Leader motivation identification: relationships with goal-directed values, self-esteem, self-concept clarity, and self-regulation

Motivation tied to workplace performance is key to organizational effectiveness with visionary leadership. Identifying leaders on a spectrum of different motivation styles, culture values, self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and self-regulation factors may assist with company training goals and impact global organizational performance. The purpose of this study is to assess leader motivation through traits, cultural values, and behavior approaches including (1) motivation to lead (MTL)-style differences subsuming affective-identity, social-normative, and non-calculative styles; (2) the effect of MTL-style relationships to culture values, global self-esteem, and self-concept clarity; and (3) the effect of MTL styles to individual self-regulation subsuming goal-setting and impulse-control behaviors. Participants (N = 1,121) self-reported work and military experiences with managerial or supervisory experience. Research evidence included culture values of power and self-direction which predicted the affective-identity style. The values of power, achievement, conformity, and security positively predicted the social-normative style. Leader self-regulation factors of goal-setting and impulse control were positively predicted by achievement, self-direction, conformity, and benevolence values. Tradition and security values negatively predicted goal-setting, and values of tradition, security, stimulation, and universalism negatively predicted impulse control. Meaningful differences were found between MTL styles with values, global self-esteem, and self-regulation factors. This study may assist with identifying potential organizational leaders through MTL assessment and leader training needs that are focused on goal-setting and self-regulation diplomacy.

Introduction

Organizational leaders influence employees through psychologically empowering styles of motivation. Leader styles aligned with prestige and dominance motivations may influence leader autonomy through respect or control in organizational social hierarchies with employees and impact their productivity (Lee et al., 2021). Empowering leadership may align with the self-determination theory (SDT) of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and workplace belongingness through traditional accountability—leading to autonomous motivation vs. control (O'Donoghue and van der Werff, 2022). In addition, this research suggests an identified motivation that is drawn from meaningful goals and values through autonomy-supported work environments that result in the maintenance of worker-intrinsic motivation, along with autonomous extrinsic motivation. Jumawan et al. (2023) present a qualitative research review of leadership, competence, and motivations from challenges, rewards, and growth opportunities that together build sustainable organizations. Additionally, Susanto et al. (2023) found evidence that motivation, career path, and employee engagement and performance together increase job satisfaction. The identification of individual leader motivation is an important task for human resource managers and industrial organizational psychologists in order to select and train effective future sustainable leaders for productive organizations. While these research studies show the complexity involved in measuring leader motivation connections to employee performance, job satisfaction, and organizational success, leadership encompasses many nuanced differences, which merits review.

Foremost, leadership research includes leadership thinking and impacts on follower creative performance (Mumford et al., 2023), strategic-performance leadership (Bergh et al., 2016), and the identification of outstanding leader types such as pragmatic leaders (Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001), servant leaders (Eva et al., 2019), and authentic leaders (Nübold et al., 2020). Additional research includes leader–follower relationships (Bauer and Erdogan, 2015), leader needs for power, achievement, and affiliation (McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982), and adaptable leaders with learning agility (Harvey and De Meuse, 2021). Howes and Muchinsky (2022) present applied organizational leadership and decision-making behavior, with Yukl and Gardner (2020) presenting an overview of organizational leadership. While leader traits, personalities, powers, and behaviors have been studied, there is a research gap in identifying which factors motivate individuals to actually become leaders—leaders that are integral within organizations through effective leadership styles, influencing productive organizational performance.

Moreover, a review of motivational research includes significant research evidence on the factors associated with motivation. Motivation research includes theories ranging from SDT, which subsumes autonomy, social belongingness, and competence, and motivation drivers such as positive supervisors for employee performance (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Gagné, 2014; Schreiber, 2017), motivation to lead (MTL) factors (Chan and Drasgow, 2001), motivational frameworks with self-monitoring, evaluation, and reaction (Kanfer et al., 2017), and neuroscience gene theory (Ridley, 1999) regarding the D4DR gene that regulates the brain neurotransmitter dopamine for motivating individual behaviors. Additionally, motivation theories include Locke and Latham's (2002) goal-setting theory, where specific, clear goals that are accepted as challenging and difficult will result in improved performance. Furthermore, Bandura and Locke's (2003) self-regulation theory informs motivation theory through self-efficacy beliefs that enhance individual successful performance through feedback processes. Creative flow theory, defined as total immersion in a favorite, challenging activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), may produce top performances. Motivation is defined by the determinants of how an individual approaches goals, and proceeds through direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior—guiding performance efforts, results, outcomes, and goal attainment.

