The connection between self-awareness and leadership
Author Eran Sofer
April 2006
“There is little question that the knowledge that we possess about ourselves ... is central to improving our management skills” (Whetten and Cameron, 1995; p.58)
Introduction
This paper will try to demonstrate the existence of a strong link between self-awareness and management skills, focusing on the role that self-awareness has in increasing leadership skills in the workplace. This connection will be established by analysing evidence based on research studies.
The paper’s first step will be defining the key terms; self-awareness and leadership. It will then explore whether researchers were able to prove the link between self-awareness and leadership, by analysing several studies. It concludes that there is a strong correlation between self-awareness and leadership, and briefly discusses the possible reasons for this correlation.
Self-Awareness
Self-awareness is a puzzle. Researchers tend to define it differently, although most use the same characteristics in their definitions. Broadly defined, self-awareness is the ability to control, analyse and improve personal and interpersonal relationships (Whetten and Cameron, 1995, Waters, 2006). It includes self-knowledge - to understand one’s feelings and accurately assess self-related strengths and weaknesses, behaviours, skills, needs and drives (Whetten and Cameron, 1995, Waters 2006). These abilities are fundamental for psychological health, personal growth and the ability to know and accept others (Carlopio, Andrewartha, and Armstrong, 2005).
Self-awareness is the foundation for a hierarchy of three major personal life-management skills. Firstly, the skill to prioritise and set goals, which incorporates individuals’ ability to direct their own lives. Secondly, time management skills, whereby people are able to use time effectively and efficiently. Finally, stress management skills, which encompasses the ability to identify stress factors and learn coping skills to deal with them (Whetten and Cameron 1995, Waters, 2006).
In 1990 researchers Peter Salovey and John Mayer coined the phrase “emotional intelligence” (cited from Gardner and Stough, 2002). and defined it as “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990, p.10 cited in Gardner and Stough, 2002). Daniel Goleman (2001) introduced the idea of emotional intelligence as a learned capability that results in outstanding results at work (cited in Gardner and Stough, 2002). According to Goleman the competencies which underline emotional intelligence are: self-awareness – the ability to understand feelings and accurately assess self-related strengths and weaknesses; self-management – the ability to manage internal states, impulses and resources; social-awareness – the ability to read people and groups accurately; and relationship management – the ability to induce desirable responses in others.
Since the 1990s researchers have used the concept of emotional intelligence more often than self-awareness. This could be because emotional intelligence is a more narrowly defined and less nebulous concept than self-awareness. However, the actual traits that constitute emotional intelligence are similar to the key traits that constitute self-awareness. Consequently, this paper treats emotional intelligence as one part of self-awareness.
The Importance of Self-Awareness
Far back in the history of human thinking, self-knowledge was considered to be a core element of human behaviour. During the flourishing period of Greek philosophy kings and generals were advised by the Delphic Oracle to: ‘Know thyself’.
Until recent years, it was a deeply rooted belief in western modern society that organisational order and manager/worker efficiency were completely rational, non-emotional activities (Gil, 2006). The importance of self-awareness as a skill needed by managers emerged again when researchers, during the 1990’s, showed the negative consequences of having managers without self-awareness. For example, in the Challenger disaster, engineers felt they could not report a fundamental fault in the space shuttle because management was perceived as unwilling to listen to unpopular or opposed views – a leadership failure in communication (Gil, 2006).
What is Leadership?
“He that would govern others must first master himself” Philip Messinger 1624 (Whetten and Cameron, 1995).
Like self-awareness, leadership has been variously defined, with Bass (1990) finding more than 1,500 different definitions. These definitions are expressed in terms of characteristics, processes, skills, capabilities, relationships and constructs. (Gil 2006). It involves one person influencing individuals and groups within an organisation, helping them in establishing goals, and guiding them towards achievement of those goals by structuring and facilitating activities and relationships in the group, thereby allowing followers to be effective (Nahavandi, 2006, Yukl, 1998).
