientiousness, openness to experiences, and

learning goal orientation are linked to propensity through motivation as they are enablers for novel

learning and development programs, supporting an individual's belief that they can successfully develop

and conduct their own leadership development program (i.e., Expectancy). The literature supports the

assertion that individual qualities that act as personal enablers are linked to motivation to learn (e.g.

Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Farr, Hoffman, & Ringenbach, 1993; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Therefore,

individuals who are more self-efficacious, conscientious, open, and demonstrate a greater learning goal

orientation should have a greater attraction to performing self-directed learning. Because most of these

characteristics were also predicted to affect propensity through skills, the effects on relevant skills will be

summarized here as well, in the interest of efficiency.

Self-efficacy refers to individuals' judgments of their own capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain designated types of performance (Bandura, 1986). Efficacy

expectations are hypothesized to determine if behavior will be initiated and is predictive of participation

in learning activities (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Zimmerman, 2000) perhaps because

interest in such activities are enhanced when employees believe they have the capabilities to succeed.

With respect to skills, self-efficacy is a critical component of the self-regulatory processes and influences

goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Efficacious students set more challenging goals

(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) are better at self-monitoring (Bouffard-Bouchard,

Parent, & Larivee, 1991) and self-evaluating (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), and use a greater variety of

learning strategies (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).

Conscientiousness is a trait reflecting such qualities as being reliable, hardworking, selfdisciplined, and persevering (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Highly conscientious individuals are more likely to

take the initiative to seek out training opportunities (Martocchio & Judge, 1997). With respect to skills,

conscientiousness is also considered promising in predicting training proficiency (Barrick & Mount,

1991; Hogan & Ones, 1997) and goal setting and striving (Austin & Klein, 1996).

5
Openness to experience refers to how willing people are to make adjustments in notions and

activities in accordance with new ideas or situations. Individuals who score high on this dimension are

believed to be more likely to have positive attitudes toward learning experiences in general (Barrick &

Mount, 1991).

Learning goal orientation is strongly related to participation in voluntary job- and careerplanning activities (Birdi et al., 1997). Individuals with a strong learning orientation are characterized as

having a desire to increase task competence, view achievement situations as a challenge, adopt more

difficult goals, and persevere in the face of adversity (Beaubien & Payne, 1999), characteristics that relate

to both motivation and skills. Beaubien and Payne's meta-analysis reported a positive correlation between

learning goal orientation and self-set goal levels. Learning goal orientation was also associated with

greater effort in complex learning strategies (Fisher & Ford, 1998; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, &

Salas, 1998) and greater engagement in self-regulated learning (Covington, 2000; Dweck & Leggett,

1988; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).

As a group, these characteristics comprise an individual's mastery orientation, and we predicted

that they would affect an individual's propensity to self-develop through motivation.

Hypothesis 3. Motivation to perform leader self-development activities mediates the influences of

self-efficacy, conscientiousness, openness to experiences, and learning goal orientation on

propensity for SDLA.

Skills

The skills necessary for individuals to perform leader self-development can be described as a

synergy between instructional technology and self-regulatory skills. The instructional technology system

provides a context for identifying and framing the instructional skills critical to self-development

(Goldstein, 1993). These skills include 1) diagnosing learning needs, 2) designing and setting

developmental goals, 3) identifying the developmental process, and 4) evaluating personal learning

progress.

Self-regulation theory provides a complimentary approach for discussing leader self-development

skills as the focus transitions from the external to an internal instructional training system, in which the

self is responsible for performing needs analysis, goal setting, process identification, and progress

evaluation. Self-regulation implies a process of establishing performance goals, planning, and monitoring

their accomplishment (Murphy, 2002), and it comprises three major components: self-monitoring, selfevaluation, and self-reaction (Kanfer, 1990; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). As indicated previously, three

categories of individual characteristics were identified as relevant to self-development skills: mastery

orientation, career-growth orientation, and cognitive ability.

Mastery orientation II. The individual characteristics of general self-efficacy, conscientiousness,

learning goal orientation, metacogntion, and intellectual maturity are linked to propensity through skills,

as they are enabling characteristics for performing self-regulatory behaviors. Research has provided

evidence that these characteristics are critical prerequisites of the self-regulatory processes and are

associated with greater learning proficiency (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Hogan & Ones, 1997; Kanfer, 1992;

Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Therefore, individuals who are more self-efficacious, conscientious, learning

goal oriented, metacognitive and intellectually mature should have greater skills to perform selfdevelopment.

6
Because self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and learning goal orientation were defined and

discussed under the Motivation section, including their relevance to requisite skills they will not be

discussed again in this section.

Metacognition is defined as an individual's knowledge of and control over their cognitions, or the

ability to think about thinking (Flavell, 1987). Metacognition addressees self-monitoring processes

(Garrison, 1997) and is an essential prerequisite for self-regulation (Kanfer, 1992). Individuals with

greater ability to metacognate are hypothesized to learn more effectively because they monitor their

progress, determine when they have problems, and adjust their learning accordingly (Ford et al., 1998).

Research examining metacognition in formal training environments has found positive relationships

between metacognition and academic performance (e.g., Ford et al., 1998; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).

Intellectual maturity involves a sophisticated understanding of the nature of knowledge including

a comfortable acceptance of the ambiguities, uncertainties, and limitations inherent in achieving

knowledge (Dean, 1967). Individuals with high intellectual maturity develop positions based on their own

judgments and synthesis rather than relying on the advice of others and are associated with independent

learners and successful technical professional updating behaviors (Johnson, 2000; Perry, 1981).

Individuals with high intellectual maturity are believed to be more able to set goals and form strategies,

including identifying learning resources.

As a group, these five individual characteristics, self-efficacy, conscientiousness, learning goal

orientation, metacognition, and intellectual maturity, were predicted to affect propensity for leader selfdevelopment through skills.

Hypothesis 4. Skill to perform leader self-development activities mediates the influences of

general self-efficacy, metacognition, conscientiousness, learning goal orientation, and

intellectual maturity on propensity for SDLA.

Career-growth orientation. Two individual dispositions (career exploration and feedback

seeking) are particularly linked to propensity through skills as they provide an indication of an

individual's inclination toward gaining insight on organizational goals and personal performance. The

literature suggests that these career-growth oriented variables are associated with skills needed to

accurately identify professional strengths and weaknesses (e.g., London & Mone, 1999: Stumpf,

Colarelli, & Hartman, 1983). Therefore, individuals with a greater orientation toward career exploration

and feedback seeking should be more likely to perform needs analysis and self-monitoring behaviors.

Career exploration refers to the self-assessment of skill strengths and weaknesses, career values,

interests, goals, or plans, as well as the search for job-related information from counselors, friends, and

family members (Mihal, Sorce, & Compte, 1984; Stumpf, et al., 1983). Individuals with high levels of

career exploration orientation identify their strengths, weaknesses, and interests; have a more accurate..

awareness of their strengths and weaknesses; and are oriented toward self-improvement (Bass, 1990).

