Management Development ForumVolume 3 - N0. 1 (00)
Improving Well-Being and Confidence of Senior Managerial Staff Through Mental Strategies Training
Peter A. Creed and Malcolm Davies
spacing bar---------------------------------------------------------------
Management Development Forum Home | Search | Index | Exit frames
ESC Home


In the last decade the need to increase the competitiveness of Australian industry has become a key focus of public, private and trade union organizations. Australia’s economic performance ranked 12th out of 22 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations in 1995 (Karpin, 1995), but had declined to 18th position in 1997 (Karpin, 1997). This occurred primarily because other OECD countries had demonstrated improvements. Karpin (1995) highlighted ineffective leadership, defined as a “soft,” interpersonal and cultural skill, as a key reason for this decline. This finding is reinforced by Day and Lord (1988), who, in a meta-study of executive leadership and organization performance, found that up to 45% of an organization’s performance was a function of managerial leadership. Leadership can be defined as a “process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 1997, p. 3). Identifying how the behaviors of senior managers can be improved then has important economic and social consequences.

Leadership has been conceptualized from a wide range of theoretical perspectives. Early theories held that leaders were born, not made. However, early investigations (for review, see Stogdill, 1948) concluded that no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from others across situations. Trait theorists developed more complex conceptualizations, while others began to look at leadership style, and still others examined the situations in which leadership occurred (Bass, 1981). Modern trait theorists argued that insights can be gained and development assisted by seeing leaders as multidimensional personalities (Bass, 1990). Style theories focused on leader behavior. Halpin and Winer (1957), for example, identified two style factors (“consideration” and “initiation of structure”), while others distinguished between “production orientation” and “employee orientation” styles (e.g., Katz & Kahn, 1966). Situational theorists stressed that different situations demanded different leadership styles. For example, Hersey and Blanchard (1977) distinguished between four leadership styles (delegating, coaching, supporting, directing) that were applicable at different stages of an organization’s life cycle. Consideration was also given to “followers,” by focusing on a leader’s capacity to motivate others to accomplish tasks by making a path to the goal clear for subordinates (House & Mitchell, 1974), or by focusing on the process of interaction between the leader and follower (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).

Transformational Leadership Theories (TFL) (Burns, 1978) currently dominate the leadership literature. According to Bass (1985), four factors define transformational leadership: charisma or idealized influence (providing a vision and a sense of mission), inspirational motivation (raising followers’ self-expectations), intellectual stimulation (helping employees emphasize rational solutions and challenge old assumptions), and individualized consideration (developing employees and coaching). Russell and Kuhnert (1992) comment that TFL models “far surpass previous attempts to understand the role of individual differences in leadership” (p. 335). TFL theories can be differentiated from transactional models, which have been defined by two factors: contingent reward (exchanging reward for effort) and management by exception (Bass).

From the aforementioned leadership literature, it can be seen that the notable elements of leadership effectiveness are the leader as a person, the leader’s behavior, the followers, and the environmental situation. Developing leadership effectiveness has not, however, proved to be a simple task. Although training has been successful for developing transactional skills, it has been disappointing for transformational capabilities. This failure has been attributed to an inability to bring about the fundamental behavior change required for a person to develop sophisticated leadership behavior (Russell & Kuhnert, 1992). The leadership literature is silent on how this fundamental behavior change may occur and what specifically it is about an individual leader that needs to change during development.

Neck and Manz (1992) propose a developmental model called Thought Self-Leadership (TSL) that posits that self-talk, emotion and mental imagery mediate between schema and automatic thoughts; that self-efficacy mediates between performance and self-talk and mental imagery; and that scripts, which are schema about events, mediate between automatic thought and behavior. Neck and Manz (1996) propose that TSL training should teach leaders to understand, and change, where necessary or desired, beliefs and scripts. Leaders should be taught how to control self-talk, and how to use mental imagery positively. They should be helped to understand and work with emotions, and lastly, should be provided with experiences to boost their self-efficacy. These authors have provided support for this TSL model (Manz, 1992b; Manz & Neck, 1995; Manz & Sims, 1993; Neck, 1996; Neck & Manz, 1995; Neck & Manz, 1996).

