It has been established that specific implicit motive profiles predict job performance and career progression. However, it has not been a topic of examination to distinguish the role implicit motives play in developing certain leadership behaviors that, in turn, lead to job performance and success. My hypotheses were that, firstly, the ownership structure of organizations will play a distinct role in establishing the implicit motives that lead to managerial progression and, secondly, implicit motives will better predict long-term (general) leadership behaviors whereas explicit motives will better predict situation-specific leadership behaviors. In Study 1 the effects of three types of organizations as well as the effects of executive level/responsibility on the implicit motive profiles of managers were assessed. The types of organizations were family-owned and -led, foreign-owned and family-led, as well as publicly-owned and -led after previous family ownership. Data collection took place between the years 2004 and 2010. It could be demonstrated that an organization's ownership structure was significantly correlated with the implicit motives of managers, while executive level/responsibility was not. In Study 2 implicit and explicit motives were tested as predictors of competency scores in three separate cases. Case 1 consisted of data from one pharmaceutical company based in Spain; Case 2 encompassed data from 13 different companies in several industries and countries; and Case 3 included data for one global services and technology company with headquarters in the US. Data were collected between the years 2002 and 2010. The results yielded were inconsistent across cases. Unexpectedly, both implicit and explicit motives were predictive of competency scores. Beside the main effects, interaction effects of implicit motives and congruity between implicit and explicit motives were considered. I also included implicit motives of the CEO, as scored in the letter to the shareholder, as well as the congruence of manager implicit motives with CEO implicit motives into these analyses. Effects of these variables were also inconsistent across cases. Study 3 extended previous investigations to explore the effects of implicit and explicit motives as well as leadership styles on organizational climate. Organizational climate was observed from two perspectives: actual climate as perceived by subordinates and ideal climate as desired by managers. Based on management data collected in the years 2000 through 2008 for four companies in the agriculture, mining, telecommunications and transportation sectors, findings indicated that only leadership styles consistently accounted for changes in organizational climate. However, ideal desired climate could also be partially explained by managers’ explicit motives in some cases. As expected, implicit motives did not predict organizational climate in any of the analyses.

Im Rahmen zweier Studien im Leistungssport werden die Effekte bewusster und unbewusster Faktoren auf implizite und explizite Motive untersucht. Es kann die Distinktheit der Vorhersagebereiche impliziter und expliziter Motivdiagnostik repliziert werden. Dabei wird aufgezeigt, dass die handlungsführenden Effekte impliziter und expliziter Motive jeweils exklusiv durch unbewusste Impulskontrolle und bewusste Selbststeuerungskompetenzen moderiert werden. Allein implizite Prozesse (implizite Motive, Impulskontrolle) besitzen prognostischen Wert für sportliches Leisten in Situationen die unbewusst verarbeitet werden. Explizite Prozesse (explizite Motive, bewusste Selbststeuerung) hingegen sagen sportliches Leisten in bewusst verarbeiteten Situationen des sportlichen Wettkampfs vorher. Die differentielle Prognostizität direkter und indirekter Motivdiagnostik in der Sportpsychologie kann durch die Berücksichtigung adäquater Faktoren verbessert werden. Aufgrund der Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit ist bei der Auswahl adäquater Persönlichkeitsvariablen darauf zu achten, dass das zu prognostizierende Kriterium und die Erhebungsmethodik bezüglich ihres Grades an bewusster Bearbeitung miteinander übereinstimmen. / The effects of conscious and unconscious factors on implicit and explicit motives were examined in the context of two studies. The distinct array of prediction by implicit and explicit motive diagnostic can be replicated. Though it was possible to provide evidence for the exclusive moderation of implicit motives by unconscious activity inhibition while explicit motives were moderated by conscious skills of self-regulation. Only the implicit processes (implicit motives and activity inhibition) proof a value to predicting human activity in situations coped without consciousness. In contrast only explicit processes (explicit motives and conscious skills of self-regulation) can predict the outcome of behaviour in situations coped with consciousness. The results of that paper can improve the differential prediction of direct and indirect motive diagnostic by regarding the adequate moderator factors. Further investigations will have the ability to improve the value of motivational predictors if they consider, that the level of consciousness is consistent within the situation of ascertainment the motivational predictor and the situation the criteria is imposed.