Noe and Wilk (1993) reported significant relationships between career exploration and number of hours

employees planned to spend in non-mandatory training and development activities.

Feedback seeking provides greater insight during self-evaluation, particularly in a leadership

context, which requires an understanding of a broad phenomenon of behaviors. Because feedback-seeking

behaviors allow managers to detect discrepancies and, as a result, adapt behaviors, Ashford and Tsui

(1991) considered it a "central aspect of the self-regulation framework" (p. 253).

Together, career exploration and feedback seeking were predicted to affect propensity for selfdevelopment through these skills.

7
Hypothesis 5. Skill to perform leader self-development activities mediates the influences of career

exploration and feedback seeking on propensity for SDLA.

Cognitive ability has received considerable attention as a predictor of training performance (Ree

& Earles, 1991; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Although mental ability as a requirement for self-development

has not been specifically studied, research suggests that individuals with higher intelligence are more

capable of performing in less structured training programs (Snow, 1986). Therefore, individuals with

higher intelligence are expected to have greater capacity to perform self-development.

Hypothesis 6. Skill to perform leader self-development activities mediates the influences of

cognitive ability on propensity for SDLA.

Energy. A high energy level promotes managing or coping with the hectic pace, long hours, and

unrelenting demands of most managerial jobs (Bass, 1990; Howard & Bray, 1988). Energy level has not

been examined within a training context; however, managers with high energy levels appear more likely

to be able to adjust to the additional responsibilities of developing and conducting a successful leadership

self-development program so energy was therefore included in the research as an exploratory variable.

The Role of Organizational Support

While the goal of leader self-development is for leaders to initiate and direct their own

professional development, an organization's actions or culture could potentially facilitate or reduce

leaders' participation in self-development activities. Specific research in the area of organizational

support has been sparse and equivocal (Confessore & Kops, 1998). Some research has demonstrated a

link between supportive organizational practices and developmental participation and performance (e.g,

Baldwin, Magjuka, & Loher, 1991; Hicks & Klimoski, 1987; Maurer and Tarulli, 1994). Other research

did not find a significant relationship between organizational support and measures of self-development

activity (e.g., Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Noe & Wilk, 1993).

Nevertheless, work-related self-development is more likely to occur in organizations

characterized as "learning organizations" (Confessore & Kops, 1998). A learning organization is

described as one that "facilitates the learning of all its members and continually transforms itself' (Pedler,

Burgoyne, Boydell, 1989, p. 2). There are potentially many organizational variables associated with

leaming organizations that might facilitate participation in leader self-development activities, such as the

presence of a participative management style, an innovative culture, employee empowerment and

autonomy, and social support (Confessor & Kops, 1998; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Maurere & Tarulli, 1994;

Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995; Tracey et al., 2001).

Of the characteristics often associated with a learning organization, providing support is most

relevant to this research; one way organizations could support self-development is by providing relevant

information and resources. This would be expected to increase employees' motivation and skills to selfdevelop, and therefore directly relates to the propensity model we are using.

In order to investigate the effects of organizational support, a website was created for this

research on the topic of Leader Self-Development. Information and resources were provided on the

website regarding topics such as the following: the benefits and advantages of leadership selfdevelopment, tools to assess one's motivation to self-develop in leadership and how to interpret the

results, guidance for performing a needs analysis, goal setting, process identification, progress evaluation,

self-development tools (e.g., learning contract templates), and links to useful leadership self-development

web-sites (e.g., Company Command).

8
We predicted that an organizational level support tool that was developed, maintained, and

promoted by the organization, such as this website, could encourage individuals to reassess their values

and beliefs about leader self-development and provide tools for individuals to acquire the skills necessary

to perform self-development. In developing a specific hypothesis, we found research by Tharenou (2001)

that supported an interaction effect between organizational support and individual expectancy motivation

on participation in training and development programs.

We hypothesized that a similar moderation would apply to this sample. Because individuals with

low propensity do not have sufficient motivation and skills to initiate access to such a support tool,

however, the availability of organizational support would not be likely to influence their self-development

activities. At the other end of the spectrum, individuals with high propensity already have high motivation

and skills to perform leader self-development, so the availability of organizational support that focuses on

increasing motivation and developing skills for self-development are not as likely to affect their selfdevelopment activities. Therefore, we predicted that individuals with moderate levels of motivation or

skills would be more likely to engage in leader self-development when they have information and access

to the organizational support website, than when they do not have this type of support.

Hypothesis 7. The relationship between propensity for SDLA and leader self-development

activities is moderated by organizational support, such that individuals with moderate propensity

will demonstrate greater performance of leader self-development in a condition in which the

organization provides leadership self-development guidance, information, and resources.

Method

Participants

Participants were leaders completing a six-week professional military education (PME) program.

Students were initially asked to participate in research to "aid the understanding of leadership selfdevelopment" and were informed that their responses were confidential and for research purposes only.

Of the 561 students enrolled in the program, 498 volunteered to participate in the research.

Participants ranged in age between 22 and 45 with the average age of 29 years. All volunteers

were Army Officers, and as such all respondents had a bachelor's degree with nearly 20% having

completed postgraduate work. Eighty-eight percent of the sample was male, and 97% held the rank of

Captain. The ethnic composition of the sample was 75% Caucasian, 10% African American, 6%

Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% Pacific Islander, 1% American Indian, and 3% other. Most participants (95%)

had more than four years of supervisory experience, supervising an average of 40 subordinates. The

majority were from Combat Arms branches (55%), with 22% from Combat Support, 21% from Combat

Service Support, and 3% from other branches (e.g. Medical).

Procedure

In total, three surveys were administered. The first survey included demographic and individual

characteristic items, and was administered midway through the PME program. The second survey, which

included leader self-development motivation, skills, and propensity measures, was administered two

weeks later. Approximately 90% of the volunteers completed both survey packets during their personal

time with 471 and 443 respondents completing Surveys 1 and 2, respectively. Surveys with no individual

identification information, little or no variance, systematic responses, or missing critical data were

9
disregarded, resulting in 396 respondents providing usable data and an adequate sample size for the

mediation analyses. No systematic differences were found with the demographic data of the discarded

surveys.

Following the first two surveys, all students were randomly assigned to participate in one of two

50-minute presentations on leader self-development. Each group of approximately 280 officers received a

30-minute standardized briefing that defined and described leader self-development and provided an

overview of the purpose, benefits, and processes of developing and performing a leadership selfdevelopment program. After the standardized briefing, half of the students received information and

access to a website hosted by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARI) that provided guidance, information, and resources on why, what, and how to perform leader selfdevelopment. The other half were shown approximately 15 minutes of humorous job-related cartoons and

quotes. Shortly after the day of the presentations, students left the PME to return to units.

