Leading from the inside out: a meta-analysis of how, when, and why self-leadership affects individual outcomes
verifiedrich profile · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · 2021
Knotts, Kevin; Houghton, Jeffery D.; Pearce, Craig L.; Chen, Huaizhong; Stewart, Greg L.; Manz, Charles C.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
self leadership → task performance
self leadership → job satisfaction
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
self leadership predicts job satisfaction
self leadership predicts task performance
self leadership predicts work engagement
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
Whereas the predominance of leadership research has focused upon top-down influence processes, we examine the process of leading from the inside out, i.e., self-leadership. Based on a meta-analysis of 57 effect sizes and 16,493 observations, the overall results suggest that self-leadership is positively and strongly related to individual outcomes (ρ = .38). Results also help to clarify when self-leadership is most effective relative to outcome type, showing a stronger relationship between self-leadership and creativity/innovation than between self-leadership and task performance. We further explore the incremental value of cognitive self-leadership strategies over and above basic behaviour-focused self-leadership. Our findings suggest that when individuals engage in cumulative self-leadership involving both behavioural and cognitive strategies, relationships with individual outcomes are stronger than when people employ behaviour-focused self-leadership alone. Finally, we explore a meta-analytic path model examining mediating mechanisms to clarify not only how but also why self-leadership influences outcomes of interest. Implications regarding the nature and importance of the mechanisms through which self-leadership is linked to outcomes and future directions for further advancing self-leadership theory and research are delineated.
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “The results align with Knotts et al. (2022), who explored the mediating mechanisms of self-efficacy connecting self-leadership to performance outcomes via a meta-analytic path model.”
supports “General self-efficacy can be a predictor variable or a mediator between self-leadership and multiple dependents, including job satisfaction, work engagement, performance, and creativity innovation (Knotts et al., 2022).”
supports “General self-efficacy can be a predictor variable or a mediator between self-leadership and multiple dependents, including job satisfaction, work engagement, performance, and creativity innovation (Knotts et al., 2022).”
supports “General self-efficacy can be a predictor variable or a mediator between self-leadership and multiple dependents, including job satisfaction, work engagement, performance, and creativity innovation (Knotts et al., 2022).”
supports “Innovative work performance, including creative problem-solving, competence, and commitment to work, is the main focus of self-leadership studies (Kang & Song, 2022; Knotts et al., 2021).”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.