IN DEGREE PROJECT INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 15 CREDITS
, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019
Self-leadership and the applicability of implementation intentions
MARTIN GUERSTER
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
This page is intentionally left blank
Self-leadership and the applicability of
implementation intentions
by
Martin Guerster
Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2019:215
KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Industrial Management
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2019:215
Self-leadership and the applicability of
implementation intentions
Martin Guerster
Approved
2019-06-12
Examiner
Kristina Nyström
Supervisor
Gregg Vanourek
Abstract
Self-leadership empowers people to challenge conventional standards and replace them with
consciously chosen personal standards as guiding principles for their actions. Furthermore,
self-leadership provides self-influence strategies which facilitate the attainment of goals related
to these personal standards. As such, the ability to lead oneself is important for leaders and
managers in any domain. However, self-leadership is especially important for entrepreneurs,
as they have to persist in the demanding self-organized pursuit of an entrepreneurial goal that
is derived from their personal standards. To make self-leadership more effective for individuals
who are driven by a personal vision, this thesis investigates the applicability of implementation
intentions for self-leadership. Implementation intentions are a self-regulatory strategy in the
form of if-then plans which proved to increase goal attainment in many other contexts.
Key-words:
Self-leadership; Implementation intentions; Personal values; Entrepreneurship; Ego depletion
Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2019:215
Self-leadership and the applicability of
implementation intentions
Martin Guerster
Godkänt
2019-06-12
Examinator
Kristina Nyström
Handledare
Gregg Vanourek
Sammanfattning
Självledarskap ger människor möjlighet att utmana konventionella standarder och ersätta dem
med medveted utvalda personliga standarder som vägledande principer för deras handligar.
Utöver det bidrar självledander med strategier för att uppnå mål relaterade till dessa personliga
standarder. Förmågan att leda sig själv är viktigt för ledare och chefer oberoende av domain.
Dock är självledarskap särskilt viktigt för entreprenörer som kontinuerligt måste arbeta med
högre grad av självorganisation och självmotivation i strävan mot mål grundade i deras
personliga standarder och visionen dessa bildar. För att göra självledarskap mer effektivt för
individer drivna av en sådan personlig vision ämnar denna avhandling att undersöka
tillämpbarheten av ‘implementeringsintentioner’ för självledarskap. Implementeringsintentioner
är del av en medveten strategi för självreglering som tar form av „if-then“ påståenden i planering
som påvisats öka chansen av måluppnåelse i många andra kontext.
i
Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Problem Statement 2
1.3. Research Question 2
1.4. Contribution 2
1.5. Delimitations 3
1.6. Structure 4
2. Literature Review 5
2.1. Self-Leadership 5
2.1.1. Self-Management and Self-Leadership 6
2.1.2. Academic Definitions of Self-Leadership 7
2.1.3. Self-Leadership Strategies 7
2.1.4. Self-Leadership on an Individual and Team Level 9
2.2. Implementation Intentions 9
2.2.1. Goal Intentions and Implementation Intentions 10
2.2.2. Application of Implementation Intentions 10
2.2.3. Limited Strength Model of Self-Control 10
2.3. Theoretical Framework 11
3. Methodology 15
3.1. Research Paradigm 15
3.2. Background 15
ii
3.3. Research Approach 16
3.4. Data Collection 18
3.5. Data Analysis 20
3.6. Research Ethics and Sustainability Issues 20
4. Findings 22
4.1. Introduction to Findings 22
4.2. Findings Interview Round 1: Goal Intentions Only 22
4.3. Findings Interview Round 2: Use of Implementation Intentions 23
5. Discussion 26
5.1. Discussion Interview Round 1: Goal Intentions Only 26
5.2. Discussion Interview Round 2: Use of Implementation Intentions 27
6. Conclusion 28
6.1. Conclusions 28
6.2. Implications and Contribution to the Field of Entrepreneurship 28
6.3. Limitations 29
6.4. Future Research 30
References 31
Appendices 36
Appendix 1: Template Interview #1 37
Appendix 2: Template Interview #2 39
Appendix 3: Sample Notes of P1 41
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Control system view of the role of self-management and self-leadership 5
Figure 2: Continuum of self-leadership at individual and team levels 6
Figure 3: Categories of self-leadership strategies 7
Figure 4: Transition from goal setting to goal-directed behavior 11
Figure 5: Implementation intentions in the concept of self-leadership 13
Figure 6: Interview timeline 18
Figure 7: Perceived average goal attainment 25
iv
Glossary
Ego Depletion: A state of impaired self-control caused by previous use of self-control
(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998)
Implementation Intentions: A self-regulatory strategy in the form of if-then plans that link
situational cues (i.e., good opportunities to act, critical moments) with responses that are
effective in attaining goals or desired outcomes (Gollwitzer, 1999)
Personal Values: Reflections of an individual’s needs, desires, and what he or she cares about
most in life (Own definition used for this thesis)
Self-Control: The capacity to override natural and automatic tendencies, desires, or behaviors
in order to pursue long-term goals, even at the expense of short-term attractions (Bauer &
Baumeister, 2011)
Self-Leadership: The act of using a broad variety of self-influence strategies to attain goals
which are in accordance with one’s superordinate personal standards (Own definition used for
this thesis)
Self-Management: The act of using self-influence strategies to attain externally set goals.
(Own definition used for this thesis)
Self-Regulation: Used interchangeably with self-control (Bauer & Baumeister, 2011)
Superordinate Personal Standards: Provide the reasons for self-managed behavior and serve
as a means to evaluate the validity and appropriateness of a goal within a greater context that
goes beyond the immediate situation (Neck, 2006)
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Despite the rising popularity of entrepreneurship in academic research and its increasing
importance for economic development, a large proportion of entrepreneurial endeavors is
doomed to failure. While an increasing number of people is drawn to entrepreneurship for a
variety of reasons, many of them are in the long run not capable of successfully engaging in
the emotionally demanding and uncertain process of entrepreneurship (McMullen & Shepherd,
2006).
Notwithstanding that the challenging process of entrepreneurship bears the risk of leading to
high levels of stress (Monsen & Wayne Boss, 2009), fear (Mitchell, Mitchell, & Smith, 2008)
and grief from failed undertakings (Jenkins, Wiklund, & Brundin, 2014), engaging in
entrepreneurial activities can also increase reported levels of job satisfaction and well-being,
irrespective of income gained or hours worked (Benz & Frey, 2008a, 2008b). Compared to
non-entrepreneurial work, entrepreneurs can derive greater well-being from self-organization
and autonomy, which makes their work more beneficial in terms of basic psychological needs
(Shir, Nikolaev, & Wincent, 2018). As such, acts of entrepreneurship transcend the dimension
of merely financial aspirations and can be seen as a self-organized and goal-directed endeavor
in autonomous pursuit of a personal vision. This act on one’s own responsibility, which
integrates personal needs, goals, and aspirations, involves the organization of long-term
processes, the ability to persist in difficult times and the adoption of effective goal-directed
behavior. Since being persistent and maintaining a positive attitude in the face of challenges
can decide about success or failure of an entrepreneurial endeavor, people who want to
successfully engage in this field must find this drive from within (D’Intino, Goldsby,
Houghton, & Neck, 2007). Furthermore, a better understanding of themselves and the
development of personal strategies which help in the act of goal-striving are highly relevant for
individuals with entrepreneurial intentions (D’Intino et al., 2007).
Addressing those needs, the process of self-leadership as a way to effectively influence oneself
in order to attain goals according to superordinate personal standards, which provide the
reasons for certain behavior, can be particularly advantageous for pursuing entrepreneurial
activities. Through self-leadership, entrepreneurs can more authentically express themselves
as they use self-influence strategies for the purpose of turning their deliberately chosen goals
and visions into reality. Although self-leadership holds great potential for entrepreneurs
(D’Intino et al., 2007; Neck, Houghton, Sardeshmukh, Goldsby, & Godwin, 2013), the
application of the concept of self-leadership is not limited to a certain profession and can even
be applied on team levels (Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2011). Due to the increasing
importance and the potential of self-leadership for a variety of domains (Bligh, Pearce, &
Kohles, 2006; Pearce & Manz, 2005), it is worthwhile to examine the concept further in terms
of potential for improvement.
2
1.2. Problem Statement
The act of leading oneself can be seen as a continuous process with the aim to reduce the
discrepancy between the current situation and self-set standards through goal-directed
behavior. This means that active self-leadership requires, among other things, consciously and
continuously taking actions which are directed toward achieving personal goals. In this respect,
self-leadership is comparable with many other goal intentions such as sticking to a diet or
exercising on a regular basis. Many people know from first-hand experience that the success
rates of such typical new year's resolutions are rather low as individuals often struggle with
reaching their intended goal and ultimately fail. The reasons for such failure are multifaceted
but a lot of them can be traced back to weak self-control (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice,
1994). As such, the difficulties of persisting in goal-striving can be explained through the
limited strength model of self-control. This model suggests that people only have a limited
capacity of resources to control and alter their behavior and that these resources get depleted
in the aftermath of strenuous use (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). The state when these
resources are depleted and self-control is impaired, is referred to as ego depletion (Baumeister
et al., 1998). As at least some forms of self-leadership require individuals to override automatic
responses and actively engage in choosing alternative courses of action, it becomes apparent
that long-term sustainment of self-leadership presents a major challenge (Stewart, Courtright,
& Manz, 2019).
Recent research points out the problem that consciously exercising self-leadership can draw on
the limited capacity for self-control (Müller & Niessen, 2018; Stewart et al., 2019) but fails to
present validated strategies on how to deal with this phenomenon. This lack of research on how
to effectively counteract the depleting nature of self-leadership efforts represents an important
gap in the literature at present.
1.3. Research Question
A promising way to overcome the challenge of minimizing psychological resource depletion
through self-control efforts is the use of so-called implementation intentions. This is a certain
form of goal planning which links situations that are critical for goal attainment to goal-directed
responses through if-then plans. Formulating such implementation intentions proved to
enhance goal attainment and successful behavior modification in many other settings
(Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). These findings raise the following research question:
Can the effectiveness of self-leadership behavior be improved through the use of
implementation intentions?