Traditionally, leadership was described in terms of how individuals act under conditions of change - when we look to those at the top to exhibit leadership and guidance (Whetten and Cameron, 1995). Management, on the other hand, has conventionally been used to depict what executives do under conditions of stability. Leaders have been regarded as focusing on direction setting, articulating a vision, and creating something new. Managers have been regarded as focusing on monitoring, directing, and refining current performance. Leadership has been regarded as equivalent to dynamism, vibrancy, and charisma; management with hierarchy, equilibrium, and control (Carlopio et al, 2005)
In our post-industrial, turbulent environment, organisations without executives able to provide both management and leadership are unlikely to survive (Whetten and Cameron, 1995). Effective managers must have leadership abilities; hence, in today’s world leadership and management are indistinguishable (Whetten and Cameron, 1995).
The Importance of Leadership
A useful approach is to examine the emphasis placed on leadership by workers. The Human Resource Institute found that leadership is the prime issue for effective people management. Three hundred and twelve respondents were asked to rate the most urgent “people” issues faced in their company. Leadership was judged as pivotal, with over 70% of respondents seeing it as “extremely important”. Similar outcomes emerged in studies of the future sponsored by the Human Resource Planning Society, Society for Human Resource Management, and McKinsey consulting firm (Urlich, Zenger, and Smallwood, 1999).
Does Self-Awareness Improve Leadership Skills?
Several studies have shown that increased self-awareness improves leadership skills. Caruso D.R., Mayer, J.D. Salovey (in press) suggest that leaders who are more aware of their own emotions are better at identifying and understanding the emotions of their followers. This helps them to consider multiple points of view and to facilitate open-minded generation of ideas, decision making, and planning. Being able to distinguish true emotions in followers enables leaders to make decisions they know will motivate followers (Caruso et al, cited in Gardner and Stough, 2002). Lack of self-awareness on the other hand may result in misreading other people’s responses, leading to incorrect assumptions about them and situations, and inappropriate behaviour (Bass and Yammarino ,1991, cited in Gil, 2006),
Church (1997) showed that high performing managers are significantly more self-aware than average performers. His research examined 134 high-performing and 470 average-performing managers in three different organizations and industries (technological, pharmaceutical, and airline services) comparing self reports and behavioural ratings from four independent datasets. High performers were rated by a total of 973 direct reports, an average of seven reports per manager. The average performers were rated by 3,398 reports, an average of three reports per manager. Church used an anonymous process to collect responses in order to ensure, that the ratings reflected an accurate assessment of the manager’s behaviour. The self-assessment reports were conducted in the form of individual feedback reports as part of a program for development purposes. Reports ratings were completed independently and not revealed until the end of the program.
The results showed that high-performers were more self-aware compared to average-performers. This relationship was consistent regardless of data source, organisation or method of assessing managerial performance. However, it is possible that the different sample sizes influenced the results. The number of average-performers (470) was 3.5 times greater than high-performers (134).
The Hay Group conducted a survey of sixty FORTUNE 500 organisations, which compared companies defined by FORTUNE as the “World’s Most Admired Companies” (WMAC) with their peers. Researchers compared these organisations’ success relative to their effort in training and developing their leaders’ skills and values. The WMAC provided their senior management with extensive personal development and training, measured their progress and rewarded them accordingly. The WMAC reported that their managers demonstrated high levels of emotional intelligence, in terms of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social skills (Hay Group 1999).
It is not clear from the Hay Group’s report which companies participated in the study or in which industries the companies operated. It is also not reported how the survey was conducted: under what circumstances and conditions it was implemented, and who exactly were the people who made the reports - were they subordinates, supervisors, or the managers themselves? Furthermore, the fact that the Hay Group is a private entity might influence their approach to the research.
Stough and Gardner (2001) investigated whether it is possible to predict through SUEIT (Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test) transformational leadership rather than transactional leadership behaviours. Transformational leaders raise the needs and motivations of followers and promote dramatic change in individuals, groups and organisations (Burns 1978, cited in Stough and Gardner, 2001). They arouse awareness and interest in their followers, increase their confidence, and attempt to move them towards achievement and growth. (Bass 1985, cited in Stough and Gardner, 2001). Transformational leadership supposedly has four components: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.(Barling, Slater and Kelloway, 2000) A transactional leader is a leader who addresses the current needs of subordinates by focusing on exchanges, such as rewards for performance, mutual support, and bilateral exchanges whereby the leader fulfils the needs of the followers in exchange for their performance meeting expectations. (Burns, 1978 and Bass, 1985, cited in Stough and Gardner 2001). The leader tends to avoid risks and builds confidence in followers to help them achieve goals. (Yammarino et al 1993 cited in Stough and Gardner, 2001).