Finally, a third survey measuring the performance of leader self-development, was administered

four months after the leaders completed their PME program, following Dillman's (2000) multiple contact

protocol. Of the 177 leaders completing the third survey, data from 141 respondents were usable. This

provided an adequate sample size for the moderation analysis. Seventy-three (52%) of the respondents

had received information and access to the ARI leader self-development website.

Measures

Individual characteristics. The fifteen individual disposition constructs were measured in the first

survey using established scales. These measures were career motivation, job involvement, organizational

commitment, need for achievement, locus of control, general self-efficacy, openness and

conscientiousness, learning goal orientation, intellectual maturity, metacognition, career exploration,

feedback seeking, cognitive ability, and energy level. Table 1 summarizes each measure and lists any

peculiarities associated with the scale. Unless noted, all scales used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

Motivation. The ten-item scale from Sanchez, Truxillo, and Bauer (2000) was adapted to measure

motivation to self-develop across eight competencies identified as essential for Army officer leadership

performance. These eight competencies included communication, decision-making, planning,

professional ethics, team development, supervision, teaching/counseling, and technical proficiency

(Halpin & Karrash, 2001). A composite variable was created by adding the valence, instrumentality, and

expectancy values for each participant (a = .98).

Skills. A 16-item, self-evaluation measure was developed, based on Knowles' (1975)

Competencies of Self-Directed Learning: A Self-Rating Instrument, to assess the extent to which

individuals perceived that they had the four fundamental skills necessary to perform self-development (a

= .96).

Self-regulatory skills were assessed using a measure from Pintrich and DeGroot (1990), the selfregulated learning scale. This 12-item measure used a 7-point Likert scale and had an internal reliability

of .82. A composite variable was created by adding the self-development skills and self-regulation

processes for each participant.

Propensity to leadership self-develop. The Propensity to Leadership Self-Develop measure was

adapted from Day, Bedeian, and Conte (1998) and London et al. (1999) and used a 5-point Likert scale.

10
ccc

o. Ca- a (7\ 0 

Q-0

.fl Cd*4~.

o oo 0.

L)~C Cd tCd Oa

Cd 0* Do - 1a 11

ig :, C)0- , w a a C) 

.~~ ~ ON- d 'sd - ~ )s ~~~~ P *Ca s- 0

~4g. R.-d0t

0.0

C) O-C ~~EO C- " Cd 0w8.-

5 , _ ) 080 w

(U, -0C c 0

-0 cn o~.~

zo t;'

Cd c d 4 1;fO - 0 e)~ 2 0t 00 

2 0 (ON '0 bo0 00 0 0 00 000

t0 o\ "r, 2oo Ji -

0 Cdt

0 Cd C', H

c Ca

0 11 ' O N m kf) C 1 t .-C> C n 0

00. 0 00 00 N0 ~C)O4

ON. Chc c~ ON 

CCh

C.)d

0 Ca C

Vd c'c

0s- N 0 -0C 0 j s

Cd

.4L 010 C o) (Dc 

e ~~4 - f) ~ ~ C. U >U 

s- a) 0 r. 00 c C C
An example of an item from each scale, respectively, is "If I had no constraints (e.g., financial,

time, etc.), I would perform self-development activities to become a better leader" and "After graduating

from [program name], I will perform self-directed learning activities to acquire new leadership

knowledge." The scale showed a coefficient alpha reliability of .89.

Criterion Measures. Three self-report measures of leader self-development performance were

used in this research. An overall leader self-development measure was adapted from London et al. (1999)

to capture activities engaged in during the specified timeframe ("LSD Rating"). An example of the

revised items includes: "During the last three months, I intentionally performed self-directed learning

activities to acquire new leadership knowledge." Participants provided ratings on four items using a 5-

point Likert scale reflecting their performance of leader self-development activities (a = .95).

A leader self-development activity measure was adapted from Tough's (1971) interview protocol

to assess the "patterns and purposes" of self-development learning activities. These items explored the

nature of the participant's learning project, as well as their use of resources as part of the learning process

("LSD Activities") (a = .93). A quantitative measure was also collected by asking participants to write in

the total hours they spent performing leadership self-development activities ("LSD Hours").

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Violations for distribution assumptions associated with the planned analyses were tested. Several

of the variable distributions, including those for Career Motivation, Organizational Commitment, Locus

of Control, General Self-Efficacy, Conscientiousness, Learning Goal Orientation, Intellectual Maturity,

Career Exploration, Feedback Seeking, Energy Level, Motivation, and Skills deviated significantly from

normal (see Table 2). In general, the scales showed significant negative skew and positive kurtosis. This

was not necessarily surprising given that, as a group, these officers were expected to be highly motivated,

committed, confident, and skilled. This would tend to produce greater frequencies at the upper end of the

distributions as well as a stronger concentration of scores around the high median values. To prevent

violating the assumptions of normal distributions for the multivariate analyses, appropriate

transformations were made to achieve acceptable distributions for each variable. The transformed

variables were used in the remaining analyses unless otherwise noted.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities for the 15 individual characteristics,

motivation, skills, propensity, and the criterion variables are presented in Table 3. Means and standard

deviations are based on non-transformed scales, but correlation coefficients reflect transformations. Using

Hemphill's (2003) guidelines for large effect size, which corresponds to Cohen's (1988) medium effect

size, correlation coefficients greater than .30 are highlighted. As shown, several of the individual

characteristics (e.g., General Self-Efficacy and Learning Goal Orientation; Organizational Commitment

and Career Motivation), are highly correlated (r > .60).

Multicollinearity was found among the independent variables (Condition Indices >30 and two

Variance Proportions > .5), so a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed on the individual

disposition scales to address multicolinearity concerns and reduce the number of variables for the

mediated analysis. Tests of correlations indicated favorable factorability and the Kaiser's measure of

sampling adequacy was .86, exceeding the .60 recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). Principal

factor analysis with varimax rotation extracted five factors (Mastery Orientation, Work Orientation,

Career Growth Orientation, Achievement-Striving Orientation, and Cognitive Ability). The lowest SMC

12
-' 1.0 CO 0 00 0w t 0 0 110 tn m m~ .0 t- "o t- - e N - r- tn - in ci W- en~ C) - C, ,c CD - 00 \0 m

1 0 0>

0 -1 cqm ~ m 0 o 0 c-NC" w t N O

0

(13 00 ~ _

C) C C) Cl u

~' HH H H <oH HH0-

rA 1'.0 M' Irn - - .- 0vi M. 

