The effect of self‐leadership training on detached concern and the proactivity of human service professionals

Abstract

This paper describes a field experiment with a self‐leadership training aimed at helping human service professionals to improve their detached concern and proactivity. Whereas detached concern refers to a state in which human service professionals blend compassion with emotional distance in their interaction with clients, proactivity refers to self‐starting and change‐oriented behaviour to enhance personal or organizational effectiveness. Based on self‐leadership theory, we hypothesized that self‐leadership training can enhance detached concern and proactivity. Moreover, based on behavioural plasticity theory, we hypothesized that training participants who are low in occupational self‐efficacy are more susceptible to the external influence of self‐leadership training, than individuals with higher levels of occupational self‐efficacy. We conducted a field experiment with a sample of 223 human service professionals who were either assigned to a training group (n = 94), or a wait‐list control group (n = 129). In a 3‐month follow‐up study, we found that self‐leadership training had a positive effect on detached concern and that the intervention was especially effective for participants with low to medium initial levels of pretraining occupational self‐efficacy. However, the intervention did not affect participants' level of proactivity. This study adds to the literature on workplace learning by demonstrating the potential of a self‐leadership training for the transfer maintenance of newly developed soft skills (i.e., detached concern and proactive behaviour) to the workplace and by pinpointing occupational self‐efficacy as an individual predisposition that influences training success.

Performance-oriented HR and career development of women managers: the mediation of self-leadership and the moderated mediation of supervisor’s gender equality

“…Considering that self-leadership could be developed and maintained by learning or education (Manz and Sims, 1980;Botke and van Woerkom, 2023) and that personal factors are affected by environmental factors (Bandura, 2010;Lent, 2013), organizational culture and/or practices stand to influence individuals' self-leadership. Tyler and Blader (2000) revealed that fair treatment in the workplace builds trust among employees and eventually HR and career development of women stimulates employees' intrinsic motivation for voluntary work behaviors.…”

An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Leadership Practice in Training Programs and Skill Development: Motivational Climate as Mediating

“…In training programs, leadership practices typically involve leader-directing and enhancing various leadership skills to improve job performance [9], [10], [11].…”

“…This approach is particularly crucial in the context of human relationships, selfawareness, problem-solving and decision-making, motivation, values, and effective program management in training [13], [14].Leadership practices in training programs typically employ two task styles: intangible support and tangible support [15], [16]. In training perspective, leadership practice refers to the leader that provides both intangible support (moral or emotional support) and tangible support (material or instrumental support) to trainees in guiding and improving their capabilities before, during, and after the training program [9], [15], [17]. In organizational training programs, the leader often provides intangible help in training activities through high encouragement and motivation, openness, attentively hearing and addressing concerns and showing empathy [15], [18].…”

“…Further research on leadership practices in training programs reveals that a balanced climate of motivation and skill development is an important outcome found in leadership practices in training programs and execution in any department. Though the nature of this affiliation has been broadly studied, the position of motivational climate as a mediating variable in the relationship is still less discussed in the area of organizational training [2], [9], [28].…”