The contribution to the body of knowledge, delimitations, and the structure to answering this
question will be outlined below.
1.4. Contribution
This thesis aims to contribute to the exploration of ways to make self-leadership behavior more
successful and effective. More specifically, the thesis examines the applicability of a specific
self-regulatory strategy, known as implementation intentions, in the context of self-leadership.
The terms self-regulation and self-control will be used interchangeably in this text and are
3
defined as “the capacity to override natural and automatic tendencies, desires, or behaviors; to
pursue long-term goals, even at the expense of short-term attractions” (Bauer & Baumeister,
2011, p. 65).
While a multitude of studies showed that implementation intentions can serve as a bridge
between thought and action in a variety of contexts (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006), there are no
studies which specifically examine the applicability in contexts where individuals actively want
to train and exercise self-leadership behavior. As the process of turning superordinate personal
standards and thoughts about goals into actions is a crucial part of leading oneself, a closer
consideration of implementation intentions seems worthwhile. Furthermore, implementation
intentions might help reducing the ego depleting nature of self-leadership efforts. Addressing
these topics, the thesis tries to explore the possibility to integrate this promising tool from the
domain of self-regulation into the domain of self-leadership which has previously not been
examined in the literature.
1.5. Delimitations
Since self-leadership empowers individuals to align with their superordinate personal standards
through effective self-influence, this form of leadership is highly relevant for people who seek
to gain greater work and life satisfaction by pursuing their personal goals, values, and visions
in entrepreneurial acts. As an initial step to explore the usage of implementation intentions in
self-leadership, the thesis focuses on individuals only. In this way, practical implications for
entrepreneurs can be drawn from this thesis. Although, self-leadership is relevant and important
for everyone, this thesis particularly focuses on entrepreneurs. Also the application of self-
leadership in combination with implementation intentions on team-level is outside the scope of
this thesis but nevertheless, a relevant topic in current self-leadership literature which requires
further research (Stewart et al., 2019).
The study conducted for this thesis focused only on participants of a self-leadership course at
a university in Stockholm. As no one of the participants was working as an entrepreneur and
participation in the study was voluntary, efforts were made to select a group of participants
which represent the demographics of the course. Selecting a representative sample group was
intended to account for the possibility that individuals in different stages of their lives might
want to improve self-leadership behavior and decide to engage in entrepreneurial activities. As
this thesis was written as part of a study program in the wider field of industrial management,
psychological concepts relevant for this thesis were not dealt with exhaustively but only to the
extent necessary to provide a better understanding of the underlying psychological science.
Furthermore, the study did not focus on self-leadership strategies which are currently
established in the literature but rather on applying implementation intentions as a new self-
leadership strategy. Although implementation intentions might also be used to facilitate the use
of other self-leadership strategies (behavior-focused, natural reward, constructive thought
pattern strategies) or to specifically minimize the risk of escalation of commitment, this thesis
sought to examine whether implementation intentions can be a useful addition to self-
leadership which helps individuals to effectively exert self-influence and to align their daily
lives with their personal values. Therefore, the focus was on managing critical internal and
external stimuli and overcoming problems such as ego depletion. This includes seizing
opportunities as well as overcoming obstacles by using implementation intentions as described
in chapter 3. To explore this approach in a limited time frame, primarily qualitative data was
collected through interviews instead of setting up a longitudinal quantitative study.
4
1.6. Structure
Based on the research question and the intended contribution of this thesis, the existing relevant
literature on self-leadership and implementation intentions will be examined and presented in
chapter 2. This literature review will be concluded with the development of a theoretical
framework for the application of implementation intention in acts of self-leadership behavior
presented in section 2.3. Next, in chapter 3 a suitable methodology to test the framework will
be presented and justified. Thereafter, the results of the study will be analyzed and discussed
on the basis of the theoretical framework in chapters 4 and 5. The conclusion of the thesis will
highlight limitations of the chosen approach, implications and contributions to the field of
entrepreneurship as well as areas for future research in chapter 6.
5
2. Literature Review
2.1. Self-Leadership
Self-leadership as a concept in the realms of organizational behavior and organizational
psychology first emerged in the 1980s (Manz, 1983, 1986) and expanded the concept of self-
management which was proposed by Manz and Sims (1980) as a substitute for leadership and
is described in more detail below. In a comprehensive review of previous self-leadership theory
and research, Neck and Houghton (2006) show that the concept of self-leadership is grounded
in self-regulation, social cognitive, self-control, and intrinsic motivation theories. In a more
recent review of the topic, Stewart et al. (2019) highlight the social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986) which holds that individuals can learn from observing the behavior of others and its
concept of triadic reciprocity, which is the idea that human behavior is caused by personal,
behavioral, and environmental influences, as a fundamental theory of self-leadership.
In his pioneering work on self-leadership, Manz (1986) developed a control system view of the
role of self-management and self-leadership (Figure 1).
According to the framework, an individual or a team first self-regulates by perceiving a current
situation and comparing it to standards. In self-management, these standards are set by an
external entity while they are deliberately chosen in acts of self-leadership. In the following
step, the gap between the current state and the identified standard is addressed by behavior
which is directed to reduce the deviation. The impact on the situation is then evaluated and the
new situation is perceived, which starts the cycle of self-regulation again.
Figure 1: Control system view of the role of self-management and self-leadership. (Manz,
1986)
6
2.1.1. Self-Management and Self-Leadership
In his framework, Manz differentiates between self-management as including only the
immediate operating standards and self-leadership as addressing the superordinate standards in
addition to self-management strategies (Manz, 1986).
As such, self-management only provides self-influence in terms of choosing the strategies
which help managing behavior with respect to reducing discrepancies from externally set
standards and does not encourage scrutinizing these standards.
Self-leadership, by contrast, is more encompassing as it also addresses the purpose and
appropriateness of the standards themselves (Manz, 1986).
Instead of merely focusing on attaining a certain goal, which requires only self-management,
self-leadership demands evaluating the validity and appropriateness of the goal in a greater
context which goes beyond the immediate situation (Neck & Houghton, 2006). Therefore, the
extent of self-leadership increases to the degree that individuals not only regulate conformity
with standards but also internally establish these standards (Stewart et al., 2011). Transferring
this idea, the concepts of self-management and self-leadership can also be extended to the team
level where they give teams authority over work processes and allow them to regulate their
own behavior (Stewart et al., 2011).
Based on the work of Manz (1992), where he assessed the degree of team self-leadership in a
way that made it comparable with individual self-leadership, Stewart et al. (2011) presented a
continuum of self-leadership (Figure 2) at individual and team levels on the basis of self-
influence over the what, how and why of work.
Figure 2: Continuum of self-leadership at individual and team levels. (Stewart, Courtright, &
Manz, 2011)
On the left end of this continuum, being externally managed implies that there is no influence
over what work is to be done, how the work is to be done and why it needs to be done, which
makes it dependent only on external incentives. Self-management allows influence over the
how of work and is mainly dependent on extrinsic incentives. On the right end of the
continuum, self-leadership characterizes itself through influence over the what, how and why
of work and is dependent on intrinsic as well as extrinsic incentives. Such a differentiation is
important on an individual level and on a team level as Stewart et al. (2019) deplore, that in the
literature on team self-influence, authors frequently used the terms self-managing teams and
self-leading teams interchangeably. This is deceptive since self-leading teams essentially have
more self-influence and set their goals autonomously, while self-managing teams are subject
to a mix of external and internal control with externally established goals.
7
2.1.2. Academic Definitions of Self-Leadership
When defining the term self-leadership it might at first appear to be an oxymoron since the
notion of leadership generally assumes, that for leadership to take place, at least one follower
and a leader are required which means that at least two persons are involved in a process of
mutual influence (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Nevertheless, self-leadership breaks with this
notion as it was first described by Manz (1983, p. 5) as “the process of influencing oneself”. In
more detail, he defines self-leadership as “a comprehensive self-influence perspective that
concerns leading oneself toward performance of naturally motivating tasks as well as managing
oneself to do work that must be done but is not naturally motivating” (Manz, 1986, p. 589).
Manz also pointed out that the concept of self-leadership furthermore differs from related
concepts like self-control or self-management because it is allowing for addressing a higher
level of standards for self-influence, it is more fully incorporating intrinsic work motivation,
and it is providing a greater variety of self-influence strategies (Manz, 1986). Alternatively,
Houghton, Neck, and Manz (2003, p. 126) define self-leadership as “a process in which an
individual influences himself to achieve self-direction and self-motivation to perform”.
Thereby specific behavioral and cognitive strategies designed to positively influence personal
effectiveness are used (Neck & Houghton, 2006). As shown in figure 3 below, these self-
leadership strategies can be grouped into the three categories of behavior-focused strategies,
natural reward strategies, and constructive thought pattern strategies (Manz & Neck, 2004;
Manz & Sims, 2001; Prussia, Anderson, & Manz, 1998). Each of these strategies will be
described in turn below.
Figure 3: Categories of self-leadership strategies. Adapted from Houghton & Neck (2002)
2.1.3. Self-Leadership Strategies
Behavior-focused strategies aim to manage behavior which is required to perform necessary
but unpleasant tasks by attempting to increase the self-awareness of a person (Manz & Neck,
2004). These strategies include self-observation, self-goal setting, self-reward, self-
punishment, and self-cueing (Houghton & Neck, 2002). Through self-observation individuals
can raise their awareness of when and why they engage in specific behavior, which is a
necessary step toward changing or eliminating ineffective and unproductive behaviors
(Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978; Manz & Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 1980). The information
gained from self-observation about current behavior and performance can then be used to
effectively set behavior-altering goals (Manz, 1986; Manz & Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 1980).
8
Challenging and specific self-set goals can significantly increase the performance of
individuals (Locke & Latham, 1990). Furthermore, linking the self-set goals to self-set rewards
can be very conducive for exerting the necessary effort to reach a goal (Mahoney & Arnkoff,
1978; Manz & Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 1980). Self-punishment or self-correcting feedback
can be used to reshape undesirable behavior after an introspective examination of failures and
wrong actions (Neck & Houghton, 2006). However, excessive use of self-punishment and self-
criticism needs to be avoided since overusing such strategies can be harmful to performance
(Manz & Sims, 2001). Also, environmental cues like motivational posters or notes as a
behavior-focused strategy can contribute to reducing destructive behaviors and encouraging
constructive ones instead (Manz & Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 1980, 2001).