The MTL leadership styles in the research of Schyns et al. (2020) evidenced significant congruence in how an individual perceives leaders, stemming from implicit leadership theories, sometimes viewed stereotypically, and how individuals view themselves as a leader from implicit self-theories with both implicit theories modeled as antecedents toward self-efficacy. Maurer et al. (2017) expanded the MTL model with the inclusion of situational error management/aversion culture perceptions and evidenced that the different motivations to develop leadership skills held better predictive validity to leadership career success. While the MTL model of Chan and Drasgow (2001) focused on antecedents of the Big Five personality factors (McCrae and Costa, 1999), individualism, collectivism, and self-efficacy to MTL styles, we focused our research study on culture values subsuming individualism and collectivism and self-theories of global self-esteem and self-concept clarity as possible predictors of leader motivation. Although personality factors may be predictive of some motivated behavior, it is important to acknowledge that personality research is mainly studied in Western individualistic cultures and may not be universal across collectivistic cultures (Heine and Buchtel, 2009). The research of Hendricks and Payne (2007) considered how goal orientation may predict leadership effectiveness beyond the Big Five. Their results found that leader extraversion, self-efficacy, affective-identity and non-calculative MTL styles impacted the team member performance ratings of their leader.

For this study, we therefore assessed individual global cultural values (Schwartz, 2012) as possible antecedents to leader motivation types and added the assessment of several self-theory factors that may impact motivation, including global self-esteem (Spencer-Rodgers and Collins, 2006), self-concept clarity (Lee et al., 2010a), and self-regulation (Neal and Carey, 2005). We hypothesized that individual values may effectively contribute to driving motivated behaviors, and present a global values and self-esteem perspective (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Model of theories from trait culture values, implicit self, and behavior of self-regulation to Motivation to Lead (MTL) styles toward leader motivation identification.

Our research purpose is to assess Chan and Drasgow's (2001) leadership measure on specific MTL factors defined as affective-identity (individuals who enjoy leading others); social-normative (individuals compelled to lead from a duty perspective); and non-calculative MTL (individuals with no concern over leader costs or benefits). This research evidenced self-efficacy and past leadership experience as being significantly related to affective-identity and social-normative MTL. Our selection of the MTL measure was to further assess a common organizational goal of a precise selection of individuals who not only have the potential to become leaders but also have the required motivation to be successful leaders. Therefore, our second research approach is to investigate global perspectives on MTL research with global self-esteem (Spencer-Rodgers and Collins, 2006) and self-concept clarity (Lee et al., 2010b). The tertiary purpose is to understand leadership with the self-control research of Bandura (1986, 1997), which we assess with a cognitive self-regulation measure with two-factor loadings of goal-setting and impulse control (Neal and Carey, 2005). In addition, we assess cross-cultural value relationships, both for individualistic and collectivistic cultural tendencies, for possible predictors of MTL styles (Schwartz et al., 2012).

Hypotheses were formed to investigate culture values (Schwartz et al., 2012) and whether relationships related to global self-concept and the three types of MTL would be considered low, moderate, or high (Chan and Drasgow, 2001). For MTL factors including affective-identity (desires to lead others if success is imminent), we hypothesized that the affective-identity style would be positively related to values of power, achievement, and hedonism; social-normative (lead because of duty and responsibility) would be similar to Maslow's (1970) need for belonging and encompass the values of stimulation, tradition, and conformity; and non-calculative style (no concern over costs/benefits to lead) would be related to the values of universalism, benevolence, security, and self-direction values. Furthermore, we hypothesized that global self-esteem would be related to social-normative and non-calculative motivation styles with high self-concept clarity related to non-calculative. Finally, we hypothesized that the self-regulation factors of goal-setting and impulse control would be related to non-calculative and social-normative styles and less to affective-identity style.

While leader styles, personality, and leader–follower relationships have been included in many research studies, there exists a gap and need to identify individuals who possess leadership qualities through the values-based motivators of goal-setting and self-regulation. We suggest that discovering leader motivation types is vital for organizations to be able to identify future leaders.