U; N n 1 0

00~-

t-..' O N m C> Itr (D \C'.I N - Il- -ý 0CD ml 0l N .n '

- PU

It Nt 't Nt '. . IT0 . . It Itt q t M, 't' It iit' It ig 0

0 -

0) 0 1

c0 cn

~ .~ C, 4-

00

as0 0 -1

- 0 o

r. 0 0 - -'5

C0 o , 0

I.g: w ~ > .o 

Hd 8 W=HH0ZoC -
-14

0 ~00

00 e

00 ~'. O 2 00

00 00

oo 2N c> c 4-i1C4 

C) D~

Crn- C'iO

00)

-t > -tr. Ci C'.d

-V 5 enCD - e - e~C-4 -I .

-. .O . 0 000 

- .N . . ... ' . . .

en CA ' el NR N! 'rl 00- r

0A ON10 M C W C M M T .

"C N't C I "t ' ýo C') Clo mr ' kO 00 m' 0 ý >0

-~ " C f) -f Cl N )CD C C ) ))dC

,f~C 0

"en (3N V0 C-4 -l V' N' VIj .' .' C) N 0' -4" M (- 

0 . -' a'. . '. .~ .~1 0 .j .0 '. c. . .0 .~ .0 . '. " 0 )

0 '-. 1.0 t') 0 0' ON tr 0t 1 C') 0 C1400e It) 0". %.c 'wl 

C') C0 CR c! uQ

*-- 00 ITe q * 0 I n m m 10 mo*C

0000000000000000000000 NOOOr

Cl"C ý' .lC)I'

0'.

tf)~c~C n 0n'T 

(D C t~ ) -T0 -o W) (O o - " -10 -C - M m

t--qýt , t- H C) W C) - k ý0 t-k ) : D1

CC

00) 6 C)i C)i kf Cý 4C

*000

r! 1 ! W c 00Cq 0
Table 4.

Individual Characteristics Variables Factor Loadings, Communality, Variance, Covariance, and

Correlations

Variables Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Communality

Mastery Work Career- Achievement- Cognitive H2 Factor Labels Orientation Orientation Growth Striving Ability Orientation Orientation

General Self-Efficacy (T) f 0.78 0.30 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.73

Intellectual Maturity (T) 0.77 0.04 -0.01 0.26 0.02 0.67

Learning Goal Orientation (T) 0.65 • 0.35 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.62

Conscientiousness (T) 0.61 0.05 0.06 0.25 -0.04 0.45

Openness to Experience -0.53 0.04 -0.29 -0.13 0.19 0.41

Metacognition -0.51 -0.20 -0.31 -0.16 -0.17 0.45

Career Motivation (T) 0.56 0.64 0.26 0.11 0.13 0.82

Job Involvement 0.01 -0.64 -0.08 -0.24 0.06 0.48

Organizational Commitment 0.23 0.63 0.14 0.15 0.06 0.50

(T) 

0.. .

Career Exploration (T) 0.23 0.06 r 0.85 0.11 0.02 0.79

Feedback Seeking (T) 0.07 0.17 0.55 0.05 0.03 0.34

Energy Level (T) 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.64 0.09 0.53

Locus of Control (T) 0.18 0.20 -0.04 0.42 0.08 0.26

Need for Achievement -0.15 -0.14 -0.19 " -0.36 0.14 0.23

Cognitive Ability 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.64 0.42

SSLs 3.08 1.60 1.42 1.04 0.55 7.68

Proportion of variance .21 .11 .09 .07 .04 .51

Proportion of covariance .40 .21 .18 .14 .07

FI: Adult Learning

F2: Work Focus 0.09

F3: Work Insight 0.03 0.07

F4: Self Focus 0.17* 0.13 0.03

F5: Cognitive Ability 0.04 -0.02 -0.03 0.09

Notes. Principal Axis Factoring on transformed (T) data with Varimax Rotation. N= 396

• p < .05; ** p <.01

15
was .56, indicating that the five factors were internally consistent and well defined by the variables. A cut

value of .32 (10% of variance) was used for variable inclusion. All 15 variables loaded on at least one

factor with factor content based on the highest loading. Loadings of variables on factors, communalities,

proportions of variance and covariance, and factor correlations are shown in Table 4.

Finally, analyses were also performed to ensure that subject characteristics were similar across the three

surveys and between the manipulation groups. No differences in measured individual demographic and

dispositions data were found between participants completing each survey or between individuals who

did or did not receive organizational support information.

Leader Self-Development Performance

Of the 141 officers who responded to the criterion measures in the third survey, only 22% indicated they

had spent 7 or fewer hours on leader self-development during the last three months, with 14% specifically

indicating they had not spent any time performing leader self-development (see Table 5). Nearly 50%

reported performing leader self-development activities for 20 or more hours. When officers were asked to

provide a rating to describe the extent to which they performed leader self-development during the last

three months, responses were evenly distributed, with 32% reporting they performed leader selfdevelopment to a "very little" or "small extent", 29% reporting "some" leader self-development, and 39%

reporting a "large" or "great extent." Similarly, when officers were asked specifically to what extent they

used the self-regulatory training skills to develop specific leadership competencies, similar results were

found.

With respect to their ability and motivation to perform leader self-development, officers in

general indicated a neutral to moderate level of motivation and a moderately high self-perceived ability to

perform leader self-development (see Table 6). Of particular interest was the variation in overall

responses to the valence, instrumentality, and expectancy measures of motivation. Valence assessments

received the highest ratings with instrumentality and expectancy assessments receiving relatively lower

ratings. These scores suggested that while officers valued being a more effective leader, they were less

inclined to believe that self-developing leadership skills would lead to becoming a more effective leader,

and even less likely to believe that they could successfully develop a conduct a personal leadership selfdevelopment program.

The specific leader competency for which officers reported spending the greatest number of hours

on self-development was technical/tactical proficiency, with an average of 17.5 hours spent on selfdevelopment in this area (see Table 7). Competencies receiving the least self-development focus were

teaching, counseling, and professional ethics. Also of interest is that there was little relationship between

the motivation and abilities to self-develop a certain competency and the actual self-development of that

competency. In other words, even though students had identified particular competencies as needing

development and they indicated that they had the skills to develop those competencies, they did not

necessarily spend time or effort self-developing the competencies they had identified.

Comparisons between officers who did and did not perform leader self-development revealed a

few interesting differences. First, those who performed self-development were more likely to be en route

to their next duty station, as opposed to attending in a temporary duty status (TDY) and returning to an

assignment. Second, they were more likely to be married (or remarried) rather than single and never

married. Finally, they were characterized by high levels of valence for being an effective leader, and

moderate levels of ability to perform self-development, which suggests that officers performing leader

self-development valued being a more effective leader and were more skilled at performing selfdevelopment then their counterparts who did not perform leader self-development.

16
Table 5

Leadership Self-Development Performance: Time Spent Performing, Extent Leadership Self-Development

Performed, and Extent Leadership Self-Development Behaviors and Activities Performed.