TSL provides a rationale and focus for leadership development training. Through the use of emotive, interpersonal, cognitive, and behavioral techniques, leaders should be able to identify and change dysfunctional aspects of their mental strategies and subsequent behaviors. Such a model, which connects leadership, human performance and cognitive theories into an integrated framework, provides a more holistic base for the design of mental strategies-based leadership development.

Based on this model, a training program was designed with the aim of teaching leaders to identify unhelpful or dysfunctional patterns in their own behavioral capabilities and set in place effective and sustainable change strategies. The program, based on Neck and Manz’s (1996) TSL intervention, and drawing on Beck’s (1963, 1964) cognitive model and Bandura’s (1977) social learning theories, included specific topics (schema/scripts, self-efficacy, self-talk, mental imagery, and affect/emotion) that allowed aspects of the model to be field tested with individuals in leadership roles. Specifically, this article focuses on the capacity for such an intervention to affect work confidence and well-being levels of leaders. Well-being in this context can be characterized as an inclusive term covering emotional, cognitive and behavioral functioning. Low well-being includes poor morale, high levels of anxiety, depression, loss of personal control, low life satisfaction, and a general inability to cope well with daily problems. Good well-being, on the other hand, means functioning with the absence of the aforementioned negative aspects, but it also includes an individual’s striving for personal growth and achievement (Warr, 1984). Self-efficacy or confidence can be defined as the individuals’ judgements “of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). It is not concerned with the skills the individuals have but with judgments of what they can do with whatever skills they possess. Levels of self-efficacy are directly linked to subsequent performance, such that higher levels of perceived efficacy lead to relatively higher levels of performance (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982; Wood & Bandura, 1989).

Individuals do not, of course, all respond in the same way to training. Brockner (1988) develops an explanation for why individuals with different levels of personal characteristics should respond in different ways. Brockner specifically examines well-being, and argues that those with lower levels of personal worth will be more responsive to external cues, especially social cues, and thus should respond differently to situations. That is, they will be more “behaviorally plastic.” Brockner draws on other theories in support of this model, including Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison which predicts that individuals with poorer psychological functioning will rely more on social cues to influence thoughts, feelings and actions. Other theorists, such as Snyder (1981) and Baumeister (1982), have also suggested that individuals with low self-worth will have greater need for approval. This theory of behavioral plasticity has been recently tested with training situations. Creed, Hicks and Machin (1998) found that unemployed individuals with lower levels of self-esteem when they began a training course improved more on self-esteem than did those with higher initial levels. Eden and Aviram (1993) found that when they implemented a self-efficacy training course for unemployed people, it was those with lower levels of self-efficacy who improved more over the period of training.

In summary, leadership is seen as a major contributor to organization effectiveness and economic prosperity. Senior leaders, in particular, have been found to have a major impact on organizational performance (Lohmann, 1992). Leadership theories have indicated that leadership effectiveness is influenced by a dynamic and systemic interaction between the leader, the leader’s behavior, followers’ values and behavior, the broad environment, and the particular situation. However, the theories are silent on what is to be developed and how that development may occur. Models from the human performance literature are consistent with leadership models in identifying person, behavior and environment as the key systemic components of performance (Bandura, 1977; Lewin, 1951). However, these models also do not indicate what specifically needs to be changed to foster leadership effectiveness, and how that change may be precipitated. Thought self-leadership theory has been proposed as a way to influence workplace behavior change by use of mediating mental strategy variables such as self-talk, mental imagery and emotion. A leadership development course, based on this model, has been proposed as one way to influence leaders’ mental strategies and to improve leadership performance. Finally, any training intervention is likely to have a differing impact on the behaviors of participants. A model of behavioral plasticity has been proposed to account for differing responses to such training. Specifically, this article reports on outcomes for senior managers who attended a training intervention based on TSL. Outcomes reported here are for well-being and self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that improvements will occur on both variables as a result of the training, and that improvements will be more substantial for those with lower pre-course levels, as predicted by behavioral plasticity theory.



