04-014 Ch01 pp5

3/10/04

4:53 PM

Page 75

trol has been associated with high levels of stress and violence among teenagers, presumably due to less emphasis
on self-control (Tubbs, 1994). In American culture, internal locus of control is associated with the most successful
managers (for reviews of the literature, see Hendricks,
1985; Spector, 1982). People with an internal locus of
control are more likely to (1) be attentive to aspects of
the environment that provide useful information for the
future, (2) engage in actions to improve their environment, (3) place greater emphasis on striving for achievement, (4) be more inclined to develop their own skills,
(5) ask more questions, and (6) remember more information than people with an external locus of control.
In the management literature, individuals who
have an internal locus of control are less alienated from
the work environment, more satisfied with their work,
and experience less job strain and more position mobility (promotions and job changes) than do individuals
with an external locus of control (Bernardi, 1997;
Coleman, Irving, & Cooper, 1999; Newton & Keenan,
1990; Seeman, 1982). A study of leadership and group
performance found that internals were more likely to be
leaders and that groups led by internals were more
effective than those led by externals (Anderson &
Schneider, 1978; Blau, 1993). Internals also were found
to outperform externals in stressful situations, to engage
in more entrepreneurial activity, to be more active in
managing their own careers, and to have higher levels
of job involvement than externals (Bonnett & Furnharn,
1991; Boone & deBrabander, 1997; Cromie, Callaghan,
& Jansen, 1992; Hammer & Vardi, 1981; Kren, 1992).
Differences have also been found regarding how power
and authority are utilized by externals and internals.
External leaders tend to use coercive power and threat,
whereas internal leaders rely more on persuasion and
expertise as a source of power (Sweeney, McFarlin, &
Cotton, 1991). Internals both demonstrate and are
more satisfied with a participative management style
than are externals (Runyon, 1973).
A study of locus of control among top executives
found that the firms led by internals engaged in more
innovation, riskier projects, more leadership in the
marketplace, longer planning horizons, more scanning of the environment, and a highly developed technology than external-led firms did (Miller, Kets de
Vries, & Toulouse, 1982). Hence, it is not surprising
that small firms are much less likely to fail when led
by internals (Boone, Brabander, & Hellemans, 2000).
In summarizing the results of this massive array of
research on locus of control, the conclusion is consistent: In American culture, people are handicapped by
an external locus of control.

Research also has found that an internal locus of

control is not a panacea for all management problems.
Internal locus of control is not always a positive
attribute. Individuals with an external locus of control
have been found to be more inclined to initiate structure as leaders (to help clarify roles). Internals are less
likely to comply with leader directions and are less
accurate in processing feedback about successes and
failures than are externals. Internals also have more
difficulty arriving at decisions with serious consequences for someone else (Coleman, Irving, & Cooper,
1999; Rothenberg, 1980; Wheeler & Davis, 1979).
Locus of control can shift over time, particularly as
a function of the position held at work, and external
locus of control does not inhibit individuals from attaining positions of power and influence at the top of organizations. Therefore, no matter what your internal
external score, you can be a successful manager in the
right setting, or you can alter your locus of control.
Research has shown that people who interpret information about change as if they are in control of it, and
who perceive themselves to be in charge of their own
performance (and hence able to control outcomes
related to that performance), are more likely to be effective managers in most circumstances in our culture.
The Locus of Control Scale in the Skill Assessment
section helps you generate a score showing the extent
to which you have an internal or external locus of control. The scoring key and some comparison information
are located in Appendix 1.
In summary, two key attitudes toward change
tolerance of ambiguity and locus of controlhave
been found to be associated with success in management roles. Knowing your scores on these two factors
can help you capitalize on your strengths and enhance
your potential for management success. While substantial research exists associating some positive managerial behaviors with internal locus of control and tolerance of ambiguity, possessing these orientations is
neither an assurance of success as a manager nor a
solution to the problems that managers face. By knowing your scores, you will be able to choose situations in
which you are more likely to feel comfortable, perform
effectively, and understand the point of view of those
whose perspectives differ from yours. Self-understanding is a prerequisite to self-improvement and change.

INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATION
The fourth critical area of self-awareness is interpersonal orientation. This aspect of self-awareness differs
from the first three in that it relates to behavioral
DEVELOPING SELF-AWARENESS CHAPTER 1

..

..

75