Method

Our research study includes N = 1,121 participants with 3.3 GPA averages and who were, on average, 35 years of age and from a global university that volunteered to participate in our online study. Of these participants, 366 reported their sex as male and 755 as female, with 60% reporting as Caucasian, 30% African American, and 10% across other races. Work experiences reported included 19.8% with military experience and 83.6% having managerial, sales, administrative support, and protective service work. Moreover, 725 participants (291 men and 434 women) reported “yes” to having had managerial or supervisory experience. Participants reported their current academic majors to be in business, criminal justice, psychology, and other disciplines.

Leadership motivation is measured through a trait approach focused on three factors of MTL styles from Chan and Drasgow's (2001, p. 486) 27-item MTL measure, defined as three archetypes of leader motivation including affective-identity, social-normative, and non-calculative on a 5-point Likert scale. The affective-identity MTL is defined through the questions “I am the type of person who likes to be in charge of others” and “Most of the time, I prefer being a leader rather than a follower when working in a group,” suggesting an individual who innately likes to be a leader. The social-normative MTL type includes “I feel that I have a duty to lead others if I am asked” and “it is an honor and privilege to be asked to lead,” suggesting an individual who is socially obligated from a sense of duty to lead others. Finally, non-calculative MTL includes “If I agree to lead a group, I would never expect any advantages or special benefits” and “I would agree to lead others even if there are no special rewards or benefits with that role,” suggesting an individual who is less calculative, who leads for personal gain without an awareness of the cost or benefits of leadership. Chan and Drasgow's (2001) MTL measure held reliabilities for the affective-identity MTL across three participant groups at coefficient alpha ranges of α = 0.84 to α = 0.91, social-normative MTL at α = 0.65 to α = 0.75, and non-calculative MTL at α = 80 to α = 0.84.

Our second values-based research approach is to measure MTL relationships and predictors with goal-directed, cross-cultural values. We assessed 10 culture values measures from Schwartz (2012): power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security. We also measured leader global self-esteem (Spencer-Rodgers and Collins, 2006) and self-concept clarity (Lee et al., 2010a). Third, our behavioral approach includes leadership measured through the self-regulation factors of goal-setting and impulse control from Neal and Carey (2005). We assessed this measure as a revised factor analysis on 21 items for self-regulation, subsuming factors of impulse control and goal-setting from the original 63-item short self-regulation questionnaire (Carey et al., 2004). Impulse control includes questions such as “It's hard for me to notice when I've ‘had enough' (alcohol, food, sweets)” and goal-setting regulation like “I set goals for myself and keep track of my progress.” In this study, three methodological approaches across trait motivation styles, cultural values, and behavioral aspects were assessed to triangulate evidence for a more comprehensive understanding of leadership motivation dynamics.

Results

Many hypotheses were supported with significance, including the affective-identity MTL factor predicted by power and self-direction values, and non-calculative MTL positively predicted by power and negatively by benevolence. Power, achievement, and security values positively predicted the social-normative MTL. Correlational relationship findings indicated social-normative MTL to be highly related across all the 10 cross-cultural values, whereas affective-identity MTL was moderately related. On the other hand, non-calculative MTL held significant negative relationships to benevolence and conformity values both at r = −0.10. Further correlational analyses revealed significant relationships between MTL styles and the global self-esteem, self-concept clarity, and self-regulation factors of goal-setting and impulse control (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Correlations: global self-esteem, self-concept clarity, motivation to lead styles: affective-identity MTL, non-calculative MTL, social-normative MTL; self-regulation: goal-setting (GS), impulse control (IC).

Stepwise regression analyses resulted in culture values predictor evidence for affective-identity, social-normative, and non-calculative MTL styles. Although affective-identity and non-calculative MTL styles were less influenced by value predictors, stepwise regression evidence for social-normative MTL found value predictors of conformity (β = 0.15) at p < 0.001, achievement (β = 0.11) at p < 0.01, and power (β = 0.08) and security (β = 0.09) both at the p < 0.05 level with R = 0.34 at an adjusted R² = 0.11. A social-normative MTL may be described as a goal-directed leader through adherence to social conformity, individual achievement, safety through security, and power values such as control of resources.