Total Hours Percent Extent Self- Percent Extent Behaviors Percent

Spent1 Development and Activities

Performed2 Performed 2

0 - 7 22% Small- Very Little 31.8% Small- Very Little 38.6%

8- 19 29% Some 29.2% Some 32.7%

20- 84 31% Large -Great 38.8% Large -Great 28.7%

85 -200 11%

200 -450 7%

'By definition, self-development involves performing learning activities that add up to at least seven

hours (Tough, 1971 in Brocket & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 41).; 2 5-point Likert Scale (1 = To a very little

extent; 5 = To a very great extent)

Table 6

Motivation and Skills: Officer Ratings of Motivation and Ability to Perform Leadership SelfDevelopment

Variable Mean SD NP3

Motivation'

Valence 6.35 0.88

Instrumentality 5.14 1.22

Expectancy 4.67 1.72

Ability to Perform 2

Needs Analysis 5.50 0.91 4%

Goal Setting 5.17 1.04 4%

Process Identification 5.13 1.10 6%

Progress Evaluation 5.41 1.05 4%

Metacognitive Strategies 4.72 0.88

Effort Management Strategies 4.77 1.10

Likert Scale (l=very undesirable/very unlikely; 7 = very desirable/very likely); S7-point 27-point Likert

Scale (1 = Very Low; 7 = Very High); 3NP = Never Performed

17
Table 7

Self-Development of Competencies: Time Spent Performing and Extent Leadership Self-Development

Behaviors and Activities Performed.

Competency Hours Extent

Spent Performed'

Technical/Tactical 17.5 2.58

Planning 15.7 2.42

Decision Making 13.9 2.26

Communication 12.0 2.16

Team Development 11.7 2.08

Supervisory 10.7 2.12

Teaching/Counseling 7.9 2.02

Professional Ethics 6.8 1.72

T 5-point Likert Scale (1 = To a very little extent; 5 = To a very great extent)

When asked to select from 21 factors that "prohibited or inhibited" performing leader selfdevelopment, the most commonly selected response for all officers was "Lack of time" (68%). Other

commonly selected responses were "job responsibilities" and "home/family responsibilities" (see Table

8). A number of items on the list were selected by fewer than 5% of the officers, including lack of

childcare, dislike studying, and lack of family/friends support.

In order to determine if certain sources of information were more useful than others for leader

self-development, a list of 20 possible self-development resources was provided and officers were asked

how useful each resource was to their self-development. Most items received mean ratings corresponding

to "Slightly useful." Only three categories received mean ratings corresponding to "Moderately useful"

and "Very useful": (1) Reading (Journals, Magazines, Books), (2) Internet, and (3) Peers, co-workers,

family.

Table 8.

Barriers to Leader Self-Development Performance

Item Listed Percent Who Selected

This Response

Lack of time 68%

Job responsibilities 56%

Home/Family responsibilities 28%

Lack of supervisor support 18%

Lack of unit support 18%

Lack of place to study/practice 16%

Lack of information on how to perform LSD 15%

Lack of Army support 11%

Lack of relevance 10%

18
With respect to the website developed for this research, web tracking data showed that the

website was accessed and used, and that files were downloaded from the site. Unfortunately, due to a

server migration during the data collection phase, specific data regarding the visitors and viewing patterns

on the website were unreliable. For example, there were 89 visitors to the website who made 127 visits,

but due to missing web tracking data we could only confirm that 22 of these visitors and 36 of the visits

were from officers participating in the research. While it is possible that some of the other 67 visitors

could have been persons who were not part of the research, the occurrence of non-authorized visitors to

the website would have been unlikely as precautions were taken to minimize access to the website to only

research participants receiving organizational support. We therefore share the results from the website

data collection as they are interesting and can inform future efforts. Caution is urged, however, to ensure

the results are not given inappropriate confidence.

Of particular interest is that the majority of web activity occurred during the week but during off

duty hours (e.g., after or before work and during lunch hours). The average duration of a visit was nearly

four hours with the most visited pages involving various stages of development: (1) Overview:

Background, (2) Overview: Army Leader Development Model, (3) Abilities: Diagnosing Learning Goals,

and (4) Resources: Links. Finally, the files most downloaded were a Learning Contract Template and a

Resource Matrix.

Leader Self-Development Model: The Role of Individual Characteristics

In order to evaluate the overall fit of the data to the proposed model, the model was assessed

using structural equations modeling, LISREL 8.53. All analyses were performed on covariance matrices.

A two-step approach was used to analyze the mediated effects of the individual characteristics on

propensity to self-develop (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The first step was to examine the measurement

model to determine whether the latent constructs specified in the model fit the data well. Next, the

hypothesized mediated relationships were tested in the structural model. Satisfactory model fit is

indicated when the ratio of the X 2 to the degrees of freedom is less than 2, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)

and comparative fix index (CFI) values are greater than .90, root-mean-square error of approximation

(RMSEA) values are less than .05, and significant changes occur in chi-square tests (Hoyle, 1995;

Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

Analysis of the measurement model indicated that the data fit the model reasonably well, GFI =

.96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .017, Standardized RMR = .04. The chi-square examined with respect to the

independence model was found to be a significant improvement over the saturated model, AX 2 ((49) =

1502.94, p < .01). In addition, all loadings were significant (z > 1.96) (see Figure 2).

The hypothesized structural model tested the mediated relationship between Mastery Orientation,

Work Orientation, and Achievement-Striving Orientation, and Propensity for SDLA mediated by

Motivation, as well as the relationship between Mastery Orientation, Career-Growth Orientation, and

Cognitive Ability and Propensity for SDLA mediated by Skills. The resulting model was similar in fit to

the measurement model with acceptable goodness of fit statistics (X2 ratio = 1.42; GFI = .95, CFI = .95,

RMSEA = .023). Inspection of the standardized path coefficients for the hypothesized model showed

consistent positive relationships between Mastery Orientation and Motivation, Work Orientation and

Motivation, Mastery Orientation and Skills, and Career-Growth Orientation and Skills.

19
_• Career

.6 Motivation Tr 0 Work

Job 1.'4 rinato Valence T 4--.94

.81 j Involvement /

974. Organizational .61 Instrument- .62 .7 CommidtmentiT . alityT •.6

.9 -' NAhevemen for Expectancy T 4-68

Achievement 8Achievement

-Striving .1 MOTIVALocus of .2*Orientation TION

.94--lo ControlT

.62 -0- Energy T .0/

General Self-

.67--*I EfficacyT .58* .29*

Cosiniu- 2 atr PROPENSITY

.82nscentos - retto for SDLA

.87-+- Openness .36*/

.5 .65-41-Learning OrientationT Goal .5 2.37"-_ 62 Propensity 1

.75-10 Intellectual MaturityXr _Career- _ _ Growth SKILLS Propensity 2 A6:

Orientation

Instructional

Career .6.29 .46* ...SkillsT .739

.5 ExplorationT 1 s'I

SFeedback ReuatoT 4--.78

.93 SeekingT Cognitive

Ability

.Cognitive .09 • Ability

Note. T indicates transformed variable.