For example, an entrepreneur who is actively using behavior-focused strategies might reflect
on her behavior and realize that she was too afraid to approach a potential investor during the
last networking event. She would use this insight to set herself a goal of being more proactive
in the future. To motivate her for this behavior change, she might set herself the reward to have
a fancy dinner if she uses the next opportunity to talk to an investor at a networking event. She
might also deny herself a pleasure if she doesn’t use the next opportunity. Furthermore, she
might use a note on a post-it at her desk to remind herself of her goal to be more proactive.
Natural reward strategies try to facilitate situations in which individuals are motivated or
rewarded by the inherently enjoyable aspects of an activity or task (Manz & Neck, 2004; Manz
& Sims, 2001). Natural reward strategies facilitate feelings of competence and self-
determination, which are primary mechanisms of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). These strategies can be divided into two primary natural reward strategies.
While one strategy focuses on building more pleasure and enjoyment into a task to make it
more naturally rewarding, the other strategy aims to manipulate perceptions by shifting
attention away from the unpleasant aspects to the inherently rewarding aspects of a task (Manz
& Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 2001). Thereby natural reward strategies help to create feelings
of competence and self-determination, which stimulate performance-enhancing task-related
behaviors (Neck & Houghton, 2006).
As an example, an entrepreneur who uses natural reward strategies might set himself time slots
to go to a nice cafe or park and write emails from there. This could make the task more
enjoyable for him.
Constructive thought pattern strategies attempt to impact performance positively by
facilitating the formation of habitual ways of thinking and constructive thought patterns (Manz
& Neck, 2004; Neck & Manz, 1992). Such constructive thought pattern strategies include the
identification and replacement of dysfunctional irrational beliefs with more constructive
thought processes (Ellis, 1977; Manz & Neck, 2004; Neck & Manz, 1992). Also negative self-
talk, that is what people covertly tell themselves (Neck & Manz, 1992), has to be identified and
replaced with more positive internal dialogues. Lastly, constructive thought pattern strategies
also include mental imagery, which describes the cognitive creation of an experience or task
before the actual physical movement is executed (Finke, 1989; Neck & Manz, 1992, 1996).
Mental imagery can be used to envision the successful performance of an activity prior to the
actual attempt (Manz & Neck, 2004). A meta-analysis of 35 empirical studies by Driskell,
Copper, & Moran (1994) showed that mental imagery has a significant positive impact on
individual performance.
An example of these constructive thought pattern strategies would be an entrepreneur who
replaces self-doubt by telling herself that she is well prepared for an upcoming pitch. She might
also already imagine herself receiving applause from the audience of a pitching contest.
9
2.1.4. Self-Leadership on an Individual and Team Level
In order to discuss research results on the outcomes of self-leadership, a clearer distinction
between self-leadership for individuals and self-leadership for teams needs to be made.
In the literature, self-leadership on an individual basis is, as previously noted, mainly
understood as a comprehensive process of self-influence that concerns leading oneself toward
performance of naturally motivating tasks and managing oneself to do work that must be done
even though it is not naturally motivating (Manz, 1986). Efforts to measure self-leadership on
an individual level for the three categories behavior-focused strategies, natural reward
strategies, and constructive thought pattern strategies were first made by Anderson and Prussia
(1997) and Houghton and Neck (2002) who presented a revised self-leadership questionnaire
with different dimensions and subscales. The questionnaire aims to assess an individual’s self-
leadership by checking whether the specific techniques and tools described above for the three
categories are applied.
Although the roots of self-influence on team-level can be traced to work design theories like
job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and socio-technical systems theory
(Cummings, 1978), the literature on self-leadership progressed only gradually from just
focusing on the individual to understanding self-leadership processes on the team level
(Stewart et al., 2019). This might be the reason why the words “self-managing teams” and
“self-leading teams” were used interchangeably by some authors as mentioned previously. As
shown with the continuum of self-leadership at individual and team levels (Figure 2), the most
important assessment to determine the self-leadership degree of a team is their amount of
influence over the what, how and why of work. Assessing self-leadership at the team level is
therefore done broadly by capturing behaviors that are undertaken internally within the team
on these determinants rather than by an external supervisor (Stewart et al., 2011).
In terms of measuring self-leadership, the literature shows that scales are more fully developed
for individual self-leadership than for team self-leadership. Nevertheless, there were many
studies conducted which examined the outcomes of self-leadership. Stewart et al. (2011)
conducted a comprehensive literature review to provide an overview of the outcomes of self-
leadership on an individual and team level. The collected studies showed that self-leadership
is generally beneficial at the individual level as it can increase productivity, quality of work,
job satisfaction and career success, while at the same time reducing the risk for absenteeism
and stress . However, the outcomes of self-leadership at the team level in these respects showed
mixed results and are dependent on the context (Stewart et al., 2011).
2.2. Implementation Intentions
The concept of implementation intentions as a self-regulatory strategy to increase the chances
of goal attainment was first presented in the 1990s by psychologist Peter Gollwitzer.
Implementation intentions are described as “if-then plans that link situational cues (i.e., good
opportunities to act, critical moments) with responses that are effective in attaining goals or
desired outcomes” (Gollwitzer, 1999, p. 493). For example, if someone tries to eat healthier, a
typical implementation intention would be: “If I feel tempted to eat that cookie in front of me,
then I will put it away and eat something healthier instead.”
10
2.2.1. Goal Intentions and Implementation Intentions
While some theories on goal attainment like the protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1983),
the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), and the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997)
regarded the formation of goal intentions as the critical act of willing that promotes goal
attainment, a meta-analysis of 47 experimental tests by Webb and Sheeran (2006) shows that
a medium-to-large change in intention (d = 0.66) leads only to a small-to-medium change in
behavior (d = 0.36). Also, other meta-analyses (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Paschal Sheeran,
2002) support the thesis that even the formulation of strong goal intentions does not guarantee
successful goal attainment.
This can be explained through the model of action phases (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987),
which suggests that the formation of an intention to pursue a goal is only the first step towards
actual goal attainment. To attain a goal successfully, an individual must also engage in effective
regulation of the goal-striving process, by acting appropriately. The implementation of the goal
intention can be difficult because people are often confronted with problems along the path to
goal attainment (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Based on this differentiation Gollwitzer (1999)
promoted a distinction between goal intentions and implementation intentions.
● Goal intentions (goals) are in the form of “I intend to reach Z!”. Thereby Z refers to a
certain outcome or behavior the individual feels committed to.
● Implementation intentions (plans) are in the form of “If situation X is encountered, then
I will perform the goal-directed response Y!”
2.2.2. Application of Implementation Intentions
Such implementation intentions are formed to turn the goal intention into reality as they specify
the where, when, and how of a goal-directed response. For example, if an entrepreneur has the
goal intention to not become discouraged by an unsuccessful investor pitch, a possible
implementation intention in service of this goal intention would link a critical situation (e.g.
not getting any investment) to goal-directed behavior (e.g. reaching out to a new investor).
Thereby a mental link is established between the critical cue (in this example the refusal of
investment) and the goal-directed response of reaching out to another investor the next day
(Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011). Formulated as an if-then plan, the implementation intention
would sound like this: “If I do not get investment from this investor, then I will reach out to a
another investor tomorrow”.
Formulating such implementation intentions (if-then plans) proved to help people closing the
gap between the setting of goals and actually achieving them. A meta-analysis comprising over
8,000 participants in 94 independent studies showed that the formulation of implementation
intentions has a medium-to-large effect (d = 0.65) on goal achievement in a variety of domains
on top of the effect of mere goal intentions (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). This proves that
implementation intentions are an effective tool to enhance the chances of goal attainment.
2.2.3. Limited Strength Model of Self-Control
Why the formulation of implementation intentions has such a sizable effect on successful goal
attainment can be explained through the limited strength model of self-control (Baumeister,
Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Self-control refers to the capacity to alter
one's own responses in order to bring them in line with personal standards and to support the
11
pursuit of long-term goals (Baumeister et al., 2007). The model suggests that “people have only
a limited capacity to control and alter their behavior, and this capacity appears to be vulnerable
to depletion in the aftermath of strenuous use” (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000, p. 256). In other
words, the theory proposes that the ability to control oneself can be compared to muscle
strength (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). This means that, similar to a muscle that becomes
tired and weak after being exercised, also the ability to exert self-control weakens with repeated
acts of self-control. As such, self-control is only available in limited supply and faulty self-
control can be explained by the depletion of limited resources. This depletion is caused by
previous acts of self-control or other executive functions which draw from a common energy
source (Bauer & Baumeister, 2011). The phenomenon is also referred to as ego depletion
(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). For example, an entrepreneur who was
conducting many demanding negotiations with suppliers over the day where she had to exercise
self-control in order to strike the best deals is more likely to give in to the temptation of
accepting a less attractive offer at the end of the day due to ego depletion.
Empirical evidence supports the limited strength model of self-control and the idea that
exertion of self-control in previous tasks leads to decrements in self-control on subsequent tasks
(Baumeister et al., 1998; Shmueli & Prochaska, 2009; Kathleen D. Vohs & Heatherton, 2000;
Kathleen D. Vohs & Faber, 2007). Since implementation intentions require the individual to
decide upon a response to a critical situation in advance, the control over the initiation of goal-
directed behavior is delegated to a specified situation without requiring a second conscious
decision (Gollwitzer & Wieber, 2010). In this way, implementation intentions subject behavior
to situational cues and automate goal-striving. Or in the words of Gollwitzer (1993, p. 173):
“by forming implementation intentions people pass the control of their behavior on to the
environment”. As a result, when behavior is controlled by implementation intentions,
individuals do not have to exert deliberate effort for self-control and the ego should not become
depleted (Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011). This was proven in different experiments by Webb
and Sheeran (2003). When participants formed implementation intentions for an initial task,
they showed greater persistence and self-control during a subsequent task compared to a control
group. Also in a second experiment when participants had been ego depleted in an initial task,
the formation of implementation intentions improved performance in a subsequent task to the
level exhibited by a non-depleted control group.