The researchers sent questionnaires to 250 high level managers. A total of 110 managers (44%) responded. Of the 110 responses, 76 were male and 30 female (4 did not specify gender). Average age was 43, and 45% had a postgraduate degree. Sixty-nine participants were managers at a senior level or above.
No relationship was found between transaction leadership and emotional intelligence. On the other hand a strong correlation emerged between transformational leadership and emotional intelligence. Those leaders who identified themselves as transformational reported that they could identify and express to others their feelings, use emotional knowledge to resolve issues, and felt able to understand and be empathic towards workers. They were able to control their emotional state by managing their positive and negative feelings. Stough and Gardner note that these results confirm conclusions drawn by other researchers: that transformational leaders have an ability to arouse awareness in groups or organisations (Yammarino and Dubinsky, 1994), motivate subordinates to exceed expectations (Yammarino et al, 1993) and de-emphasise narrow self-interest and rationality (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995). These processes are strongly interconnected to emotional intelligence, as they are thought to depend on the ability to evoke, frame and mobilise emotions. (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995, cited in Gardner and Stough, 2001). Stough and Gardner (2001) do not specify their selection criteria in choosing which managers to study. It is possible that managers who participated had a higher level of emotional intelligence.
Sosik and Megerian (1999) found a high correlation between self-awareness and leadership. Their objectives were to examine whether managers’ self-awareness moderated relationships between transformational leadership behaviour and managerial performance, as well as between aspects of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behaviour. Researchers identified self-awareness as a core element of emotional intelligence.
The study was conducted in a large business unit of a U.S-based information service and technology firm. Respondents included 63 managers and 192 subordinates (every three subordinates rated one manager). Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires which were distributed through internal mail and returned anonymously. The subordinates’ role was to rate their supervisors’ transformational leadership qualities and performance outcomes. The managers had to report their own characteristics and transformational leadership qualities. Six months later, the managers were assessed by 63 supervisors on their effectiveness.
The results provide evidence for that self-awareness is the foundationof emotional intelligence. It was also found that subordinates rate managers with high self-awareness as more effective than leaders lacking in self-awareness. It would appear that self-awareness provides people with greater self-confidence, self-efficacy and perceived control over their lives which, by orienting subordinates, improves transformational leadership abilities. This supports the researchers’ earlier argument (Megerian and Sosik, 1996, cited in Sosik and Megerian, 1999) that self-awareness is integral to transformational leadership effectiveness.
The research was carefully carried out. Using the anonymous method (also used by Sosik and Megerian, 1999) to collect the information from subordinates probably helped to prevent respondents from being influenced by their peers. The fact that the researchers collected the supervisors’ feedback six months after the survey would have helped them to provide a more objective assessment since they would have been less influenced by the atmosphere in the organisation, and less distracted by subordinates’ opinions. However, the relatively small number of managers (only 63) makes one hesitant to generalise from the data.
Moshavi, Brown and Dodd (2003) analysed leaders’ self-awareness and its relationship to subordinates’ attitudes and performance. The objectives were to investigate the effects of leaders’ self-awareness on subordinates’ performance through objective productivity measures (taking into account variation of resources, job complexity and work requirements). The use of the term self-awareness was in terms of self-other agreement categories. First, overestimators – individuals who are associated with negative personal and organisational outcomes (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997) misdiagnose their strength and weaknesses and ,as a result, are ignorant of the way others perceive them (Bass and Yammarino, 1991). Additionally, overestimators tend to rationalise negative feedback and acknowledge positive feedback as more accurate (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997). Because of these behaviours, they see little need for self- improvement (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988). Underestimators are differentiated from overestimators by being modest which makes them agreeable to others (Sosik, 2001), and being able to integrate others’ evaluations into their own self-perception over the long-term: this makes them more effective and successful (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997).