Figure 2. Leader self-development performance: Mediation model.

20
No substantial path between the individual disposition factors and mediators was targeted on the

hypothesized model's modification indices (Lagrange Multiplier Test). However, two paths were

identified as not contributing significantly to the model. The path between Achievement-Striving

Orientation and Motivation (standardized coefficient = 0.14) as well as the path between Cognitive

Ability and Skills (standardized coefficient = 0.29) were removed with no significant change to model fit

((A 2X' (2) = -2.29, n.s.). However, the recommended modified model was slightly more parsimonious

with lower AIC (A = 0.71) and CAIC (A = 10.67) values when compared to the hypothesized model.

These results, as illustrated in Figure 3, confirm Hypothesis 1, 3, 4, and 5. Hypotheses 2 and 6 were not

supported, however.

Leader Self-Development Model: The Role of Organizational Support'

The interaction effect was evaluated using Jaccard and Turrisi's (1996) three-step approach. The

overall chi-square from the nonconstrained analysis was 8.46 (df=8, n.s.) consistent with a good model fit

across the groups. The resulting chi-square for the equality constrained model was 13.29 (df=9, n.s.). The

chi-squared difference of 4.83 (df= 1,p < .05) was statistically significant indicating an interaction effect

was present. For the group receiving no organizational support, the path coefficient from the latent

variable of propensity to performance was 0.90, whereas for the group receiving support the

corresponding path coefficient was 0.48. The difference between these two path coefficients was

statistically significant, based on the result of the nested fit test. These results indicated that the

hypothesized model adequately fit the data (see Figure 3).

In order to examine the nature of the interaction effect, moderated regression was completed

according to the procedures presented by Jaccard, Turrisi, and Wan (1990). Significant interaction effects

were found for all three measures of performance: LSD Rating (AR2= .03, AF= 4.67,p < .05), LSD

Activities (AR2= .04, AF= 6.03,p < .05), and LSD Hours (AR2 = .04, AF= 6 .28,p < .05), with the latter

highlighted in Figure 4. As predicted in Hypothesis 7, low to moderately low propensity individuals

performed self-development to a greater extent when they received organizational support than their

counterparts who did not receive organizational support. One unexpected finding, however, was that

individuals with higher propensity performed more self-development if they did not receive

organizational support compared to their colleagues who did receive organizational support.

Discussion

The nature of self-development provides several advantages to training and development,

including the ability to tailor learning objectives to meet personal needs, individually pacing activities

within available time opportunities, and matching learning resources with individual learning styles

(Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Piskurich, 1993). DA Pam 350-58 describes self-development as a key

element of the foundation for developing Army officers, intending that it be used as a method to enhance,

sustain, and expand their leadership capabilities.

It should be noted that the manipulation check that was performed was inconclusive. Several problems with the

wording and ordering of the items rendered the responses unclear and the response size insufficient. However, since

the manipulation was straightforward (e.g., individuals either received the organizational support tool or did not) and

a substantial number of participants either used or did not use the support tool, the manipulation appeared to be

effective.

21
Organizational

Support

Proensty .85' Performance General 1 .22

RPropensity F 2 104 Activity

.85" DEVEr .02

.56* Time Spent .9

.62* .91*

Note. ' indicates no Organizational Support, b indicates Organizational Support, * indicates p<.05

Figure 3. Leader self-development performance: Moderation model.

22
0 0

CLO

0

0.

0) 0

0) 0

4)0

00))

1-0

0.0

00

f-4-

4))

0.

"4-0

CL 4.40

0

o) c - 0 U Cf N --bo 

'0.
The results of this research provide insights into leader self-development, both theoretical and

applied. First, there has been little research on the relationship between individual antecedents and

performance of self-directed learning activities, particularly professional or leader self-development (cf.,

Birdi et al., 1997; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993). The integrated model describes a

theoretical framework of the relevant individual characteristics, providing a greater understanding of

which characteristics predict and promote self-development and the mechanisms through which they

function.

Further, previous research had not examined the actual effects of providing organizational

support on employee self-development (cf., Birdi et al., 1997; Maurer et al., 2003; Tharenou, 2001). This

research provided insight into the effects of organizational support, and how the effects differed for

individuals with different levels of propensity. Finally, from a purely applied perspective, these results

provided interesting descriptive information regarding the extent to which a sample of Army officers

engaged in leader self-development and the types of activities in which they engaged.

Understanding Propensity for Leader Self-Development

Results indicated that certain individual characteristics affect the motivation and skills that

contribute to a person's propensity to self-develop. Specifically, as predicted, individuals with greater

work orientation were more motivated to perform leader self-development, leading to a greater propensity

to self-develop. Also, individuals with a greater career growth orientation were more skilled at performing

self-development, leading to a greater inclination to self-develop. Individuals with a mastery orientation,

exemplifying adult learners, were both more motivated and skilled at leader self-development, leading to

a greater propensity to self-develop. Contrary to our hypotheses, however, neither an achievementstriving orientation nor cognitive ability influenced motivation or skills to perform leader selfdevelopment.

One explanation for the lack of a direct relationship between the achievement-striving orientation

variables and motivation may be the relatively low reliability of the scales measuring need for

achievement (a = .61) and locus of control (a = .63). Nunnally (1978, p. 245) recommends that

instruments used in basic research should have "reliabilities of about .70 or better." In addition, the third

variable in the Achievement-Striving Orientation factor, energy, was included as an exploratory variable

with little previous evidence to suggest the nature of its relationship to the other individual dispositional

constructs or propensity for self-development. Researchers and practitioners should view the lack of a

significant relationship between the Achievement-Striving Orientation variables and propensity with

reservation, and consider further exploring the role of these constructs in self-development propensity and

performance.

The lack of a relationship between cognitive ability and skill may be a reflection of the

participants' uniformly high levels of cognitive ability, with an average Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)

score of 29.25. The average score for the adult working population on the WPT is 21.75 with scores over

27.0 falling in the third quartile (WPT, 1992). This restricted range would serve to attenuate the

relationships with other variables. To the extent that the Army officer population mirrors leaders in

commercial businesses, the effect of cognitive ability on self-development activity may be immaterial, as

intelligence and leadership have been repeatedly shown to correlate (e.g., Bass, 1990; Lord, DeVader,

Allinger, 1986). However, since the leader self-development research is immature, future research should

consider using a diverse leadership population (e.g., with respect to industry, experience, and education)

and further investigate the applicability of cognitive ability.

24
By identifying the characteristics related to propensity to perform self-development, this offers

the initial structure for an assessment tool that would provide Soldiers and their leaders with feedback in

this important area. Exercises could potentially be developed to increase the motivation and skills needed

to increase Soldiers' performance of self-development. Additional research is still needed, however, to

ensure that all relevant characteristics have been included in the model and to replicate the findings with a

more diverse population.