Participants were 48 senior executive public servants working across state government departments in Queensland, Australia. The average age was 44.9 years, and 46% were female. Recruitment was effected by means of a single page internal government advertisement that was distributed from the central public service agency. The advertisement notified the availability of two senior executive leadership development programs that focused on mental strategy techniques. Subjects were allocated to the two experimental conditions on a random basis.


Well-being. The 20-item Job Affect Scale (JAS) (Brief et al., 1988) was used as a measure of the two enduring mood states of positive and negative affect. The JAS scale consists of 20 individual word mood descriptors, with 10 items assessing positive affect (JAS-PA: active, strong, excited, enthusiastic, elated, peppy, calm, relaxed, at rest, placid), and 10 items assessing negative affect (JAS-NA: distressed, scornful, hostile, fearful, nervous, jittery, sleepy, dull, drowsy, sluggish). Participants were asked to respond by rating the extent to which they felt this way at work over the past week. Items were scored on a five-point scale using end-points of “very much” to “not at all”. Higher scores indicated higher negative or positive affect across the sub-scales. Burke, George, Brief, Roberson, and Webster (1989) provided validity data, and satisfactory reliability data were reported by Brief et al. (1988). For the present study reliability co-efficients for JAS-PA were .71 (T1), .73 (T2) and .69 (T3); and for JAS-NA were .85 (T1), .83 (T2) and .87 (T3), indicating medium to high reliability for the sub-scales.

Self-efficacy. A scale to measure confidence to undertake work at a high standard was developed specifically for mental strategies training contexts by Neck and Manz (1996), and was taken from their self-leadership questionnaire (Manz, 1983). This self-efficacy (SE) questionnaire to measure workplace confidence consisted of seven statements (e.g., “I purposefully look for successful people in order to convince myself I can do it too”), scored against a five-point Likert-like scale with end points of “describes me very well” and “does not describe me at all.” Participants were asked to rate their achievements under varying circumstances. Higher scores indicated higher levels of confidence. Scale validity data were provided by Neck (1992) and satisfactory reliability data have been reported by Neck and Manz. For the present study, reliability co-efficients of .79 (T1), .80 (T2) and .83 (T3) were obtained.

Training Programs

Two sequential six-week training programs were conducted. Group 2 was conducted immediately after Group 1. The programs consisted of weekly four-hour sessions held in the evening, and broken by a 30-minute light meal break. The format consisted of small group and plenary sessions, and regular homework exercises were included. Adult learning principles (Tovey, 1997) were adhered to, and the training was based on a developmental model for transformational leadership (Russell & Kuhnert, 1992). Program content was cognitively based (Beck, Rush, Shaw & Emery, 1979), and modeled on the “mental strategies” training developed by Neck & Manz (1996). Session topics included the examination of life and work scripts (Gioia & Manz, 1985), self-talk (Butler, 1981), mental imagery (Orlick, 1986), emotion (Burns, 1980), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Seligman, 1991), and schema (Manz, 1983; Manz, 1992a). A relapse prevention model (Marx, 1982) was utilized in the last week.1

1 Detailed information on the programs can be obtained by contacting the authors.

A longitudinal, repeated measures design with an implicit control group was used in this study (Frayne & Latham, 1987). See Figure 1 for the study design. For Group 1, questionnaires were administered to participants at T1 and T2 in person, and were posted at T3. For Group 2, T1 questionnaires were posted, and T2 and T3 were administered in person. Response rates at T2 were 96% (Group 1) and 100% (Group 2), and at T3, 60% (Group 1) and 76% (Group 2).

Training Group
Data Collection
Intervening Period
Data Collection
Intervening Period
Data Collections
Group 1
Training Intervention
Group 2
Waiting Period
Training Intervention
Figure 1. Study design.
Figure 1. Study design.


Subject Attrition

Participant dropout from the study from T1-T2 was negligible and no analysis was conducted here. When participant dropout from T2-T3 was considered, no attrition bias was identified. That is to say, those who remained in the study did not differ statistically from those who dropped out on either demographic variables (age, gender), or on the variables under consideration (SE, JSA-PA, JSA-NA). These results were the same when analyses were conducted when the two groups were combined, or when each group was considered separately.