2.3. Theoretical Framework
As presented in the literature review, self-leadership is the process of using self-influence
strategies to attain goals which are in accordance with one’s superordinate personal standards.
The most critical aspect of self-leadership, which is also highlighted in different academic
definitions (Houghton et al., 2003; Manz, 1986), is the part of influencing oneself towards
performance. This especially concerns the transition from deliberate goal setting according to
personal standards to starting and following through with goal-directed behavior as shown in
figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Transition from goal setting to goal-directed behavior. Own illustration
12
In this crucial part of self-leadership, which is comparable any other goal intention, Gollwitzer
& Oettingen (2011) highlight four major problems. These problems concern getting started
with goal striving, staying on track, calling a halt, and not overextending oneself.
Getting started with goal-striving is an obvious problem which can often be difficult because
it might require doing unpleasant tasks, or the individual might procrastinate or simply forget
to act. Studies on the problem of initiating goal-directed behavior, showed that implementation
intentions can initiate goal-directed behavior in a variety of contexts including cancer
screenings (P. Sheeran & Orbell, 2000), recycling (Holland, Aarts, & Langendam, 2006),
consumption of a low-fat diet (Armitage, 2004), and engagement in physical exercise (Milne,
Orbell, & Sheeran, 2002), even if the required actions are somewhat unpleasant. Furthermore,
implementation intentions also had positive effects on goal attainment when individuals tend
to procrastinate (Gollwitzer & Wieber, 2010) or when the main problem is that persons simply
forget to act, like at the regular intake of vitamin pills (P. Sheeran & Orbell, 1999). These
findings suggest that implementation intentions can, for example, help people who want to
engage in self-leadership to not forget about using established self-leadership strategies (e.g.
behavior-focused strategies) in the first place (e.g. “If I want to achieve a new goal, then I will
set up behavior-focused strategies.”). In addition, implementation intentions seem also to
support the execution of previously presented self-leadership strategies. For instance, if an
individual wants to use constructive thought pattern strategies, implementation intentions can
also be facilitating (e.g. “If I engage in negative self-talk when I´m in a difficult negotiation
with a supplier, then I will stop immediately and switch to positive internal dialogue.”).
The second major problem is staying on track once goal-striving behavior was initiated and the
goal is not accomplished by a one-time action. Even though there might be some goals which
can be achieved through a single action, more often than not self-leadership requires the
individual to keep striving for a goal over a longer period of time. This process can be
endangered when internal stimuli (e.g. anxiety, tiredness) or external stimuli (e.g. temptations,
distractions) interfere with goal-striving (Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011). As presented in the
literature review, there already exist established self-leadership strategies which focus on
behavior, natural rewards, and constructive thought patterns in order to deal with internal and
external stimuli that might derail goal pursuit. However, the usage of implementation intentions
for self-leadership seems not to be limited to facilitating the initiation and execution of these
behavior-focused, natural reward, and constructive thought pattern strategies. Using
implementation intentions for goal-striving can be seen as a self-influence strategy by itself, as
it has proven to enhance goal attainment in many different domains where people did not use
these typical self-leadership strategies (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Since implementation
intentions help to deal with internal and external stimuli which might derail goal pursuit
(Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011), they should also improve goal attainment in the self-leadership
process.
Furthermore, using implementation intentions in self-leadership behavior can be used to timely
call a halt in case of futile goal-striving (Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011). This can include
ceasing the pursuit of an ineffective strategy or the renouncing of a goal that became
undesirable or impracticable. According to Gollwitzer & Oettingen (2011, p. 169) “people
often fail to disengage readily from chosen means and goals that turn out to be faulty because
of a strong self-justification motive.” This phenomenon is also referred to as escalation of
commitment and describes the tendency for decision makers to persist with failing courses of
action because of the irrational belief that decisions which were made deliberately must be
good (Brockner, 1992). This problem is especially relevant for entrepreneurship because
13
founders can fall in love with their ideas and actions so much that they ignore external
feedback. This risk of sticking to a chosen means or goal, even in the face of growing negative
feedback regarding the progress, can be mitigated through implementation intentions
(Henderson, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2007). For instance, “If I receive mainly negative
feedback on my prototype, then I will pivot and develop and test a new prototype”.
Lastly, implementation intentions can benefit self-leadership behavior since they proved to
prevent individuals from the risk of ego depletion. In a recent study on self-leadership practices
among management consultants, ego depletion was pointed out as one of the major challenges
for people who exert self-leadership (Bäcklander, Rosengren, & Kaulio, 2018). As shown in
the literature review, ego depletion can be prevented by delegating the initiation of a certain
behavior to a specific situation, obviating the need for a second conscious self-control decision.
This also implies that the use of implementation intentions can help people to not overextend
themselves (Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011) which is especially a risk factor for entrepreneurs
due to the nature of their risky and ambitious work.
In summary, implementation intentions seem to be applicable in self-leadership as a promising
tool with the potential to not only facilitate the use of existing self-leadership strategies but also
as an additional distinct approach to get started and follow through with goal-striving, even
under the influence of critical internal and external stimuli. Furthermore, implementation
intention might also benefit self-leading behavior as a tool to appropriately disengage from a
failing course of action and as a tool to avoid ego depletion and the risk of overextending
oneself. As such implementation intentions can’t be classified into one of the three existing
self-leadership categories but rather need to be seen as an additional category.
Figure 5 below depicts the integration of implementation intentions into the concept of self-
leadership.
Figure 5: Implementation intentions in the concept of self-leadership. Own illustration
14
The developed theoretical framework suggests that implementation intentions have a wide
range of applications for self-leadership and can especially benefit entrepreneurs. On the one
hand, using implementation intentions can facilitate the effective use of established self-
influence strategies and on the other hand, implementation intentions might be used as an
independent strategy to overcome typical goal-striving problems.
As this thesis aims to explore the practical use of implementation intentions for self-leadership,
a methodology to test the applicability of this self-regulatory strategy will be presented below.
The chosen approach will test whether implementation intentions as an independent strategy
can help people to achieve self-leadership goals. In the following study, the goal was to actively
implement one’s personal values (as an expression of one’s superordinate standards) into daily
life. This was tested with and without making use of implementation intentions as a self-
influence strategy.
15
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Paradigm
When conducting research there are different frameworks that guide how research should be
conducted. These frameworks are called research paradigms and can be divided into the two
main paradigms positivism and interpretivism.
The positivism research design originated in the natural sciences and is associated with
quantitative methods of analysis. Furthermore, in a positivism paradigm reality is seen as
objective and singular and as such separate from the researcher. It is also assumed that the
researcher is independent of that being researched and that research is value-free and unbiased.
Usually, in positivism, the process of research is deductive which means that a theoretical
structure is developed and then tested by empirical observations. (Collis & Hussey, 2014)
The interpretivism research design developed because of the perceived shortcomings when
using positivism for social science research. Main criticisms of positivism include that it is not
possible to separate people from the social contexts in which they exist and that researchers are
not objective since they are part of what they observe. Interpretivism also claims that capturing
complex phenomena in single measures is misleading. Therefore, in an interpretivism research
design reality is assumed to be subjective and multiple as seen by the participants. It is also
acknowledged that the researcher interacts with that being researched and that research is
value-laden and biases are present. An inductive research approach, meaning that theory is
developed from the observation of empirical reality as well as qualitative data collection, are
usually associated with interpretivism. (Collis & Hussey, 2014)
As positivism and interpretivism can be seen as the extremities of a continuous line of
paradigms there are many new paradigms that have emerged in between this continuum and
only a few researchers now adopt the pure forms of the main paradigms (Collis & Hussey,
2014). The research paradigm for this thesis can mainly be attributed to the interpretivism
research paradigm as the study described below uses a rather small sample size which acts in
its natural location. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the research is value-laden and biases
are present. The data collection is mainly qualitative, even though there is also some
quantitative data collected. Contrary to what would usually be associated with an interpretivism
paradigm, the research process in this thesis is rather deductive as a theoretical framework was
developed and subsequently tested by empirical observations.
3.2. Background
To test the applicability of implementation intentions for self-leadership behavior, a small
mainly qualitative study was conducted. Since the opportunity was provided to participate as
an external student in a university course on self-leadership, it was decided to conduct the
study in this setting.
The course on self-leadership was offered at Handelshögskolan in Stockholm by the
educational company SelfLeaders which offers training and consulting services in the area of
self-leadership. SelfLeaders offered valuable support for this thesis but was not acting as a
16
commissioning organization. The course comprised five weekly evening sessions over five
weeks in April and May 2019. Out of the 20 participants, ten were students pursuing bachelor
or master programs and ten were professionals of varying age and professions. The course was
set up as a voluntary elective course for students at Handelshögskolan and employees of partner
companies of SelfLeaders. This ensured that the 20 attendees participated voluntarily and were
motivated to learn about self-leadership and willing to apply the taught methods in real life.
The goal of this course was to enhance the self-leadership behavior of the participants
As an important component of the course, the participants were first instructed to reflect on
their needs, desires and what they care about in life, representing their personal values.
Becoming aware of one’s personal values is a critical part of developing self-leadership
capabilities as the values system of an individual should provide guidance for his or her
decisions (Ross, 2014). As such, values represent superordinate standards which guide
individuals in making decisions about what they consider right or wrong, good or bad, and
important or unimportant (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). For example, an entrepreneur who holds
values such as innovation, transformation, and risk-taking as important personal values will be
more likely to try out new and uncertain things than someone who values tradition, stability,
and safety. Also, entrepreneurs, who value sustainability and the environment will probably try
to minimize the negative environmental impact of their start-ups or even try to make a positive
impact. On the contrary, founders who do not share these sustainability values but rather value
success, pleasure and wealth instead might be more prone to accepting practices with a negative
environmental impact if it serves the growth of their start-ups. However, also the values from
the examples don’t have to be mutually exclusive since individuals need to define for
themselves what those values mean for them personally. Various exercises in the self-
leadership course helped participants to become aware of their personal values. Based on these
reflections, each participant defined the seven values which were most important to them as
their core values. This also included reflections about the presence of the core values in daily
life and their importance as a guiding tool. Although some literature claims that behavior and
actions can be interpreted as proxy measures which represent an individual’s values (Power,
Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989), renowned psychologists (Taylor, 2012) and many participants of
the self-leadership course reported that people actually do often not act and live in alignment
with their personal values.