In addition, leadership confidence was found in positive value predictors for leader global self-esteem, including values of power (β = 0.27), hedonism (β = 0.13), and conformity (β = 0.25), with negative predictors of tradition (β = −0.13) and security (β = −0.20) at an adjusted R² = 0.13 at F = 27.46 (Figure 2). This evidence suggests that leaders with global self-esteem value power and conformity, without the limits that traditional and security values may impose on them and are not overly concerned with self-protection. On the other hand, self-concept clarity was predicted by power and negatively predicted by benevolence, suggesting that having a clear awareness of one's self-concept may be indicative of an internal locus of control—less constrained by ingroup pressure.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Trait Culture Values related to Self-regulation behaviors of goal-setting and impulse control with correlation relationships to Motivation to Lead (MTL) styles toward leader motivation identification (^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001).

Furthermore, meaningful and significant evidence was found for the goal-setting regulation factor and positive culture value predictors of achievement (β = 0.16), benevolence (β = 0.19), conformity (β = 0.37) at p < 0.001 level, self-direction (β = 0.16) at p < 0.01, and power (β = 0.08) at p < 0.05 levels. Negative predictors of goal-setting regulation include stimulation (β = −0.09) at p < 0.05 and values of tradition (β = −0.22) with security (β = −0.20) at the p < 0.001 level with R = 0.50 and adjusted R²= 0.24 (Table 2; Figure 2). This evidence suggests that self-directed leaders who use goal-setting behaviors are achievers and concerned for others while conforming to social norms. Otherwise, leaders who find themselves in overly stimulating situations under confining tradition and security policies may be less likely to regulate their goal-setting behaviors.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Linear regressions: culture values as predictors of self-regulation factors - goal-setting (GS) and impulse-control (IC).

Additional significant results were found for the self-regulation factor of impulse control with culture value predictors. Positive predictors for self-regulation impulse control include self-direction (β = 0.24), benevolence (β = 0.18), and conformity (β = 0.45) at the p < 0.001 level, with power (β = 0.09) and achievement (β = 0.10) at the p < 0.05 level. Significant negative predictors for impulse control include stimulation (β = −0.21), tradition (β = −0.32), and security (β = −0.26) at the p < 0.001 level, with universalism (β = −0.12) at p < 0.01, resulting in R = 0.46 with an adjusted R² = 0.21. These meaningful self-regulation impulse-control findings suggest that leaders who can conform to social norms while also being creatively independent may help to control impulsive behavior. On the other hand, leaders who find themselves in overly stimulating situations may condition behavior toward adherence to tradition, social norms, and security, and subsequently inhibit their ability to control behaviors, which together may predict a constraining tendency—impeding self-regulation impulse control. Furthermore, leaders with universal value concerns defined as tolerance, social justice, world at peace, individual equality, and nature protection may need nuanced, moderating approaches for self-regulation impulse control.

For exploratory purposes, we combined the variables of self-regulation (goal-setting and impulse control), global self-esteem, and self-concept clarity to assess predictors of the three different MTL styles. The regression analysis evidence indicated that affective-identity MTL held significant positive predictors of self-regulation goal-setting, global self-esteem, and self-concept clarity, with self-regulation impulse control as a negative predictor. Non-calculative MTL revealed self-concept clarity as a positive predictor, with self-regulation impulse control as a negative predictor. Social-normative MTL was predicted positively by self-regulation goal-setting and negatively predicted by self-regulation impulse control. This evidence suggests that affective-identity MTL-style leaders may be confident of their ability and desire to lead vs. follow in groups. On the other hand, non-calculative MTL types are clear on who they are as leaders with good self-regulation impulse control, and social-normative MTL types are mostly planners through goal-setting and adhering to social norms with positive self-regulation impulse control. Combined, our results bring new perspectives to MTL styles and may even complement research on self-efficacy leadership theory.

Discussion

In this study, meaningful research evidence suggests that future leaders, depending on the culture values embraced, may be identified by distinctive motivation styles, including social-normative, affective-identity, and non-calculative MTL styles, influencing their aspirations and desired ability to lead. Individuals who are receptive to holding leadership positions may self-enhance through their personal values for power and achievement by being self-directed and open to change. Moreover, the social-normative and affective-identity MTL styles held significant positive-value relationships across all goal-directed values including power and achievement influencers that motivate one to attend to the social order found in conformity and to security value needs as part of conservation (Schwartz et al., 2012). In contrast, the non-calculative MTL style evidenced negative relationships with benevolence and conformity values.

