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 TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL 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.