A central part of the self-leadership training was to bring every-day behavior in alignment with
the core values individuals chose for themselves. Thus, the exercise represented an opportunity
to practice self-leadership by influencing oneself toward behavior which is according to one’s
deliberately chosen standards, in this case represented by personal values. These values should
serve as a means to guide individuals' behavior on a daily basis. In order to achieve that, the
participants were asked to implement these core values one by one into their lives by focussing
on one specific value per week. This resulted in the goal intention to actively live in alignment
with a determined focus value for one week.
3.3. Research Approach
In order to examine the effectiveness of implementation intentions for individuals who want to
engage in self-leadership behavior, the study is designed to expose possible differences
between
17
● When participants merely had the goal intention to actively live their focus value for
one week
● And when participants made implementation intentions to live their focus value for one
week
Based on the literature review one can assume that students who merely formed goal intentions
would be less successful in goal attainment (in this case: actively living according to a certain
value) compared to students who formulated implementation intentions.
As an example, a person who actively wants to live the value helpfulness will approach the
goal differently if he or she uses implementation intentions.
In this case, a goal intention would typically be something like this:
● I will be more helpful during the next week.
Formulating implementation intentions, by contrast, requires the person also to prepare if-then
plans that specify an anticipated critical situation and link it to a goal-directed response. For
example:
● If I see that someone is walking behind me, then I will keep the door open.
● If I see that someone dropped something, then I will pick it up for him or her.
● If I see that someone struggles with carrying a heavy item, then I will offer to help.
To examine that, the study participants were instructed to actively live a chosen focus value for
one week and were interviewed afterward on how it went. Right after the first interview, the
same people were instructed to formulate implementation intentions for actively living another
focus value for one week. Again, they were interviewed on how it went afterward.
Procedure overview:
1. Course participants were instructed to actively live a chosen focus value.
2. After one week the participants were interviewed on their experience with achieving
their goal to live their focus value more actively.
3. Next, they were also instructed to select another focus value and plan the incorporation
of this value into their lives with implementation intentions.
4. Another week after step 3, the same participants were interviewed on their experience
with achieving their goal to live their focus value more actively by using
implementation intentions. (Figure 6)
18
Timeline:
Figure 6: Interview timeline. Own illustration
The outcomes of the interviews served as a basis for the discussion whether implementation
intentions can help people to actively engage in self-leadership behavior, in this case by
improving the chance to successfully engage in the intentional behavior to actively live one´s
core values.
3.4. Data Collection
All twenty participants of the previously described self-leadership course at Handelshögskolan
were invited to participate in the study and five agreed to do so. Two of the study participants
were master students, one a bachelor student and two were professionals holding a team-
leading position at an IT consulting and telecommunication company, respectively. As such,
the sample group was very diverse and could be seen as a representation of the course
composition.
As this thesis aims to initially explore the application of implementation intentions in the
domain of self-leadership, primarily qualitative data was collected through semi-structured in-
person interviews in order to get personal insights on the typical problems and possibilities
associated with self-leadership. Choosing a qualitative research paradigm generally implies
that the collected data needs to be understood within the context (Collis & Hussey, 2014).
Semi-structured interviews were selected as a suitable method because they ensure
comparability between the different interviews, which is a crucial part of this research design.
But semi-structured interviews also allow for collecting and exploring additional thoughts and
insights from the interviewee as they facilitate open discovery (Collis & Hussey, 2014). To
further increase comparability between the interviews, two questions were included which
aimed to collect quantitative data by asking participants to make ratings on a five-point Likert
scale. The questions in the first round of interviews covered the topics goal-intention,
motivation, preparation, goal-striving, perceived goal attainment and other (Appendix 1). In
the second round of interviews, specific questions regarding the use of implementation
intentions were added to the interview template (Appendix 2). The questions for the first
19
interview round were developed with the goal to learn about how people prepare for
incorporating personal values into their daily lives, what strategies they use, which factors they
perceive as beneficial and what problems they encounter. Furthermore, open questions were
added to explore additional relevant observations and participants were asked to rate their
motivation to do this exercise in order to enhance comparability of goal attainment by taking
into account motivational differences. In the second interview round the same questions were
part of the interview, but they were supplemented by questions which focus specifically on the
exploration of the impact of implementation intentions in such settings.
The book “Business Research” by Collis and Hussy (2014) served as a practical guide to inform
the interview process. Especially advise on how interview questions need to be framed to not
lead interviewees in a certain direction and practical tips for the interview itself were taken
from this book. The interviews took around 30 minutes in most cases and were recorded with
the permission of the interviewees. Notes were taken during the interview and the audio-
recording was used to filter out and summarize relevant statements and findings after the
interviews. The interviews were not fully transcribed since the relevant information was
restored with the help of notes and recordings.
Before conducting interviews with actual study participants, a test-interview with a different
person to test the interview outline and the interviewing process itself was conducted. In this
test-interview, it became apparent that the order of the questions had to be adjusted. Prior to
the interviews, considerable effort has been put into identifying drawbacks from the presented
approach and developing ways to address these drawbacks.
One major problem was that the interviewees mostly had to rely on their memory and that the
reported experiences might be filtered and biased. To counteract these problems, the study
participants were asked to take honest notes on a daily basis.
It is also problematic that some values are easier to actively implement into one’s life during a
one week period than others. For example, the value “helpfulness” can easily be applied in
many different situations while values such as justice or wisdom are more difficult to actively
live by during a one week period. Therefore, in order to make the two parts of the experiment
comparable (before and after implementation intention training), the study participants were
instructed to consider this aspect when choosing a focus value for the study and to select values
which are practical. However, it was necessary that participants start with a new value for the
two parts of the experiment in order to avoid learning and familiarization effects which might
occur over a longer period of time.
Another factor which influences the comparability of the two parts of the experiment might be
differences in the personal ranking of the values. Even though participants were asked to select
from what they consider their seven core values, there might still be differences in terms of
personal importance within these values. To take this into account, participants were instructed
to freely choose a focus value which they were willed to implement into their lives over the
coming week. For comparability reasons, they were also asked to note down their motivation
at the beginning of the week to live the chosen value.
Another critical point of this research design was the instruction for using implementation
intention. To ensure that all participants make use of the concept and formulate their
implementation intentions correctly, they were briefed on an individual basis with the
opportunity to get support in formulating if-then clauses.
The instruction to formulate implementation intentions consisted of a four-step process which
is illustrated in the following:
20
1. Identifying the most important goal-relevant critical situations. This can be
opportunities to act towards the goal or obstacles which endanger goal attainment.
2. Formulating a cognitive or behavioral goal-directed response for each critical situation.
How to respond to identified opportunities and obstacles.
3. Linking the critical situation (1.) to a goal-directed response (2.) by writing down if-
then statements. (“If it comes to situation X, then I will do Y.”)
4. Waiting for critical situations to arise and acting according to the plan formulated in
step 3.
3.5. Data Analysis
After the interviews were conducted the collected information was analyzed. In a first step,
notes which were taken during the interviews were complemented by extracting additional
information from the recordings. The processing of the interviews was subsequently, which
means that all relevant information and statements regarding the topics goal-intention,
motivation, preparation, goal-striving, perceived goal attainment, and other observations were
extracted from one interview and noted on a separate sheet of paper before the next interview
was processed. After all interviews were processed and reviewed, the information and
statements of the interviews of the two interview rounds were compared and patterns,
exceptions, commonalities and contradictions were highlighted. The analyzed data was then
used for chapter “4. Findings”.
3.6. Research Ethics and Sustainability Issues
Conducting research, especially when humans are involved, can be a sensitive topic. Therefore
there are a number of regulations which need to be followed when doing research. To conduct
research for this thesis in an ethical manner, the guidelines from the Swedish Research Council
were taken into account (Swedish Research Council, 2017). As this study also concerned the
private lives of the participants, it was important to assure them that information shared in the
interviews will be dealt with in an ethical manner. Making arrangements which ensure high
research ethics was, therefore, a critical pre-condition which allowed the participants to speak
openly about private content during the interviews. Especially anonymity and confidentiality
played an important role since the examples given during the interviews were very personal in
some parts. To ensure confidentiality it was agreed that information given in confidence will
not be communicated or referred to in the thesis. The participants also had the possibility to get
statements withdrawn from the interview notes if requested. Furthermore, all participants were
codified in order to remain anonymous. Due to the small group size of the self-leadership
course, demographic information, except for gender, was not linked to the codified
interviewees in the thesis. Statements and examples which allow conclusions to be drawn
regarding one’s profession or other personal details were used only with permission of the
respective person. The participants were asked for permission to record the interview and it
was assured that the information shared in the interview will only be used for the purpose of
this thesis. The recordings will be deleted once the thesis is submitted while notes will be stored
in a codified way.
21
Sustainability has become one of the most important topics of modern society and global
organizations such as the United Nations try to lay the ground for sustainable development in
all dimensions. Therefore, the United Nations Environment Programme has developed a
framework for environmental, social and economic sustainability which is a concrete way of
supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2015). Although environmental sustainability is much-talked about,
other dimensions such as economic and social elements of sustainability are more neglected in
public dialogue. While environmental sustainability concerns aspects like resource
management and environmental protection, economic sustainability refers to cost savings and
R&D spending. As a third dimension, social sustainability refers to aspects like the quality of
life, community development, and education (Aminuddin & Nawawi, 2013). In terms of
sustainability, this thesis contributes to the dimension of social sustainability and particularly
to the Sustainable Development Goals 3 “Good Health & Well-Being” and 8 “Decent Work &
Economic Growth” (United Nations, 2019). As presented earlier, self-leadership and
entrepreneurship can help people to achieve higher levels of work and life satisfaction by
serving basic psychological needs and bringing one’s life in alignment with deeply held
standards and personal values. This can bring decent work and increase well-being and the
quality of life for many people and therefore contribute to social sustainability.