Foremost, with motivation being an integral component in human behavior, several classic motivation theories may support our findings, including Maslow's (1970) hierarchy of needs, McClelland's (1985) needs for power, affiliation, and achievement, and Locke and Latham's (2002) goal-setting theory. Our findings on the social-normative and affective-identity MTL styles both predicted by self-regulation goal-setting may align with Maslow's hierarchy need for belonging, Deci and Ryan's (2000) SDT factor of workplace social belonging, and Locke and Latham's goal-setting theory. In addition, MTL-style predictor evidence subsumes two of the McClelland (1985) needs for power and achievement. In addition, our significant findings on culture values and self-regulation goal-setting and impulse-control predictors to MTL styles align with Gagné and Deci's (2005) identified motivation. Moreover, we believe we found significant supportive evidence from our research by assessing and understanding MTL styles from the perspectives of traits, cultural values, and behavioral regulation through goal-setting and impulse control, building upon outstanding leader motivation research.

Significant evidence was found for the differences and distinctiveness of motivation as affective-identity, non-calculative, and social-normative styles. Support for our MTL findings is found in Badura et al.'s (2020) meta-analysis on Chan and Drasgow's (2001) MTL, operationalized as separate constructs for identifying emergent leaders. In addition, our model adds to that of Maurer et al. (2017, p. 496) and gives a global values perspective of potential individuals to be selected with higher MTL. Further support for our findings is found in the research of Auvinen et al. (2020) with Finnish leaders on different MTL leader styles and follower Leader-Member-Exchange theory (LMX) relationship quality outcomes for person–career fit. This research evidenced poor occupational wellbeing and unfavorable employee assessments for leaders identified with low affective-identity and high non-calculative MTL styles, whereas leaders identified with high affective-identity and social-normative MTL styles were found to have good occupational wellbeing with challenging career goals. Moreover, our research evidenced meaningful relationships between MTL styles to culture values, global self-esteem, and self-concept clarity, adding to the MTL literature and implicit leader theory and self-theory literature (Schyns et al., 2020). Our research evidence on social-normative MTL style includes predictors of power and achievement cultural values, subsuming Schwartz et al.'s (2012) model of self-enhancement, conformity, and security values from tradition and conservation theory on the circular motivation continuum. This model subsumes self-enhancement values as personal focus and self-protection defined as anxiety-avoidance motivated behavior. Furthermore, Chan and Drasgow's (2001) findings include that individuals with non-calculative MTL appreciate harmony—a more collectivist approach to leading through groups and teams—whereas the social-normative MTL style related strongly to values of conformity and achievement, representing a conscientious style. Social-normative MTL individuals embrace leadership as a duty through goal-setting, strategizing, and diplomatic impulse control. Research support suggests that the social-normative MTL style displays both vertical individualism with achievement and horizontal collectivism with conformity values (Triandis, 2001).

Cultural values are defined as internal guides for individuals, lowering a constant need for control and defining socially acceptable behavior in Schwartz et al.'s (2012) hierarchy model as a circular continuum of related motivation. Whereas, this model focuses on benevolence, universalism, self-direction, security, and conformity as the most important values, we found the power value to be most significant at predicting all three MTL types, suggesting its importance to leadership. Social-normative MTL evidence is supported by model hierarchy values of middle importance, predicted by achievement, conformity, and security that are embedded in the self-enhancement quadrant, subsuming social superiority and esteem, and in the conservation quadrant subsuming security and conformity, encompassing order that is protected by harmonious relations. Power and security values as a combination may suggest a leader type that is focused on controlling resources and relationships to thwart or overcome threats (Schwartz, 2012, p. 10). We suggest that having power legitimizes a leader's ability to lead and delegate, but further research is needed to compare values with actual effective leadership and team performance.