Supporting Performance of Leader Self-Development Activities

Results indicated that while the officers placed a high value on being a more effective leader, they

were not as likely to believe that self-developing leadership skills would lead to becoming a more

effective leader, and even less likely to believe that they could successfully develop a conduct a personal

leadership self-development program. This suggests that additional information regarding how to conduct

successful leader self-development could be useful.

The finding that nearly 50% of the officers reported performing leader self-development activities

for 20 or more hours indicates that many officers are using this method of leader development to some

extent. It is important to note, however, that this percentage could be inflated compared with the

activities of the average Army officer due to the recent visibility of self-development for this group.

These officers had recently received information about self-development during their professional

development course and also received reminders to self-develop for several months prior to measuring

their self-development activity. Officers who have not recently received these prompts would be likely to

show lower levels of self-development activity. A field experiment would be required to test this. Also

important, however, is the fact that a significant proportion of the officers in this research engaged in few

or zero hours of self-development, even with the prompts to do so.

Results clearly showed that Soldiers differed in their propensity to engage in self-develop and that

the relationship between propensity and performance of leader self-development was moderated by

organizational support. As expected, individuals with very low propensity did not engage in leader selfdevelopment. For the others, having the organizational support program positively influenced officers

with somewhat low or moderate levels of propensity.

Interestingly, however, the officers did not necessarily self-develop in areas that they reported as

weak. It may be that self-development tools are more prevalent on some topics than others, so their selfdevelopment was dictated more by the tools they found that their diagnosed weaknesses. Nevertheless,

providing organizational support to identify tools and strategies for self-development that are linked to

specific performance areas appears important to ensure a link between areas needing improvement and

self-development performance.

Unexpectedly, for individuals with high levels of propensity, results suggested that organizational

support actually reduced performance of self-development activities. Leaders with moderate to high

propensity performed self-development regardless of whether they received organizational support or not;

however, high propensity individuals who did not receive information or access to the organizational

support website spent more time or performed self-development activities than their peers who did

receive the support.

One possible explanation for this unexpected finding is that the guidance and information

provided on the website facilitated the performance of self-development activities for the high propensity

individuals, helping those with high levels of motivation and skills perform self-development more

efficiently and thus presenting the appearance of reduced performance. For example, individuals with

high propensity are capable of performing self-development activities such as identifying learning

25
resources. Identifying suitable learning resources, however, could take considerable time. The website

provided a variety of support information, including a matrix of activities organized by developmental

goals and types of developmental resources, essentially reducing the time that would need to be spent

performing self-development activities. In essence, these highly motivated and skilled individuals may

have learned from the website how to streamline their self-development activities, thereby expending less

time and effort in their self-development program than their skilled contemporaries who did not receive

such information. Importantly, this explanation highlights a potential pitfall of measuring leader selfdevelopment performance by using the amount of time they spent on development activities. Future

research should review how to operationalize self-development performance and consider developing

measures that reflect the successfulness of the self-development activities.

Further, these findings emphasize the point that, while self-development is generally associated

with positive performance outcomes, higher levels of self-development may not continue to produce

equivalent increases in leader performance. Research has not yet determined the specific nature of the

relationship between performing self-development and leader proficiency or effectiveness. Further

research is needed to investigate this relationship.

When taken as a whole, these results have some useful implications for Soldier development. As

mentioned previously, results suggest that assessment tools could be used to provide Soldiers with

reliable information regarding their propensity to engage in leader self-development. Feedback could be

semi-personalized based on whether the Soldier had very low, low to moderate, or very high propensity to

self-develop. For Soldiers with very low propensity, strategies could be offered to help Soldiers

circumvent or cope with their very low propensity. For example, these Soldiers might want to consider

developing a plan and milestones for formal education opportunities. They could also be targeted to

receive tools or exercises designed to attempt to increase their motivation and skills sufficiently to be able

to benefit from self-development. For those with low to moderate levels of propensity, support tools, such

as the website, could be provided that would assist Soldiers by providing information, strategies, and

resources.

The issue of determining an appropriate level of organizational support for leader selfdevelopment is an important one for Army trainers and leaders. Although self-development is defined as a

process in which the individual takes primary responsibility for identifying, planning, carrying out, and

evaluating their own learning experience, this does not preclude the involvement of a supervisor or

mentor. Army FM 7.0 Training the Force actually defines self-development as a planned process that

involves the leader and the subordinate, promoting it as a shared responsibility. In order to enhance the

effectiveness of self-development, Snow (2003) argues that officers should be required to develop an

Individual Development Plan, and that more support should be provided to leaders in the form of

multirater assessment and feedback tools as well as tools to support self-development efforts (e.g.,

resources and skill developing activities). Given the prominence of self-development in the leader

development model, this level of organizational support may be warranted. Because organizational

support had different effects for individuals with different levels of propensity, however, and because

very little is known about the effects of organizational support, further research in this area is highly

recommended.

Limitations and Future Research

This research has some limitations that should be noted. First, the results were based on a military

sample of officers with similar demographic characteristics (e.g., age, experience, education) and as a

result may be limited in generalizability. In addition, the leaders who participated in the research recently

completed a formal professional development program. Future research should investigate these results in

situations that are unrelated to formal training programs as well as over a greater length of time.

26
Another limitation involves common method bias. To some degree, item characteristic effects of

social desirability and common scale formats and anchors may have influenced participants' responses.

While every effort was made to emphasize participant confidentiality and the importance of honest

responses, many of the items of these established scales were written in such a way away as to reflect

socially desirable attitudes. In addition, most of the items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale with

the same anchor points, which may result in artificial covariation. Method effects, however, were

hopefully minimized by collecting predictor and criterion measures using different scale formats (7-point

versus 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions) at different times, at different locations, and over

different mediums. In addition, subjects were asked to use diaries to log activities and information about

time spent in self-development in order to minimize the negative effects of the parallel formats.

Regarding future research, we should emphasize that for the development of the initial model, we

limited our variables to those with established relationships with motivation and performance in training.

For future research, other attitude and personality variables that do not have clearly established

relationships should be considered for their potential relevance. Possible candidates could include

adaptability, flexibility, creativity, need for autonomy, need for independence, extraversion, hardiness,

ambition, and initiative. In addition, work environment variables (e.g., supervisors, coworkers) or

nonwork variables (e.g., friends, family) could also be examined. Additional conceptual work is also

recommended for the measurement of self-development performance to avoid simply measuring success

as the amount of time spent on development activites.

Further research is also recommended specifically for the Army to determine the optimal level of

organizational involvement in the self-development process and how to account for differences in the

support required based on propensity. Finally, further research should examine the impact of selfdevelopment performance on leader effectiveness as well as on other organizational outcomes such as

retention, job satisfaction, and productivity.

27
28
References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback seeking an individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 29, 465-487.

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active

feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 251-280.