22
4. Findings
4.1. Introduction to Findings
The research design was created to learn in a first step about how people who want to engage
in self-leadership behavior approach the goal of living their core values more actively and
which problems they encounter. In a second step, it is examined whether implementation
intentions can enhance such goal-striving behavior. This offers the possibility to compare the
effectiveness of self-leadership attempts based on the usage of implementation intentions. The
main findings of interview round 1 and interview round 2 will be presented in the following.
● Interview round 1 was conducted one week after the instruction to actively live a focus
value.
● Interview round 2 was conducted one week after interview 1 and the instruction to
actively live another focus value with the use of implementation intentions. (Figure 6)
4.2. Findings Interview Round 1: Goal Intentions Only
Goal Intention
All participants chose a focus value to implement into their lives which was important to them
at that point of time. Everyone could also elaborate on why they choose their respective focus
value and what this value means to them. The values chosen by the participants were “honesty”
(P1), “curiosity” (P2), “focus” (P3), “health” (P4), and “discipline” (P5).
Motivation
The motivation of most participants to actively live their focus value varied between
“somewhat motivated” (P2, P3) and “very motivated” (P1, P4). One participant (P5) considered
himself as “not so motivated” to actively live his focus value in the first place.
Preparation
Most of the participants (P1, P3, P5) did not make any concrete plans on how to live their focus
value. P1 noted her focus value “honesty” down in her diary and read it every day. She also
“tried to keep it present during the day”. P3 and P5 both had the intention to live more in line
with their focus value but they also did not specify concrete behavior or actions to achieve this.
P3 summarized his preparation as “good intentions, but no plan”. P2 thought about ways to
implement her focus value “curiosity” into her daily life and recognized upcoming meetings at
work as an “opportunity to thrive in curiosity” and she wanted to learn more about the other
participants of the meeting. Participant 4, who wanted to focus on “health”, formulated a clear
plan for meditating on a daily basis by booking time in his calendar to do that. Furthermore,
P4 teamed up with a friend who had the same goal to text each other after each meditation
session in order to increase commitment.
Beneficial Factors
P1 found it helpful to be reminded of her focus value by reading over it in her diary on a daily
basis. P2 who wanted to be more curious in meetings found it very helpful to having had
identified this opportunity beforehand. P3 could leverage his daily routine of making to-do lists
23
to implement his value “focus” into his life. Participant 4 found it very helpful to have a fixed
time every day to do the meditation and someone to follow up on progress. P5 who chose
“discipline” as his focus value was also using a to-do list, where he prioritized work over going
out with friends.
Obstacles
One of the biggest problems participants P1, P2, P3, and P5 reported was to remember to
actively live their focus value. Although P1 got reminded of her focus value on a daily basis
when she looked into her diary, she thinks that this was “not very efficient” because she still
had problems “to remember to do it”. Also P2 reported for example that her focus value “was
not always present” and that she therefore missed many situations in which she could have
been more curious. Another major problem was external events which P2, P3, P4, P5 didn’t
anticipate. P3, for example, said that the motivation to focus more on a certain value was there
at the beginning, but then “life happens, and other things come into the way”. P1 and P3 had
problems with clarifying specific actions that express their focus value since it is “just a word”
(P1) and “it’s very difficult if you don’t have a concrete plan” (P3). P3 also highlighted old
habits as a huge obstacle which hinders the implementation of values into daily life.
Goal attainment
P1, P2, P3 stated “In some possible situations I acted more in accordance with my focus value
than usual”. P4 perceived himself as “In many possible situations I acted more in accordance
with my focus value than usual”. P5 perceived did see no difference to any other week.
Summary
In most interviews, it could be seen that not having a concrete plan made it difficult to
implement their focus value into their lives. On the one hand, it was a major problem to keep
the intention present throughout the day and, on the other hand, external events often caused
them to act in their accustomed manner. Also, some participants had problems with translating
their focus value in concrete actions and fell back into old habits.
4.3. Findings Interview Round 2: Use of Implementation Intentions
Note: Due to private issues P4 was unfortunately not available for the second interview
anymore. Finding a substitute was not possible due to the limited time frame and the advanced
stage of the study. Therefore, the findings in this section only represent the interviews with P1,
P2, P3 and P5.
Goal Intention
Again, all participants wanted to incorporate a specific value into their lives. Everyone had
clarity about what the respective values mean to them and why they chose them. The
participants chose the values “perception” (P1), “appreciation” (P2), “performance” (P3), and
“presence” (P5).
Motivation
P1 and P2 felt that they were “somewhat motivated” at the beginning of the week to actively
live their focus value. P3 and P5 saw themselves as “very motivated”.
24
Preparation
As instructed, all participants formulated implementation intentions in the form of if-then
plans. Every participant identified at least five critical situations which might either appear as
obstacles or opportunities to actively live their focus value. The participants also formulated
how they wanted to react to those critical situations in the form of if-then plans. Thereby, they
created goal-directed responses to opportunities and obstacles. As an example, the notes from
P1 who wanted to be more perceptive are attached as Appendix 3 with her permission. All
participants also described it as easy to come up with five critical situations and appropriate
responses. Every participant reported that they wrote those plans down and made them visible
so that they got reminded every day. The participants said in the interview that they did not
make any further arrangements than the previously described planning technique of forming
implementation intentions.
Beneficial Factors
All participants reported that they found it generally helpful to have those plans formulated and
seeing them on a daily basis. For P1 all of the five critical situations occurred and the plans
“definitely helped to act differently than the usual way in these situations”. As she wanted to
be more perceptive she elaborated on an instance where she was stressed and would usually
opt out of a less important conversation. Having had formulated the implementation intention
“If someone tells me a story, then I will actively listen to it” helped her to redirect her focus to
the conversation. Also, P2 and P3 reported similar instances where the formulated
implementation intention helped them to not give in to habitual behavior but to respond in the
previously planned way. As an example, P2 was talking about a situation where one of her if-
then plans helped her to appreciate the contributions of her employees at the end of a meeting
and P3 followed through with his plan to work out even though he was actually really tired and
unmotivated one day. P5 reported that the formulation of if-then plans especially helped him
to reflect about “in which situations I would usually give in to an old habit even though I should
act differently”. With the focus value “presence”, P5 wanted to speak up more often at work
among even though he just started his new job. He reported that formulating the appropriate
implementation intention “If I’m in a meeting and have an idea, I’m going to speak up and
share it with the others” helped him to do this.
Obstacles
P1 and P2 reported that it was hard to react in a goal-directed way in situations which were not
specified with if-then plans. Although the participants reported that every critical situation they
planned for occurred, they couldn’t cover all of the critical situations in their plans. P2
estimated that she had plans for about 80 percent of the critical situations which occurred. Also,
every participant found it difficult in the beginning to remember all the if-then plans, but re-
reading them on a daily basis was found to be helpful. P2 reported that in some critical
situations it was still very difficult to bring up the willpower to act according to the previously
defined plan. In this context, she mentioned a situation where she just finished a meeting with
a client which turned out to become very difficult. Even though, she had planned in advance to
show him her appreciation for previous collaborations, it was very hard for her to do this
because of aroused emotions. Nevertheless, the planning helped her to mention at least some
appreciative words in this situation. P3 reported problems if there were days which were not
that well structured, because most of his identified critical situations referred to his routine. P5
found it especially difficult to anticipate critical situations in social interactions because
“human interaction is often more random”.
25
Goal attainment
For their perceived goal attainment, P1, P2, P3, and P5 indicated at the goal-attainment scale
that they acted in many possible situations more in accordance with their value than usual.
Summary
All remaining participants reported that having those plans was helpful for actively living a
focus value. Overall the participants achieved more satisfactory results than in the previous
week without implementation intentions (see figure 7). The perceived average goal attainment
on a five-point scale increased from 2.8 in interview round 1 to 4.0 in interview round 2. The
average moderator variable “motivation” which was also collected on a five point scale was
slightly higher in interview round 2 (3.5) compared to interview round 1 (3.2). Although, the
participants perceived the use implementation intentions as very helpful, no participant could
incorporate his or her focus value into their lives due to reasons like forgetting about the new
plans and not covering all relevant situations.
Perceived average goal attainment:
Figure 7: Perceived average goal attainment. Own illustration
In the following, the outcomes of the study will be discussed in order to develop an answer to
the question if the effectiveness of self-leadership behavior can be enhanced through the use of
implementation intentions.
26
5. Discussion
5.1. Discussion Interview Round 1: Goal Intentions Only
The findings from the first round of interviews suggest that people often only form the intention
to achieve a certain goal (in this case actively living a focus value) without turning these
thoughts into actionable plans. There were three problems standing out.
1. In the first interview round, it was often reported that the participants of the study tried
to keep the intention of acting in line with their focus value present and to think about
it during the day. However, these participants who merely tried to keep the intention
present reported that they had difficulties actually engaging in behavior which is in
accordance with their focus value. This represents the typical problem of getting started
with goal-striving (Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2011), since most participants simply
forgot to act.
2. Another main problem which was reported in the interviews was that participants often
got so absorbed in their daily life and unexpected situations that they couldn’t focus on
implementing their values. Getting distracted by external stimuli and not having the
self-control to focus on implementing the values due to ego depletion can explain these
findings (Baumeister et al., 1998).
3. Also, the problem that the participants had not specified for themselves clearly enough
what behavior their focus value implies became obvious during the interviews. Not
knowing what specific actions a value implies for themselves, led to unsatisfactory
results for some participants.
These findings strongly support the need to have the previously presented distinction between
goal intentions and implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, 1999). According to this distinction,
all participants in this study formed goal intentions but only one of them (P4 wanted to meditate
every weekday at 9 pm) transformed these goal intentions into concrete plans (implementation
intentions) during the first round of interviews. It could be seen that P4 who by himself formed
concrete implementation intentions considered himself more successful in implementing his
focus value than any other participant after the first part of the experiment. P2 who wanted to
be more curious identified upcoming meetings at work as an opportunity to learn more about
the other participants of the meeting. However, she failed to link this situation to concrete plans
which would help her to achieve this goal.