Differences Between Group 1 and Group 2 at T1

The two groups were examined to determine if they differed in any meaningful way. When this was done, Group 1 participants did not differ from Group 2 participants on either the demographic (age, gender) or dependent (SE, JSA-PA, JSA-NA) variables. This meant that it was legitimate to combine the two groups for some of the analyses. See Table 1 for group means and standard deviations.

Table 1.
Mean, SD and n for Demographic of Age and Dependent Variables of Self-efficacy, Positive-affect and Negative-affect, for T1-T3
Variable n M SD n M SD n M SD
Age T1 22 44.64 6.23 25 45.24 5.35 47 44.96 5.72

SE T1 23 15.35 3.43 25 14.60 3.97 48 14.96 3.70
T2 22 19.41 2.20 25 15.44 3.48 47 17.30 3.54
T3 13 18.69 3.64 19 16.63 4.44 32 17.47 4.20

JAS-PA T1 23 20.00 2.84 25 20.80 3.64 48 20.42 3.27
T2 22 22.14 3.51 25 21.64 2.87 47 21.87 3.16
T3 13 21.00 3.67 19 21.68 2.93 32 21.41 3.21

JAS-NA T1 23 15.09 4.64 25 15.76 5.46 48 15.44 5.04
T2 22 15.50 4.47 25 16.28 5.68 47 15.91 5.11 T3 13 17.31 6.54 19 15.16 5.00 32 16.03 5.68
Note: SE = Self-efficacy, JAS-PA = Positive Affect, JAS-NA = Negative Affect

Impact of Mental Strategies Training

To test for the effect of the mental strategies training, analyses were conducted first on each group separately, and second on data from both groups combined. For each group separately, a series of paired sample t-tests was conducted between the dependent variables at T1-T2 for Group 1, and T2-T3 for Group 2. For Group 1, participants improved significantly over the period of training on levels of SE, t(21) = -5.66, p < .01, and JAS-PA, t(21) = -2.59, p < .05. For Group 2, no significant differences were identified, although similar trends emerged to the gains made by participants in Group 1. For both groups combined, paired sample t-tests were conducted between independent variables over the period of the courses (Group 1: T1-T2 plus Group 2: T2-T3). When all participants were considered, improvements were identified for SE, t(40) = -4.91, p < .01, and JAS-PA, t(40) = -2.41, p < .05.

Comparing Trainees with Controls across Training

To determine if the changes in SE and JAS-PA over the period of training can be reasonably attributed to the effects of the training courses, the outcomes for course participants were compared with the outcomes for the control group who did not undergo the training. This analysis compared the experiences of Group 1 participants with the experiences of the Group 2 control condition over the period of training (T1-T2). A series of repeated measure ANOVAs, with group (experimental vs. control) by time (T1-T2) factors, was conducted. For SE, significant group, F(1,45) = 7.09, p < .05, time, F(1,45) = 28.85, p < .01, and interaction effects, F(1,45) = 12.66, p < .01, were identified. There was no difference between the groups at T1 on SE, and no change over the period of the training course for the control group, but a significant improvement over time for the experimental group, t(21) = -5.66, p < .001, and a difference between the two groups at T2, t(39) = 2.59, p < .05. See Figure 2 for this effect. For JAS-PA, a significant time effect, F(1,45) = 9.48, p < .01, was identified, but no group or interaction effect was identified. This meant that there were improvements across the training period for both groups, and that the participant group did not behave differently from the control group. For JAS-NA, no significant main or interaction effects were identified, meaning again that the participant group did not behave differently to the control group on this variable.

Figure 2: diagram

Figure 2. Means for Group 1 (experimental) and Group 2 (control) at T1 and T2 on self-efficacy (SE).