Moreover, our research furthers the knowledge of MTL styles and related values that can be used to assist with identifying future leaders. Affective-identity MTL is predicted by culture values of power and self-direction, non-calculative MTL is predicted by power, self-direction, and negatively by benevolence, and social-normative MTL is predicted by power, achievement, conformity, and security values. This evidence suggests that affective-identity MTL and non-calculative MTL may align with Schwartz et al.'s (2012, p. 669) circular model quadrant of openness to change (quadrant subsumes self-direction, stimulation, and part hedonism). Motivation is described as intrinsic and guided by novelty, mastery, and possible self-enhancement (quadrant subsumes achievement and power). This definition of motivation mastery may be part of learning knowledge agility (Harvey and De Meuse, 2021) that leaders need to have intrinsically in order to build motivation as effective leaders—an adaptive agility to new learning orientations and environments. In addition, this motivation may be similar to Hendricks and Payne's (2007) learning goal orientation (LGO).

Furthermore, we evidenced significant relationships for global self-esteem, culture values, and the social-normative MTL style. Self-concept clarity was related significantly with affective-identity and non-calculative MTL styles. Whereas, Chan and Drasgow's (2001) model focused on antecedent leadership self-efficacy with past leadership experience, positive relationships for both affective-identity MTL and social-normative MTL styles support some of our research findings as well. The tertiary purpose of this study evidenced leadership self-regulation through the factors of goal-setting and impulse control (Neal and Carey, 2005). Goal-setting self-regulation was positively predicted by conformity, achievement, benevolence, self-direction, and power values. Negative predictors of goal-setting included tradition, security, and stimulation. Strong positive predictors for self-regulation of impulse control include self-direction, benevolence, conformity, power, and achievement; on the other hand, negative predictors for impulse control include stimulation, tradition, security, and universalism. This evidence suggests that the power value predicts global self-esteem, self-concept clarity, and all three MTL factors. Overall, a leader may be motivated differently based on the value sets predicting distinctive MTL styles.

Additionally, goal-setting and impulse control held significant positive predictors of power, achievement, self-direction, and benevolence and are depicted in model quadrants of self-transcendence, openness to change, and conformity that are subsumed under social and personal focuses, suggesting growth behavior that is anxiety-free (Schwartz et al., 2012). The conformity value was positively predicted and thereby subsumed under social focus with conservation and self-protection, suggesting anxiety-avoidance behavior. On the other hand, both goal-setting and impulse-control regulation were negatively predicted by values of stimulation, tradition, and security that are subsumed within the conservation quadrant as self-protection (anxiety-avoidance). Self-regulation impulse control was found as a negative predictor combination including universalism—a concern for humanity, nature, or tolerance. This finding is supported by Chan and Drasgow's (2001, p. 495) evidence that an individual with the social-normative MTL style may reject social equality in order to fit with social hierarchies.

Research support for our meaningful self-regulation goal-setting findings is found in Hendricks and Payne's (2007) research, which found that LGO was related to two MTL styles, affective-identity and social-normative, suggesting that these individuals enjoy leading and feeling gratification in the duty to lead others, respectively. On the other hand, Hendricks and Payne (2007) found that non-calculative MTL types held positive relationships to team ratings due to their ability to not count the costs of leadership, whereby followers see them as more effective leaders. In comparison, social-normative MTL types were viewed as less effective leaders by followers because they were seen as leading for the sake of duty. Additionally, Auvinen et al.'s (2020) research identified further supportive evidence for the distinctiveness of the MTL leader styles and person–career fit with follower views and leader satisfaction. While we were not able to include leader–follower ratings of the MTL styles in this research study, future studies could assess our approach with value predictors, self-esteem, and self-regulation factors across leader–follower relationships to MTL styles and successful organizations.

Practical implications

Foremost, our evidence points to the distinctiveness of the three MTL styles and Badura et al.'s (2020) suggestion that MTL measures should be used in assessing potential candidates for future leader positions and would aid in clarifying culture value perspectives to the Maurer et al. (2017) MTL model. Our findings further the research and application of using measures that tap self-views found in implicit leaders and implicit self-theories like self-regulation and personal views toward those who hold leadership positions. In our model, we included implicit self-theories that help to strengthen the theory on self with the addition of global self-esteem, self-concept clarity, and self-regulation through goal-setting and impulse-control factors. In addition, the implications from our triangulated research approach for understanding MTL styles may assist practitioners, including human resource managers and industrial organizational psychologists, to better select emergent leaders with driving motivations to be leaders within organizations for higher success rates, cost-effective leader training programs, and better person–career fit. Training may include high-fidelity project opportunities for selected MTL employees to apply and show their motivation to followers displaying their knowledge, skills, and abilities to lead within organizational teams. With the advent of more organizationally remote job arenas, a manager's ability to observe and select potential leaders with strong MTL may become more difficult. Therefore, special leader projects that can be performed in the office and in online remote settings may need to be developed in order to assess different MTL styles in team formats with 360-degree feedback for learning purposes.