The findings also reflect the previously presented literature which suggests that having only
the goal intentions to achieve a certain goal without concrete planning is not likely to be
crowned with success (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). The participant who was specifying plans
in service of the goal intention, however, was indeed more successful in transforming his goal
intentions into actual behavior which reflects the literature. The outcomes of the first round of
interviews, therefore, suggest that also self-leadership related goals like incorporating personal
values into daily life require more than the mere intention to do that.
27
5.2. Discussion Interview Round 2: Use of Implementation Intentions
In their interviews for this research, all participants reported that they found it helpful having
formed implementation intentions. Formulating implementation intentions forced the
participants to think about critical situations which could be an obstacle or an opportunity to
living in alignment with their focus value. Coming up with at least five of these critical
situations was perceived as an easy task by the participants. Also, the formulation of goal-
directed responses to these critical situations was reported to be simple and every participant
could autonomously formulate at least five if-then plans for their new focus value. In the
interviews, all participants reported that every critical situation they identified occurred.
One big problem identified after the first interview round was that the participants forgot about
their intention to live their focus value in daily life. This problem of forgetting about the focus
value and therefore failing to act was also reported during the second round of interviews. It
seemed to be especially problematic at the beginning of the exercise, but for most participants,
it got better after the first few days when they internalized their if-then plans. Participants
reported that having had specified critical situations as cues in advance often reminded them
of their focus value and the planned actions in that situation. Increasing alertness to these cues
led to more presence of the intention to incorporate a focus value, especially after some time
which seems to be necessary to internalize the cues.
The other major problem of being so absorbed in daily life and having to deal with unexpected
situations could also be addressed through implementation intentions. All participants reported
that it was actually easy to anticipate critical situation which can serve as a cue to alter standard
behavior into goal-directed behavior and those anticipated situations actually all occurred in
this study. Although the interviews also showed that there were still many critical situations
which the participants couldn’t anticipate, the findings suggest that there is potential to foresee
a large quantity of upcoming critical situations if people invest some time into planning.
Preparing for these situations with if-then plans prevented the participants from ego depletion
caused by handling those critical situations and helped them to exert the necessary self-control
to continue focusing on the implementation of their focus value in spite of distractions from
external stimuli. Especially the example of P2 shows that her implementation intention to
express appreciation towards her client for the previously successful collaboration helped to
follow through with this goal intention even after an emotionally demanding meeting.
Also, the previously discovered problem that some participants did not specify what the
expression of their focus value actually looks like in terms of behavior can be solved through
upfront planning with implementation intentions. Most of the participants reported that
thinking about critical situations in which their focus value comes into play as a guideline
helped them to clarify how they wanted to act in certain situations.
28
6. Conclusion
6.1. Conclusions
Self-leadership as a way to effectively influence oneself to achieve goals which are according
to one’s superordinate personal standards is of increasing importance in an age where jobs with
a predefined set of tasks are increasingly replaced by jobs which require independent and
autonomous work. The skills and abilities connected to a developed degree of self-leadership
are especially important for entrepreneurs as they empower them to decide for themselves
which goals to pursue and how to effectively reach them without requiring external
supervision.
Active self-leadership implies in its core that people are aware of their higher personal
standards and effectively exercise self-influence strategies to reach goals related to these
standards. In this thesis it could be shown that implementation intentions can facilitate such
self-leading behavior.
The participants of the study had the goal to bring their lives more into alignment with their
personal values. This goal was according to their superordinate standards as they deliberately
chose the focus values they wanted to implement into their lives. The formation of
implementation intentions was found to be beneficial for achieving goals related to self-
leadership. Although, the specific goal in the context of this study related to the less tangible
goal of aligning one’s life with personal values, implementation intentions proved to have a
positive impact.
The findings of the study show that implementation intentions can be applied successfully in
the domain of self-leadership in order to align one’s daily actions with deeply held personal
values. Identifying critical situations in advance and formulating goal-directed response plans
can help individuals to consciously and continuously act in a way that is in alignment with their
core values and superordinate standards. In this setting, implementation intentions were found
to:
● Help individuals overcome the problem of getting started with goal-striving by
increasing the alertness for specific cues which trigger the previously defined behavior.
● Help individuals following through with goal striving by anticipating and automating
goal-directed responses to upcoming critical situations through if-then plans which
prevent the individual from ego depletion.
● Help individuals to clarify for themselves what their superordinate personal standards
and core values mean in terms of specific actions.
With regard to the research question, the outcomes of the study show that implementation
intentions can improve the effectiveness of self-leadership behavior.
6.2. Implications and Contribution to the Field of Entrepreneurship
The study suggests that using implementation intentions can help people to enhance their self-
leadership behavior by helping them to become clearer about their personal values and
standards. Furthermore, implementation intentions also proved to be an effective self-influence
29
strategy which facilitates goal attainment in self-leadership. As such, self-leadership enhanced
by implementation intentions can help entrepreneurs to become more aware of their personal
standards and core values. Self-influence through the formulation of implementation intentions
can furthermore help an entrepreneur to effectively realize the goals which are derived from
his or her higher personal standards. By planning goal-directed responses to critical situations
in advance, entrepreneurs who formulate implementation intentions as part of their self-
leadership behavior have already evaluated the validity and appropriateness of the goal and the
planned reaction in a greater context. This allows them to pre-define appropriate actions in
advance and reduces the risk of opting for inappropriate actions in stress situations caused by
ego depletion.
In terms of academic implications and contributions, the thesis adds to an emerging line of
research which examines the capabilities an entrepreneur needs in order to succeed. It could be
demonstrated that self-leadership is especially important for entrepreneurs. Furthermore, this
thesis introduces the concept of implementation intentions as an additional self-leadership
strategy which can make self-leadership behavior more effective. The application of
implementation intentions as a distinct self-leadership strategy has previously not been
examined and is therefore a novel contribution to the literature.
6.3. Limitations
It must be pointed out clearly that this thesis and the associated interviews can only be seen as
a first exploration of the topic which provides an indication of the relevance of implementation
intentions for self-leadership.
Some limitations were attempted to be addressed by the research design as described in section
“3.4. Data Collection” and in section “3.6. Research Ethics and Sustainability”. Nevertheless,
they represent limitations for this thesis and will be presented below among the other
limitations.
Limitations of this thesis concern the problem that the interviewees had to rely on their
memories and notes when reporting their experiences in the interviews. Also the statements of
the study participants might be biased and filtered due to the interview situation. The
interviewees might have felt pressure to answer in a certain way or felt uncomfortable to answer
honestly. Also, possible cultural influences and language interpretation issues can not be ruled
out. These problems could have been addressed by actually observing the behavior of the
participants in a natural environment which was clearly not possible in this setting. But even if
such a study uses observations there would be the problem that people might act differently
when they know that they are being observed. A secret observation would cause problems in
terms of ethical research and is therefore also not an option. Hence, the mentioned problems
will always limit the validity of such a study.
Further limitations of this study are that people might not always have had the same degree of
motivation when doing the exercise. Also different levels of stress in school or at work might
influence the outcomes of such a study. Furthermore, some values can be more easily
incorporated into one’s daily life than others and individuals might rank the importance of their
core values differently. Since not all participants provided access to their notes and if-then
plans, there is the risk that some participants might have not formulated the if-then plans
correctly.
The quantitative part of the interviews is also not very convincing since the evaluation of
motivation and goal attainment was purely subjective and the number of study participants was
very limited. More objective measurements and a larger sample group would have made the
30
study stronger in this respect. The short time frame was also problematic since running the
experiment over a longer period of time would have increased comparability of the different
study parts. With regards to time, there were also two occasions where the interview had to be
postponed by one day, which means that the time period for doing the exercise was eight days
instead of seven. In these cases the subsequent second interview was then scheduled seven days
after the first. Lastly, the fact that one participant couldn’t do the second interview is also a
limitation since it further reduced the small number of participants and makes the comparison
between interview round 1 and 2 more problematic.
6.4. Future Research
It seems that there are many other aspects of self-leadership where implementation intentions
can be applied. In their recent review of self-leadership Stewart et al. (2019, p. 62) highlight
several contemporary questions to guide future research in the field whereby two of them are
closely related to this thesis:
• “How is depletion of self-leadership resources different at team level than at the
individual level?”
• “Can implementation planning and other forms of team planning (e.g., team charters)
be applied to improve the success of change management in organizations?
Also, the outcomes of this thesis suggest among other things that implementation intentions
can be used to overcome the ego depleting effects of actively exercising self-leadership. A
further examination of ego depletion in connection with self-leadership behavior is needed to
profoundly understand what particular aspects of self-leading behavior lead to ego depletion.
Therefore, finding an answer to the following research question can be a next step for finding
ways to purposefully enhance the effectiveness of self-leadership:
• “What specific aspects of self-leadership lead to ego depletion?”
Once it is known which specific aspects of self-leadership draw from the limited capacity for
self-control (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), subsequent studies can examine whether
implementation intentions can minimize resource depletion in these aspects. The present thesis
can serve as a starting point for this and future studies can build upon this thesis by borrowing
the research design from this thesis and enhancing it by addressing the outlined limitations of
the current design. Therefore, subsequent studies would need to have:
• A longer time frame
• A statistically significant amount of participants
• A more objective way of collecting data
It remains to be seen whether such a study can confirm the outcomes of this thesis, but finding
profound results which proof that implementation intentions can effectively prevent people
from ego depletion in acts of self-leadership would be a significant contribution to the body of
knowledge in the domain of self-leadership and associated with a high degree of practical
relevance.
31
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Aminuddin, A. S. A., & Nawawi, M. K. M. (2013). Investigation of the Philosophy Practised
in Green and Lean Manufacturing Management: International Journal of Customer
Relationship Marketing and Management, 4(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jcrmm.2013010101
Anderson, J. S., & Prussia, G. E. (1997). The Self-Leadership Questionnaire: Preliminary
Assessment of Construct Validity. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(2), 119–143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199700400212
Armitage, C. J. (2004). Evidence that implementation intentions reduce dietary fat intake: A
randomized trial. Health Psychology, 23(3), 319–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-
6133.23.3.319
Bäcklander, G., Rosengren, C., & Kaulio, M. (2018). Managing intensity in knowledge work:
Self-leadership practices among Danish management consultants. Journal of
Management & Organization, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.64
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bauer, I. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Self-regulatory strength. In K. D. Vohs & R. F.