Behavioral Plasticity Effects

The analyses in this section were conducted to determine whether those participants with lower levels on the dependent variables that showed improvements across training (SE and JSA-PA) responded differently to training than those who had higher levels on these variables pre-course. The groups were separated into lower and higher scorers by identifying the median or middle score on each variable, and then labeling those who scored below the middle score as lower and those who scored above the middle as higher scorers. Repeated measure ANOVAs were then conducted using time (pre vs. post training) and group (lower scorers vs. higher scorers) factors. For SE, significant group, F(1,39) = 19.99, p < .001, time, F(1,39) = 30.15, p < .001, and interaction effects, F(1,39) = 9.61, p < .01, were identified. These results indicate that those trainees with lower levels of SE pre-course (pre-course: M = 12.65, SD = 3.10; post-course: M = 17.10, SD = 4.10) responded differently to training than those with higher levels (pre-course: M = 17.86, SD = 1.68; post-course: M = 19.10, SD = 2.95). The mean score for the higher scorers was higher than the mean score for the lower scorers at T1. (This was expected because the two groups were artificially constructed based on whether the trainee’s score was above or below the median at T1.) There was no significant change over the training period for the higher scorers. However, there was a significant improvement resulting from training for the lower scorers over the training period. These results are presented graphically in Figure 3. Similar significant results were not found for JSA-PA. In this case, the lower scorers did not respond differently to training than the higher scorers, although the results were in the expected direction.

Figure 3: diagram

Figure 3. Means for pre- and post-course for lower and higher SE, both groups combined.

Post-Training Follow-up for Group 1

To test whether the gains that were made by Group 1 as a result of the training (on SE and JAS-PA) were maintained at two months follow-up, scores at T2 were contrasted with scores at T3. To do this, two paired-sample t-tests (T2-T3) were conducted with these variables. No change was identified from T2-T3 on levels of self-efficacy (SE) or positive affect (JAS-PA), indicating that the benefits gained from the course may have persisted at follow-up. Before this claim could be made, it was necessary to determine whether this smaller cohort of participants, that is, those who attended the course and also responded at T3, responded to the training in the same manner as the full cohort of Group 1. To test for this, paired-sample t-tests were conducted across T1-T2 using only these 13 T3 respondents in the analysis, and using SE and JSA-PA in the analyses. No significant changes were identified from these analyses, although changes were identified in the expected direction. This meant that this small sub-group of 13 trainees from Group 1 did not respond in the same way as the whole group did. One possible explanation is that those who returned their T3 questionnaires had different characteristics than those who did not return the T3 questionnaires. Another explanation is that the effect size was small, and this sample size of 13 participants was too small to generate statistical significance. The outcomes can be considered encouraging, but further empirical research needs to be conducted to confirm the long-term benefit of the mental strategies training.


Well-being and Training

The evidence from this study in relation to well-being revealed that when senior executive public servants attended leadership training, based on Thought Self-Leadership (Neck & Manz, 1996) and drawing on Beck’s (1963, 1964) cognitive model and Bandura’s (1977) social learning theories, positive affect (JAS-PA) was enhanced. Significant improvements were identified for Group 1 when considered alone, and when Group 1 and Group 2 were considered together. The evidence is tentative here because no significant gains were made by Group 2 when considered singly, and no interaction effect was identified when Group 1 trainees were contrasted with Group 2 when acting as control subjects. Further, no changes were identified during any analyses for negative affect (JAS-NA). This finding is consistent with the results found by Neck and Manz (1996) who evaluated training interventions based on TSL for non-managerial airline employees. Neck and Manz also identified improvements in negative affect.

Because the training intervention was primarily cognitively based (focusing on schema/scripts, self-talk, mental imagery, and affect/emotion), the positive findings for well-being suggest that participants displayed more optimistic patterns of thought after training than before. This represents evidence of a cognitively induced change towards a more optimistic explanatory style. This is an important finding. First, it demonstrates that well-being levels can be enhanced to the benefit of the individuals involved. Secondly, it implies that organizational improvements will flow from such individual leader gains. While previous studies on leadership explanatory style are not available for comparison, this finding in the present study is consistent with findings in at least two other areas of demanding human activity. Optimism has been shown to be positively correlated with high sales performance in life insurance sales people (Seligman & Schulman, 1986), and has been shown to be related to disappointing athletic performances (Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton & Thornton, 1990). Finally, Scheier, Weintraub and Carver (1986) found that positive thinking was associated with better adaptation under stress, problem-focused-coping, seeking of social support, and emphasis on the positive aspects of stressful situations. Negative thinking, on the other hand, was found to be associated with denial, distancing, focusing on stressful feelings, and disengagement with goals. These studies indicate that the training designed to induce more positive self-talk may affect cognitions that underlie general performance, which would assist in the implementation of leadership tasks. Whether these changed cognitions do in fact lead to organizational benefits needs to be tested empirically.