Austin, J. T., & Klein, H. J. (1996). Work motivation and goal striving. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual

differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 209-257). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of choice of

trainee on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 51-66.

Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. A. (1995). Interpersonal relations in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual

Differences and Behaviors in Organizations (pp. 334-370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory, research, and

managerial applications. New York: Free Press.

Beaubien, J. M., & Payne, S. C. (1999). Individual goal orientation as a predictor ofjob and academic

performance: A meta-analytic review and integration. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting

of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee

development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 845-857.

Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and

performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 14, 153-164.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management

Review, 11,4, 710-725.

Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research,

and practice. New York: Routledge.

Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.

Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-256.

29
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, 0. C., & Maier, G. W. (1999). The pursuit of personal goals. In J.

Brandtstadter & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Action & self-development: Theory and research through

the life span (pp. 169-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A

conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

67(1), 26-48.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (2 nd ed.; Vol. 1, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. InN.

Schmitt, W. C. Boreman, and Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.

Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83.

Clause, C. S., Delbridge, K. Schmitt, N., Chan, D., & Jennings, D. (2001). Test preparation activities and

employment test performance. Human Performance, 14(2), 149-167.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn

during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654-665.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., and Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation:

A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-

707.

Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning organizations: Examining

the connection between the individual and the learning environment. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 9, 365-375.

Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review.

Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.

Day, D. V., Bedeian, A. G., & Conte, J. M. (1998). Personality as predictor of work-related outcomes:

Test of a mediated latent structural model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(22), 2068-

2088.

Dean, D. G. (1967). Can emotional maturity be measured? Psychological Reports, 20(1), 60.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the

effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.

30
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality.

Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and Critiques. Human

Realions, 50(9), 1085-1113.

Ellinger, A., Ellinger, A., Yang, B., & Howton, S. (2002). The relationship between the learning

organization concept and firms' financial performance, An empirical assessment. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5-21.

Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory:

Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 8, 193-232.

Fineman, S. (1976). A modification of the Ghiselli self-description inventory for the measurement of need

for achievement amongst managers. International Review of Applied Psychology, 25(1), 31-39.

Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two

learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397-420.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert &

R. H. Klowe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). The influence of goal

orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies on learning outcome and transfer.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2),218-233.

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education

Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.

Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations (31d ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Goldstein, I. L., & Gilliam, P. (1990). Training systems issues in the year 2000. American Psychologist,

45, 134-143.

Gould, S., & Penley, L. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationship in a

municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 244-264,

Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 9-16.

Halpin, S. M., & Karrash, A. (2001). Leader AZIMUTH Check. Retrieved October 31, 2001, from

http://207.133.209.51/azimuth.html.

Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist,

58(1), 78-79.

31
Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes:

A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 699-720.

Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.

Briggs (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality psychology (pp. 849-870). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times.

New York: Guilford Press.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Introduction: Employee performance in today's organizations. In D.

R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature ofperformance: Implications for staffing,

motivation, and development (pp. 1- 20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Jackson, D. N. (1994). Personality research inventory--revised manual. Port Huron, MI: Research

Psychologists Press.

Johnson, V. R. (2000). Becoming a technical professional. Tucson, AZ: Casas Adobes.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette &

L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75-170).

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.

Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 657-689.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment

interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association

Press.

Kozlowski, S. (1995). Organizational change, informal learning, and adaptation: Emerging trends in

training and continuing education. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 43(1), 2-1.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Farr, J. L. (1988). An integrative model of updating and performance. Human

Performance, 1(1), 5-29.

Kraut, A. I., & Korman, A. K. (1999). The "DELTA Forces" causing change in human resource

management. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving practices in human resource

management (pp. 3-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

32
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definitions and measurement of job involvement. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.

London, M. (1993). Relationships between career motivation, empowerment, and support for career

development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 55-69.

London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships between feedback and selfdevelopment. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 5-27.

London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The

changing nature ofperformance (pp. 119-153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality

traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.

Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in

employee training. Mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82, 764-773.

Mathieu, J. E. (1988). A causal model of organizational commitment in a military training environment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 321-335.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on n

the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology,

46, 125-147.

Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and

person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79(1), 3-14.

Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related learning

and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivation, and age variables.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707-724.

McClelland, D. C., (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.

McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P., & Cudeck, R. (1994). A confirmatory test of a model of performance

determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 493-505.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model across instruments and

observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

538-551.

Mihal, W. L., Sorce, P. A., & Compte, T. E. (1984). A process model of individual career decision

making. Academy of Management Review, 9, 95-103.

33
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the "big five" article has been frequently cited.

Personnel Psychology, 51, 849-858.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Murphy, S. E. (2002). Leader self-regulation: The role of self-efficacy and multiple intelligences. In R. E.

Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 163-

186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Noe, R. A., Noe, A. W., & Bachhuber, J. A. (1990). Correlates of career motivation. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 37, 340-356.

Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a

model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497-523.

Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in

development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291-302.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering

(Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey Bass,

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). The role of goal orientation, ability, and locus control in the selfefficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792-802.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of

classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manualfor the use of the

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of

Michigan.

Piskurich, G. M. (1993). Self-directed learning: A practical guide to design, development and

implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., Sego, D. J., & Smith, E. M. (1995). The effects of individual and transfer

environment characteristics on opportunity to perform trained tasks. Training Research Journal,

1, 29-48.

Ree, M. J. & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Personnel

Psychology, 44, 321-332.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectances for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.

Sanchez, R. J., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (2000). Development and examination of an expectancybased measure of test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 739-750.

34
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big five markers. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological

Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

Simmering, M. J., Noe, R. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Porter, C. 0. L. H. (2003). Conscientiousness, autonomy

fit, and development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 954-963.

Snow, J.J. (2003). Self-Development: An Important Aspect of Leader Development. (USAWC Strategy

Research Project, ADA 414546) Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College.

Snow, R. E. (1986). Individual differences and the design of educational programs. American

Psychologist, 41, 1029-1039.

Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. (1983). Development of the career exploration survey

(CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 191-226.

Sugalski, T., & Greenhaus, J. (1986). Career exploration and goal setting among managerial employees.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 12-114.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3 d ed.). New York:

HarperCollins.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting trainees'

expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, selfefficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(6), 759-769.

Temporal, P. (1982). Self-development groups in industry--what actually happens. Management

Education & Development, 13(1), 3-9.

Tharenou, P. (1997). Organisational, job, and personal predictors of employee participation in training

and development. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(2), 111-134.

Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 599-621.

Tough, A. (1971). The adult's learning projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Tracey, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S., & Mathieu, J. E. (2001). The influence of individual

characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 5-23.

Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The

importance of th work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 239-252.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.

Wonderlic Personnel Test. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test user's manual. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic

Personnel Test, Inc.

35
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4h ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course

attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment:

The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research

Journal, 29, 663-676.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

36