Baumeister, Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 64–
82). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the
active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why
people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The Strength Model of Self-Control.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x
Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2008a). Being Independent is a Great Thing: Subjective Evaluations
of Self-Employment and Hierarchy. Economica, 75(298), 362–383.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00594.x
Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2008b). The value of doing what you like: Evidence from the self-
employed in 23 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3–4),
445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.10.014
Bligh, M. C., Pearce, C. L., & Kohles, J. C. (2006). The importance of self‐ and shared
leadership in team based knowledge work: A meso‐level model of leadership
dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 296–318.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663105
Brockner, J. (1992). The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward
Theoretical Progress. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39–61.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279568
Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and
leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(3), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2014). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate &
postgraduate students (Fourth edition). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
32
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-Regulating Work Groups: A Socio-Technical Synthesis. The
Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 625. https://doi.org/10.2307/257551
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). WHO WILL LEAD AND WHO WILL FOLLOW? A
SOCIAL PROCESS OF LEADERSHIP IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION IN
ORGANIZATIONS. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53503267
D’Intino, R. S., Goldsby, M. G., Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2007). Self-Leadership: A
Process for Entrepreneurial Success. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
13(4), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130040101
Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.79.4.481
Ellis, A. (1977). Rational-Emotive Therapy: Research Data That Supports The Clinical and
Personality Hypotheses of RET and Other Modes of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy.
The Counseling Psychologist, 7(1), 2–42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001100007700700102
Finke, R. A. (1989). Principles of mental imagery. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal Achievement: The Role of Intentions. European Review of
Social Psychology, 4(1), 141–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000059
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2011). Planning promotes goal striving. In Handbook of
self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 2nd ed. (pp. 162–185). New
York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement:
A Meta‐analysis of Effects and Processes. In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69–119). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Wieber, F. (2010). Overcoming Procrastination through Planning. In C.
Andreou & M. D. White, The Thief of Time.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195376685.001.0001
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in
motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101–
120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992338
Henderson, M. D., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Implementation intentions and
disengagement from a failing course of action. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 20(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.553
Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the
working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 776–783.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.006
Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self‐leadership questionnaire: Testing a
hierarchical factor structure for self‐leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
17(8), 672–691. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210450484
Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003). Self-Leadership and SuperLeadership:
The Heart and Art of Creating Shared Leadership in Teams. In Shared Leadership:
33
Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (pp. 123–140).
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539.n6
Jenkins, A. S., Wiklund, J., & Brundin, E. (2014). Individual responses to firm failure:
Appraisals, grief, and the influence of prior failure experience. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.10.006
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Mahoney, M. J., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. L.
Garfield & A. E. Borgin (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Therapy Change
(pp. 689–722). New York, NY: Wiley.
Manz, C. C. (1983). The art of self-leadership: strategies for personal effectiveness in your
life and work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-Leadership: Toward an Expanded Theory of Self-Influence
Processes in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258312
Manz, C. C. (1992). Self-Leading Work Teams: Moving Beyond Self-Management Myths.
Human Relations, 45(11), 1119–1140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204501101
Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (2004). Mastering self-leadership: empowering yourself for
personal excellence (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-Management as a Substitute for Leadership: A
Social Learning Theory Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361.
https://doi.org/10.2307/257111
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new superleadership: leading others to lead
themselves (1st ed). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial Action and the Role of
Uncertainty in the Theory of the Entrepreneur. The Academy of Management Review,
31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159189
Milne, S., Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2002). Combining motivational and volitional
interventions to promote exercise participation: Protection motivation theory and
implementation intentions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2), 163–184.
https://doi.org/10.1348/135910702169420
Mitchell, R. K., Mitchell, J. R., & Smith, J. B. (2008). Inside opportunity formation:
enterprise failure, cognition, and the creation of opportunities. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.51
Monsen, E., & Wayne Boss, R. (2009). The Impact of Strategic Entrepreneurship Inside the
Organization: Examining Job Stress and Employee Retention. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33(1), 71–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2008.00281.x
Müller, T., & Niessen, C. (2018). Self-leadership and self-control strength in the work
context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(1), 74–92.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2017-0149
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources:
does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.
Neck, C. P., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Two decades of self‐leadership theory and research:
Past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(4), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663097
Neck, C. P., Houghton, J. D., Sardeshmukh, S. R., Goldsby, M., & Godwin, J. L. (2013).
Self-leadership: a cognitive resource for entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2013.876762
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1992). Thought self-leadership: The influence of self-talk and
34
mental imagery on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 681–
699. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130705
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 17(5), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199609)17:5<445::AID-JOB770>3.0.CO;2-N
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The New Silver Bullets of Leadership: Organizational
Dynamics, 34(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03.003
Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral
education. New York, NY, US: Columbia University Press.
Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance
outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19(5), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199809)19:5<523::AID-JOB860>3.0.CO;2-I
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude
Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty,
Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook (pp. 153–176). New York: Guilford Press.
Ross, S. (2014). A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership
development and action-steps to promote personal leadership development. Journal of
Management Development, 33(4), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2012-
0147
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–
78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Implementation intentions and repeated behaviour:
Augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned behavior. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0992(199903/05)29:2/33.0.CO;2-Y
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (2000). Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for
cervical cancer screening. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of
Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 19(3), 283–289.
Sheeran, Paschal. (2002). Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical
Review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
Shir, N., Nikolaev, B. N., & Wincent, J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role of
psychological autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Journal of Business Venturing,
S0883902617301672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.05.002
Shmueli, D., & Prochaska, J. J. (2009). Resisting tempting foods and smoking behavior:
Implications from a self-control theory perspective. Health Psychology, 28(3), 300–
306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013826
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-Leadership: A Multilevel
Review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 185–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310383911
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2019). Self-Leadership: A Paradoxical Core
of Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
012218-015130
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good Research Practice.
United Nations. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved June 11, 2019, from
Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform website:
35
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
United Nations Environment Programme. (2015). UNEP Environmental, Socail and
Economic Sustainability Framework. Retrieved from
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8718/-
UNEP_environmental,_social_and_economic_sustainability_framework-
2015UNEP_Environmental_Social_and_Economic_Sustainability_Framework.pdf.pd
f?sequence=2&%3BisAllowed=
Vohs, Kathleen D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-Regulatory Failure: A Resource-
Depletion Approach. Psychological Science, 11(3), 249–254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00250
Vohs, Kathleen D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent Resources: Self‐Regulatory Resource
Availability Affects Impulse Buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537–547.
https://doi.org/10.1086/510228
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego-
depletion? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(3), 279–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00527-9
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior
change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin,
132(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
36
Appendices
37
Appendix 1: Template Interview #1
Template Interview #1
Name:
Profession:
Date:
Goal intention:
1. Which focus value did you choose for the past week?
2. Why did you choose this value?
3. How did you want to incorporate this focus value into your life?
Motivation:
4. How motivated were you in the beginning to achieve your goal intention?
(1=Not at all motivated, 2=Not so motivated, 3=Somewhat motivated, 4=Very
motivated, 5=Extremely motivated)
Preparation:
5. How did you prepare to reach the goal to actively live your chosen focus value?
6. Did you make any preparations like calendar reminders, set time for daily reflections,
post-its, etc.?
Goal-striving:
7. What factors and strategies helped you to actively live your focus value?
8. Were there situations in which you didn´t manage to live according to your focus
value?
9. What made it difficult to actively live your focus value?
10. How did you overcome obstacles which would have prevented you from actively
living your focus value?
Perceived goal attainment:
11. How do you evaluate your goal attainment?
(1 = In no possible situation I acted more in accordance with my focus value than
usual, 2 = In a few possible situations I acted more in accordance with my focus value
than usual, 3 = In some possible situations I acted more in accordance with my focus
38
value than usual, 4 = in many possible situations I acted more in accordance with my
focus value than usual, 5 = In every possible situation I acted in accordance with my
focus value than usual)
Other:
12. Did you have any other interesting observations during the experiment?
39
Appendix 2: Template Interview #2
Template Interview #2
Name:
Profession:
Date:
Goal intention:
1. Which focus value did you choose for the past week?
2. Why did you choose this value?
3. How did you want to incorporate this focus value into your life?
Motivation:
4. How motivated were you in the beginning to achieve your goal intention?
(1=Not at all motivated, 2=Not so motivated, 3=Somewhat motivated, 4=Very
motivated, 5=Extremely motivated)
Preparation:
5. How did you prepare to reach the goal to actively live your chosen focus value?
6. Did you make if-then plans as advised in the instructions?
7. How many if-then plans did you make?
8. Was it difficult to come up with critical situations (if yes, why)?
9. Was it difficult to come up with goal directed responses to these situations (if yes,
why)?
10. Can you provide examples of the if-then plans you made?
11. Did you make any other preparations like calendar reminders, set time for daily
reflections, post-its, etc.?
Goal-striving in general:
12. What factors and strategies helped you to actively live your focus value?
13. Were there situations in which you didn´t manage to live according to your focus
value?
40
14. What made it difficult to actively live your focus value?
15. How did you overcome obstacles which would have prevented you from actively
living your focus value?
Use of Implementation Intentions:
16. Do you think the formulation of if-then plans was helpful?
17. Did you add additional if-then plans during the week?
18. Did the if if-then plans cover all the critical situations you encountered?
19. Did all the critical situations you prepared for occur?
20. Was it hard to anticipate the critical situations which came up?
21. Did you act according to the if-then plans if critical situations arose and was it hard to
do that?
Perceived goal attainment:
22. How do you evaluate your goal attainment?
(1 = In no possible situation I acted more in accordance with my focus value than
usual, 2 = In a few possible situations I acted more in accordance with my focus value
than usual, 3 = In some possible situations I acted more in accordance with my focus
value than usual, 4 = in many possible situations I acted more in accordance with my
focus value than usual, 5 = In every possible situation I acted in accordance with my
focus value than usual)
Other:
23. Did you have any other interesting observations during the experiment?
41
Appendix 3: Sample Notes of P1
TRITA TRITA-ITM-EX 2019:215
www.kth.se