Duale Prozessmodelle unterscheiden implizite und explizite Formen der Informations-verarbeitung (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Implizite Verarbeitung erfolgt schnell und un-bewusst und basiert auf affektiv-assoziativen Netzwerken. Explizite Verarbeitung geschieht überlegt und langsam und beinhaltet bewusste, kognitive Entscheidungsprozesse. In dualen Prozessmodellen der Motivation sagen implizite Motive langfristiges Verhalten und explizite Motive bewusste Entscheidungen vorher (McClelland, et al., 1989). Hoher positiver Affekt sowie geringer negativer Affekt aktivieren implizite kognitive Systeme während eine entgegen gesetzte Ausprägung explizite Informationsverarbeitung bahnt (J. Kuhl, 2000a). Drei Feldstudien untersuchen die diskriminante Validität impliziter vs. expliziter motivationaler Prozesse für das Verhalten in unbewussten vs. bewussten kritischen Situatio-nen im Hochleistungssport. In Studie 1 und 2 wird bei Tennis- (N = 60) und Basketballspielern (N = 56) die Fähigkeit erhoben, positiven und negativen Affekt zu regulieren (ACS-90; J. Kuhl, 1994). In Studie 3 (N = 86) werden zusätzlich implizite (OMT; J. Kuhl & Scheffer, 1999) und explizite Motive (PRF; D. N. Jackson, 1999) sowie die Fähigkeit zur bewussten Selbstregulation (VCQ; J. Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998) gemessen. In Studie 1 sagen explizite Formen der Verarbeitung (niedrige positive Affektregulation) die Tennisleistung in objektiv kritischen (wie Tie Breaks) aber nicht in bewusst kritischen Situationen vorher. In Studie 2 führt implizite Verarbeitung (hohe negative Af-fektregulation) zu besseren Basketballleistungen in objektiv kritischen Spielen. In Studie 3 unterstützt explizite Verarbeitung Leistungen in bewusst kritischen Situationen im Rückschlagsport. In unbewusst kritischen Situationen erzielen dagegen Sportler mit ausgeprägten impliziten Motiven bessere Ergebnisse. Die Befunde werden hinsichtlich der Sportartenspezifik, dem Grad der Bewusstheit sowie Persönlichkeitsunterschiede diskutiert. / Dual-process models distinguish implicit and explicit ways of information processing (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Implicit processes are based on associative affective networks and operate fast and unconsciously. Explicit processing is a cognitive, usually slow, deliberate, and conscious way of decision-making. Dual-process models of motivation propose that implicit motives predict long-term behavior and explicit motives predict deliberate decisions (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989). Up-regulation of positive affect and down-regulation of negative affect activate implicit cognitive systems while regulation in the opposite direction triggers explicit information processing (J. Kuhl, 2000a). Within three field studies it is investigated whether implicit vs. explicit motivational processes are of discriminant validity for professional athletic behavior in unconsciously vs. consciously critical situations. In study one and two, tennis (N = 60) and basketball professionals’ (N = 56) abilities to regulate positive and negative affect (ACS-90; J. Kuhl, 1994) are assessed. In study three (N = 86) the additional measures of implicit (OMT; J. Kuhl & Scheffer, 1999) and explicit motives (PRF; D. N. Jackson, 1999) as well as conscious self-regulation (VCQ; J. Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998) are used. Study one proposes that explicit processing supports performance in objective critical situations (tie breaks) in tennis. However, in consciously critical situations no advantage for explicitly processing athletes could be found. In study two implicitly processing basketball players perform better in objectively critical games. In the final study racquet sportsmen who process explicitly perform better in consciously critical situations. In contrast, in unconsciously critical situations athletes with high implicit motives gain better results. Findings are discussed from the perspective of task specificity, degree of awareness, and individual differences.