The research was held in the unit of an international technology manufacturing company in the U.S. It was part of the company’s effort to understand and improve productivity. An anonymous survey was conducted during working hours, over a two day period in three consecutive shifts. The total number of employees was 712. A total of 678 questionnaires were handed in, of which 660 were usable. Employees’ average permanency was 19.85 years, and 5.01 years in their current role. The results showed a significant link between employee attitudes and performance and leaders’ style. Overestimators’ subordinates showed lower levels of satisfaction and performance. On the other hand, underestimators’ subordinates showed high levels. The study shows that overestimators rate themselves highly while their subordinates rate them poorly. On the contrary, underestimators, who may be assumed to be more self-aware, rate\ themselves poorly while their subordinates rate them highly (Atwater and Yammarino, 1997; Sosik, 2001). Given that research was part of the company’s plan to improve the company’s productivity, this could have influenced participants’ ratings which in turn may have distorted the results. On the other hand, conducting the research continuously may have helped participants to be more focused on the task.
Barling, Slater and Kelloway (2000) also investigated whether emotional intelligence is connected to transformational leadership. Forty-nine managers from the paper industry filled in questionnaires assessing their emotional intelligence using Bar-On’s (1997) self-reported Emotional Intelligence Inventory. One hundred and eighty-seven subordinates rated their managers’ transformational leadership (on average, three subordinates’ rated one manager) which comprised four components: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. Sixty managers were recruited of whom 47 participated. Emotional intelligence was related to three transformational leadership components: idealised influence, inspirational motivation and individualised consideration. It is not clear whether the researchers supervised the actual test, although it appears that they did not. Also, without supervision, managers might have influenced subordinates’ ratings.
Rosete and Ciarrochi’s (2005) Australian study, investigated the association between emotional intelligence, personality, cognitive intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Forty-one senior managers from a large public service organisation participated. The sample consisted of 43% females and 57% males, with an average age of 42. Seventy-five per cent of the participants worked in their organisation for at least ten years. Researchers sought volunteers from public service organisations. Participants who volunteered to participate received in exchange a confidential feedback report on their results. They also had to take an emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT), a personality test (16PF) and a cognitive test (the Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (WASI)). Managers’ leadership effectiveness was evaluated using an objective measure of performance and a 360° assessment involving at least three subordinates of each leader and his or her direct manager.
High correlations were found between emotional intelligence and effective leadership suggesting that managers with high emotional intelligence are more likely to achieve better business outcomes, and to be perceived by their subordinates and direct managers as effective leaders. In particular, managers’ capacity to perceive emotions is likely to predict effective leadership. However, it is possible that effective leadership leads to higher emotional intelligence, and one way of resolving this question is to conduct emotional intelligence tests before managers have been hired and to do a follow up later to investigate whether the emotional intelligence results correlate with outcomes in the future.
The studies described above point to a strong link between self-awareness (or emotional intelligence) and leadership ability. However, Barbuto and Burbach (2006) have not drawn the same conclusion. Their objective was to examine whether emotional intelligence is associated with transformational leadership. The research took place in the U.S. Participants were 80 elected community leaders who attended a leadership development workshop as part of their membership in a state-wide professional organisation, and 388 direct-report staff who worked with them (but did not attend the workshop). The leaders’ average age was 51. Fifty per cent had a first degree, 20% an advanced degree; 65% were women. Barbuto and Burbach found a correlation between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, but one much weaker than in other studies e.g. Barling et al (2000) and Gardner and Stough (2002), undermining the latter’s conclusions. Barbuto and Burbach also indicated that there was no positive correlation between transformational leadership and self-awareness. However, it is possible that their sample may have been a factor. It consisted of elected officials who may have different characteristics compared to those from the private sector. They also have different contracts and employment conditions and their overall organisational dynamic differs.
Conclusion and Future Thoughts
The empirical evidence reviewed above suggests that, despite methodological limitations and the different results in one study, self-awareness improves managers’ leadership performance. As self-awareness and emotional intelligence are closely linked, not surprisingly, a similar correlation exists between emotional intelligence and leadership.
It is possible to detect findings to identify overall concepts in the relationship. Managers with high self-awareness (high emotional intelligence) are able to control and monitor their own emotions better than those with low self-awareness. Managers’ ability to understand their own feelings also allows them to appreciate their subordinates’ emotions. This helps them differentiate between positive and negative emotions in their followers, which in turn makes it possible for these managers to motivate their subordinates.