Another application for assessing the three MTL styles may be applied to certain organizations known for leadership training, such as the military. We suggest that certain military personnel selected may have driving motivations to lead as a sense of duty to the greater good and may relate to the social-normative MTL style. Moreover, another application of MTL training can be implemented during the military transition stage of going back into the civilian workforce. Dedicated leader training and education about the different motivating MTL factors that empower leaders could be taught through scenarios applied to civilian organizations. Knowing motivation through individual MTL styles may assist military personnel as they transition into the civilian workforce to better understand the practical uses of their military leader training and individual identified motivation style in order to locate and find jobs for a strong person–career fit.

Limitations and future directions

Some limitations of this study may need to be considered, including the use of the self-report survey method to collect data from university participants. There is the possibility of social desirability effects on reported answers to the survey (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, it is noteworthy that these volunteer participants comprise both mature adult, non-traditional and traditional students reporting an average age of 35 years old, with over 65% having managerial and supervisory experiences. Most participants held many years of full-time and part-time work and military experiences with managerial work positions that show they could relate to the leader and managerial research questions. Due to the self-reporting style of the research study, caution is advised in interpreting the results, as participants took the survey in a one-time session. However, our data reflect a large N (participant number), and our significant results reflect meaningful relationships and predictors of the MTL styles. Overall, many significant findings were evidenced and represent meaningful evidence due to individual varied work and managerial experiences. Future studies may consider improving the research design with additional data collection methods such as leader style observations, peer-reviewed surveys, or quasi-experimental approaches. Furthermore, future research may consider continuation of the study across different countries for leader MTL styles to culture values for a better global, person–career fit.

Conclusion

Our significant research evidence adds to the MTL styles of affective-identify, non-calculative, and social-normative MTL literature and how to better identify these types of leaders. Examining motivation for leadership from a triangulated approach through traits, culture values, and behavior brings robust perspectives to our research study. Our evidence strengthens the literature on the distinctiveness of the three affective-identity, non-calculative, and social-normative MTL styles. Globalization demands an understanding of individual culture values and of whether leader motivation, self-esteem, and ability will thrive in global corporate settings. Our research findings suggest that an individual with the social-normative MTL style with strong global self-esteem and self-regulation behavior of goal-setting may fit best in a global work setting. We believe that our research identified significant culture value predictors impacting the individual behavioral self-regulation factors of goal-setting and impulse control that will benefit leaders with differing MTL styles. The simplicity of learning about one's own leadership potential and motivation style is a plus in assessment research. Human resource managers and industrial organizational psychologists will benefit from assessments that impact cost effectiveness in leader selection, training, and sustainability through identifying employee MTL styles and learning about self-regulation goal-setting and diplomatic impulse-control behaviors. We believe that our study assists with identifying potential leaders within organizations who are most motivated to lead and may be more adaptable in a changing, global work environment.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Troy University Institution Review Board (IRB). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

The primary investigator with IRB approval was JV who conducted the research study collecting a battery of measures data in an online research study on motivation to lead as an organizational psychology topic of importance, analyzed the data, and wrote the draft of the manuscript with revisions. CR assisted with the literature review and writing some of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Auvinen, E., Huhtala, M., Kinnunen, U., Tsupari, H., and Feldt, T. (2020). Leader motivation as a building block for sustainable leader careers: The relationship between leadership motivation profiles and leader and follower outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 120, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103428

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Galvin, B. M., Owens, B. P., and Joseph, D. L. (2020). Motivation to lead: a meta-analysis and distal-proximal model of motivation and leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 331–354. doi: 10.1037/apl0000439

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy. The Exercise of Self-Control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Google Scholar

Bandura, A., and Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:87. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bauer, T. N., and Erdogan, B. (2015). Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199326174.013.0002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., et al. (2016). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 477–497. doi: 10.1002/smj.2338