Self-efficacy and Training

The evidence for changes in work-related confidence or self-efficacy (SE) was stronger and much more consistent. Significant improvements in SE were identified for Group 1 when considered alone, and when Group 1 and Group 2 were considered together. Further, when Group 1 trainees were compared with Group 2 when acting as control subjects, a significant interaction effect was identified, indicating that course participants responded differently over the period of training to the controls. This outcome for senior executives is stronger and more clear-cut than the findings reported by Neck and Manz (1996) for airline employees. These authors found only “marginal” changes in self-efficacy as a result of their intervention (p. 458).

In contrast to well-being, the experimental evidence is that self-efficacy levels have been directly linked to subsequent performance, such that those with higher levels of efficacy for a task have relatively higher levels of performance (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Further, where self-efficacy levels have been raised from low bases to differential levels (low, medium, or high) using mastery experiences, the efficacy/performance relationship has consistently been demonstrated for all levels induced (Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988). In field settings this relationship has held, with self-efficacy, for example, being able to predict performance outcomes of training and levels of satisfaction at follow-up (Phelps & Creed, 1996). Therefore, a training strategy that acts to improve workplace self-efficacy should lead to skills transfer following training, and enhance performance on-the-job.

Differential Benefits of Training

As predicted, the benefits from TSL training did not have the same affect on all participants. When both training groups combined were considered, those trainees who had lower levels of self-efficacy pre-course improved more than those who had higher levels before training. Such an outcome cannot be viewed simply as a convergence to the mean, because the lower self-efficacy group showed improvements while the higher self-efficacy group demonstrated no change. This is also an important finding since it indicates that senior executive trainees will benefit differentially as a result of training. This has practical implications, for example, on trainee selection and course development, and needs to be assessed in relation to the development of models that seek to understand training outcomes and improvements in workplace behaviors. The findings here are consistent with Brockner’s (1988) behavioral plasticity model, which predicts that those with lower self-efficacy will respond differently to training than those with more elevated efficacy levels. Such a result has been demonstrated for an unemployed population who attended specific confidence building training (Eden & Aviram, 1993), and has now been demonstrated for training courses where the focus was on enhancing workplace activities.

Long-term Effects of Training

The results in relation to course follow-up are much more equivocal. When participants in Group 1 were tested at T3 (two months after training) no deterioration in self-efficacy or positive affect was identified. This indicated that these two variables did not change following training, and that the benefits obtained from the course were maintained. It is difficult to mount a strong argument for this, however, since the cohort who responded at T3 did not respond to training in the same way as did Group 1 in total. Although the results are encouraging, it is important to determine what transfer of learning has occurred, and how effective the training has been in relation to influencing workplace behaviors. Leadership training programs have been criticized as doing little more than please the trainee (Latham & Saari, 1979; Russell & Kuhnert, 1992). The present findings offer tentative support for TSL in this domain, but further empirical work is needed to determine its usefulness in such settings.


This study identified well-being and workplace confidence improvements in a group of senior public servants who attended cognitively based leadership training programs. Those participants with lower levels of self-efficacy before training benefited most from the intervention. For a smaller cohort who were followed up after training, no deterioration in well-being or confidence was identified. The results obtained offer promise to meet the challenge posed by Russell and Kuhnert (1992) to find a classroom-based technique that can precipitate fundamental behavior change in leaders. It is encouraging that training effects were identified over the short time span of the study. Nevertheless, further research is required in a number of directions. First, larger sample sizes and more diligent tracking post-course to minimize attrition is required to determine transfer of training effects, and the role these play in changed workplace behaviors. Feedback from trainee supervisors and subordinates would add substantially to the evaluation. Comparisons need also to be made between TSL and more traditional forms of leadership training. At another level, because the program is primarily cognitive-based, further research needs to be directed at uncovering dysfunctional schema and self-talk that are problematic in the workplace, in the same way that maladaptive statements have been identified and articulated in therapeutic settings (Young, 1994).


Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., & Brouillard, M. E. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opoid activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 479-488.

Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5-21.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research (Revised and Expanded ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 81(3), 3-26.

Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9, 324-333.

Beck, A. T. (1964). Thinking and depression II: Theory and therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 10, 561-571.

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guildford Press.

Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 529-535.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Brief, A. P., Roberson, L., & Webster, J. (1989). Measuring affect at work: Confirmatory analyses of competing structures with conceptual linkages to cortical regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1091-1102.

Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. Melbourne: Information Australia.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Butler, P. E. (1981). Talking to yourself: Learning the language of self-support (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Creed, P. A., Hicks, R. E., & Machin, M. A. (1998). Behavioural plasticity and mental health outcomes for long-term unemployed attending occupational training programmes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 171-191.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G. G. , & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: Suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14, 453-464.

Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 352-360.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Frayne, C.A., & Latham, G.P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 387-392.

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

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behaviour descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill, & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 39-51). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Karpin, D. S. (1995). Enterprising nation: Renewing Australia’s managers to meet the challenges of the Asia-Pacific century. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Karpin, D. S. (1997, April). The Karpin report (enterprising nation): What now? Paper presented at the Australian Business Conference, Newcastle. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979). Application of social-learning theory to training supervisors through behavior modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239-246.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

Lohmann, D. (1992). The impact of leadership on corporate success: A comparative analysis of the American and Japanese experience. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 327-342). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Manz, C. C. (1983). The art of self-leadership: Strategies for personal effectiveness in your life and work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Manz, C. C. (1992a). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Manz, C. C. (1992b). Self-leading work teams: Moving beyond self-management myths. Human Relations, 45, 1119-1140.

Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (1995). Teamthink: Beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(1), 7-16.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high performance companies. New York: Wiley.

Marx, R. D. (1982). Relapse prevention in managerial training: A model for maintenance of behavior change. Academy of Management Review, 7, 433-441.

Neck, C. P. (1992). Thought self-leadership: The impact of mental strategies training on employee cognition, behaviors, and emotions. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Neck, C. P. (1996). Thought self-leadership: A self-regulatory approach towards overcoming resistance to organization change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4(2), 202-216.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1992). Thought self-leadership: The influence of self-talk and mental imagery on performance. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13, 681-699.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Win/win research in the field: An innovative method without an innovative methodology. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(8), 24-31.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: The impact of mental strategies training on employee cognition, behaviour and affect. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 17, 445-467.

Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orlick, T. (1986). Psyching for sport: Mental training for athletes. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Phelps, M., & Creed, P. A. (1996). Self-efficacy as a factor in job training performance and occupational satisfaction for unemployed individuals. Journal of Applied Social Behaviour, 2 (1), 44-63.

Russell, C. J., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). Integrating skill acquisition and perspective taking capacity in the development of leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 335-353.

Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1162-1172.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. Sydney: Random House.

Seligman, M., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Thornton, N., & Thornton, K. (1990). Explanatory style as a mechanism of disappointing athletic performance. Psychological Science, 1, 143-146.

Seligman, M., & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of performance as a life insurance agent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 832-838.

Snyder, M. (1981). Impression management: The self in social interaction. In L. Wrightsman, & K. Deaux (Eds.), Social psychology in the 80’s (pp. 116-127). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Tovey, M. D. (1997). Training in Australia. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Warr, P. B. (1984). Work and unemployment. In P. J. Drenth, H. Thierry, P. J. Willems, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 413-443). New York: Wiley.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impacts of concepts of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 795-817.

Young, J. E. (1994). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach (Rev. ed.). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

Peter A. Creed, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in the School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. His research and teaching interests include work and well-being, job insecurity, the effects of unemployment and under-employment, and the school-to-work transition process.

Malcolm Davies began his career as an industrial chemist. He has held a series of functional and general management positions, and in 1989 founded Learning at Work, a management consultancy specializing in strategic implementation issues. He holds an M.B.A. and bachelor’s degree in psychology (Hons) and is currently undertaking doctoral studies in psychology.

spacing bar---------------------------------------------------------------
SUNY Empire State College