Today’s young executives and professionals (“Generation Y”) are arguably more aware of themselves, their needs, and abilities than previous generations, and, as a consequence, the association between effective leadership and self-awareness is likely to increase. Workers will also become more demanding of an emotionally discerning approach in their leaders, which in turn will influence the characteristics that future leaders will be required to have. It is envisaged by this writer that many corporations in the near future will employee a psychologist or therapist, to consult to both managers when making internal and external management decisions, as well as to employees for private issues.
Ultimately, developing self-awareness is one of the prerequisites for effective modern leadership. “Learn how to lead yourself and it is more likely that you will better understand how to lead others.”
References
Barbuto J. & Burbach M. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational
leaders: a field study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 51-64.
Barling J., Slater F. & Kelloway K. (2000). Transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence: an exploratory study . Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 21, 157-161.
Carlopio J., Andrewartha G., & Armstrong H. (2005). Developing
management skills: a comprehensive guide for leaders (3rd ed., pp. 104-
115). Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chemers M., & Ayman R. (Eds). (1993). Leadership Theory and Research;
Perspectives and Directions. California: Academic Press, Inc.
Church H. A. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in
Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281-292.
Crosbie R. (2005). Learning the soft skills of leadership. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 37, 7-45.
Gardner L. & Stough C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and
emotional intelligence in Senior Level Managers. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 23, 68-78
Gil R. (2006). Theory and Practice of Leadership (1st ed. pp 65-75). London: Sage
Publications
Hay Group (1999) What Makes Great Leaders? Retrieved April 8, 2006 from
http://ei.haygroup.com/downloads/pdf/Leadership%20White%20Paper.pdf
Hogan R., Curphy G., & Hogan J. (1994). What we know about leadership:
effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Liversidge B. (2001). Leadership and emotional acumen. The British Journal of
Administrate Management, 19, 1-9
Moshavi D., Brown W., Dodd N. (2003) Leader self-awareness and its relationship to
subordinate attitudes and performance. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 24, 407-418.
Nahavandi A., (2006). The Art and Science of Leadership (4th ed., pp 59-76).
Arizona State University: Pearson Prentice Hall
Northouse P., (2001). Leadership; Theory and Practice ( 2nd ed.). London: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Polednik L., Greig E. (2000). Personality and emotional intelligence. The British Journal of Administrate Managemen, 26, 1-9.
Rosete D. & Ciarrochi J. (2005.) Emotional intelligence and its relationship to
workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal , 26, 388-399.
Salovey P. & Mayer J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition,
and Personality 9, 185-211.
Shackleton V. (1995). Business Leadership; essential business psychology.
London: Routledge.
Sosik, J. (2001). Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership: relationships with
work attitudes and managerial performance. Group & Organization Management,
26, 484-511.
Sosik J. & Megerian L. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367-391.
Urlich D., Zenger J., & Smallwood N. (1999) Results-Based Leadership. Boston
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Waters L., (February 2006) Developing Self-Awareness. At the second seminar of
the subject Contemporary Organisational Behaviour, Melbourne, Australia.
Whetten D., & Cameron K. (1995). Developing Management skills (3rd ed.,
pp 56-93). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Yukl G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.) New York: Prentice-Hall
International, Inc.
Zornada M. (2005). Defining the skills of a leader. The British Journal of
Administrate Management, Oct/Nov, 2-18.
We have been in Banos for more then a week now. Actually last night (24.07) we celebrated our one week anniversary in Banos, as u do when u r travelling. I had a few thoughts that I wanted to share with u while trying to reflect as hard as I could. But I´ve got only a few left as happens when trying hard (forcing) something, it usually wont work. I always use the soap metaphor to describe this situation: while holding a wet soap in u´r hand, if u try to hold it tight the soap will slip, but if u just let it rest on it, it will not move anywhere. I believe it´s the same for most things in life; if you try to meditate to relax very hard, it will never work, probably the opposite, u will feel more frustrated. U can try it with any experience that u have in life (warning: not for kids under the age of 3).