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carey, K. B., Neal, D. J., and Collins, S. E. (2004). A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addict. Behav. 29, 253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chan, K.-Y., and Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: understanding the motivation to lead. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 481–498. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 69–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., and Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: a systematic review and call for future research. Leadersh. Q. 30, 111–132. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gagné, M. (ed.)., (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.001.0001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gagné, M., and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harvey, V. S., and De Meuse, K. P. (2021). The Age of Agility: Building Learning and Agile Leaders and Organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190085353.001.0001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heine, S. J., and Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: the universal and culturally specific. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 60, 369–394. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163655

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hendricks, J., and Payne, S. (2007). Beyond the big five: leader goal orientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Hum. Perform. 20, 317–343. doi: 10.1080/08959280701521983

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Howes, S. S., and Muchinsky, P. M. (2022). Psychology Applied to Work. 13^th Edn. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphics Press.

Google Scholar

Jumawan, J., Sawitri, N. N., and Supardi, S. (2023). Productivity and sustainability organization: Leadership, motivation, competence. Dinasti Int. J. Manag. Sci. 4, 906–917. doi: 10.31933/dijms.v4i5.1839

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kanfer, R., Frese, M., and Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: a century of progress. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 338–355. doi: 10.1037/apl0000133

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, G., Lee, J., and Sanford, C. (2010a). Self-Concept Clarity Measure.

Google Scholar

Lee, G., Lee, J., and Sanford, C. (2010b). The roles of self-concept clarity and psychological reactance in compliance with product and service recommendations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 1481–1487. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, H. W., Hays, N. A., and Johnson, R. E. (2021). To thine own (empowered) self be true: Aligning social hierarchy motivation and leader behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 106, 1033–1048. doi: 10.1037/apl0000813

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57, 705–717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Google Scholar

Maurer, T. J., Hartnett, C. A., and Lippstreu, M. (2017). A model of leadership motivations, error management culture, leadership capacity, and career success. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 90, 481–507. doi: 10.1111/joop.12181

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Google Scholar

McClelland, D. C., and Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 737–743. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.737

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. (1999). “A five-factor theory of personality,” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, eds L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (New York, NY: The Guilford Press), 139–153.

Google Scholar

Mumford, M. D., Fichtel, M., England, S., and Newbold, T. R. (2023). Leader thinking, follower thinking: leader impacts on follower creative performance. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 10, 413–440. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-045553

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mumford, M. D., and Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. Leadersh. Q. 12, 279–309. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00080-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Neal, D. J., and Carey, K. B. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 19, 414–422. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.4.414

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nübold, A., Van Quaquebeke, N., and Hülsheger, U. R. (2020). Be(com)ing real: a multi-source and an intervention study on mindfulness and authentic leadership. J. Bus. Psychol. 35, 469–488. doi: 10.1007/s10869-019-09633-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Donoghue, D., and van der Werff, L. (2022). Empowering leadership: balancing self-determination and accountability for motivation. Pers. Rev. 51, 1205–1220. doi: 10.1108/PR-11-2019-0619

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ridley, M. (1999). Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Google Scholar

Schreiber, J. B. (2017). Motivation 101: The Psych 101 Series. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of Schwartz theory of basic values. Psychol. Cult. 2, 1–20. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciush, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 663–688. doi: 10.1037/a0029393

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schyns, B., Kiefer, T., and Foti, R. J. (2020). Does thinking of myself as leader make me want to lead? the role of congruence in self-theories and implicit leadership theories in motivation to lead. J. Vocat. Behav. 122, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103477

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spencer-Rodgers, J., and Collins, N. L. (2006). Global Self-Esteem Measure.

Google Scholar

Susanto, P. C., Sawitri, N. N., and Suroso, S. (2023). Determinant employee performance and job satisfaction: analysis motivation, path career, and employee engagement in transportation and logistics industry. Int. J. Bus. Appl. Econ. 2, 257–268. doi: 10.55927/ijbae.v2i2.2711

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Triandis, H. C. (2001). “Individualism and collectivism: past, present, and future,” in The Handbook of Culture and Psychology, Oxford University Press, 35–50.

Google Scholar

Yukl, G. A., and Gardner, W. L. (2020). Leadership in Organizations 9^th Edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Google Scholar