ASSIGNMENT 3-2
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership 15
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership
© 2014 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
Mendemu Showry* and K V L Manasa**
Many theories and thinkers have attempted to explore what truly makes a person emerge as a leader. Successful leadership often surfaces when people become aware of critical personal experiences in their life, understand the driving forces, respond by rethinking about self, redirect their moves and reshape their actions. Stanford rates soft skill like self- awareness as one of the pillars of managerial capabilities that predicts managerial effectiveness and leadership success. It suggests that IQ and technical skills are far less important to leadership success than self- awareness. In a world of unprecedented business complexities, leaders, besides explicit knowledge, need an inner compass of self-awareness to walk the tight rope of leadership. The paper explores the concept self- awareness and traces the two essential components of self-awareness. The paper dwells on the reasons for self-ignorance arising out of individual’s inability to exploit two components. It also underlines how self-awareness contributes to self-actualization and managerial effectiveness.
* Assistant Professor, IBS Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail: mshowry@yahoo.co.uk
** Research Scholar, University College of Commerce and Business Management, Kakatiya University, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail: manasakadaparthy@gmail.com
An impartial and objective attitude toward oneself ... is a primary virtue, basic to the development of all others.
– Allport (1937, p. 422)
M any theories and thinkers have attempted to explore what truly makes a person emerge as a leader. Successful leadership often surfaces when people become aware of critical personal experiences in their life, understand the
driving forces, and respond by rethinking about self, redirect their moves and reshape their actions. The book, True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership states that only those who scan their experiences to know who they really are and realize how they should live ultimately emerge as leaders. Stanford rates soft skill like self-awareness as one of the pillars of managerial capabilities that predicts managerial effectiveness and leadership success. It proposes that IQ and technical skills are far less important to leadership success than self-awareness. It exhorts that self-awareness—an exact estimation and evaluation of one’s own personality and a lucid understanding of how
The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 201416
others perceive one—is an indispensable trait that all good managers strive to develop to be successful leaders. A survey of 75 members of the Business Advisory Council of Stanford Graduate School rates self-awareness as the superior competency that leaders must develop. Harvard Business School enumerates self-awareness among the key attributes that their program seeks to develop in its candidates. Dartmouth, University of Chicago, and other Business Schools are all designing programs that focus on self- awareness as the vital step in leadership development. A survey of business leaders indicates that self-awareness is vital to success in organizational environments, and many business schools are introducing tools and processes to make the students become more self-reflective. In a world of unprecedented business complexities, spiraling competition and economic turbulence, leaders and managers dealing with competent employees and ever demanding customers, need an inner compass of self-awareness to walk the tight rope of leadership. Besides explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge related to self can be the hallmark of managerial success. The paper explores the concept self- awareness and traces the two essential components of self-awareness. Firstly, it dwells on self-ignorance arising out of an individual’s inability to exploit two components. It also underlines how self-awareness contributes to self-actualization and managerial effectiveness.
Self-Awareness and Leadership Knowledge of self has been considered to be at the very heart of human behavior and Management. Self-awareness in general denotes subjective and accurate knowledge of one’s inner self, e.g., mental state, emotions, sensations, beliefs, desires and personality. It comprises beliefs, intentions and attitudes about oneself based on experiences in life. Self-awareness at work is the practice of reflecting on experiences and precisely assessing one’s own behaviors and skills as they are manifested in the workplace. Individual’s reflection of the following can lead to leadership behaviors:
1. Awareness of self, experiences and people that have great impact on self;
2. Understanding of individual’s values and beliefs, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations;
3. Self-awareness prompts individuals to take a realistic view of one’s own developmental needs; and
4. Determination to shape one’s life on the basis of the understanding of above by setting an overarching goal and building a team to accomplish the goal over a period of time.
Those who are tentative or confused about the above seem to drift, remain directionless and become ineffective individuals. Managers thus strive to become aware of who they are, their values, motives, attitudes, skills abilities and personality, as it significantly drives professional achievements which ultimately make one an effective leader.
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership 17
Many people think about themselves in a number of ways. Some think they are brilliant, while others as less brilliant, or some view themselves as confident while others as timid. How do people draw such conclusions about self? What are the sources of self-assessment? Early theories propose that self-awareness comprises an understanding of one’s self-resources and anticipation of how one is perceived by others. The first is an individual’s introspection about what a person is and what the person’s resources are. The second aspect deals with clear understanding of how others perceive self through an objective feedback. Hall (2004) draws attention to both components. It is the internal ability to recognize inner state and external ability to recognize its impact on others.
Internal Awareness of Self Introspection is the road to self-awareness. It is the internal ability to get in touch with self and learn about self by examining the most essential resources, i.e., characters, traits, beliefs, values, strengths, abilities, motivations and desires that form the leader’s identity and make accurate assessment about them. In other words, it is an understanding of how we think and feel in different situations about different aspects of self. This awareness shapes a leader’s decisions and determines his/her actions and behaviors. Self-appraisal and social comparison are the primary sources of self-awareness. However, self-perception theory states that people learn about themselves by passively examining their own behavior than understanding the thoughts and feelings to derive conclusions about self. This can act as a compass for decision making and modification of individual behavior.
Bem (1972) also explains that people make attributions to their behavior based on dispositions and situations. Disposition is an endurable quality of a person. If a situation can fully explain an individual behavior, the individual does not draw any conclusions about self, and if otherwise, an individual draws dispositional inference about what he or she is. Suls and Miller (1977) state that according to Festinger’s comparison theory, individuals also learn about themselves by comparing themselves with others who are similar to them. Thus, a social comparison leads to valid self-knowledge.
According to Baron and Byrne (1991) self-awareness is an exceptional schema that consists of self-knowledge that individuals possess. It is well organized than any other information and deeply processed. White et al. (1996), in his model of leadership, considers self-awareness as the foundation of all tacit knowledge. It is the individual’s ability to be honest and candid about their own strengths and weaknesses. That which a mirror can do to the individuals, self-awareness does to the leaders and managers. It propels them to develop a sense of self and directs them to convert weaknesses into strengths by working on self. Church (1997) says that self-awareness is a trait or ability that enables a person to evaluate his/her own behavior and skills. Managers who make sound judgment about their competencies, are more aware of their jobs, and interpret how others view them can regulate or alter their behaviors which enhances executive
The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 201418
effectiveness. In his research on the differences between high-performing and average- performing managers, Church (1997) states that high-performing managers were more managerially self-aware compared to average-performing managers. It holds that regardless of performance criterion, high-performing managers are more accurate in assessing their workplace behaviors and demonstrate a strong association between self- awareness and awareness of how others see them. Goleman (2000) opines that an accurate assessment of strengths and weaknesses influences the leadership style, i.e., whether the leader exercises an authoritarian style or democratic style of leadership. A leader who is aware of the deficiency in an area helps followers to develop expertise in that area. According to a study, self-awareness of one’s goals, values, beliefs, traits, competencies, time horizons, and ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, etc. are the self-resources that guide effective leaders. London (2003) defines self-awareness as having “an accurate understanding of one’s strengths and weaknesses”. It is the realistic and accurate assessment of one’s abilities—one’s strengths and weaknesses, one’s effect on others, and the gaps that needed to be filled.
Self-aware managers possess the qualities that organizations really look for. According to Ilies et al. (2005), self-awareness expresses knowledge of self and trust in one’s own personal characteristics, values, motives, feelings, and cognitions. The competency that organizations look for in managers is the ability of an individual to perceive one’s own attitudes and personality, strengths and weakness, values and desires, abilities and deficiencies, and goals, etc. Avoilo and Gardner (2005) state that authentic leaders are those who are cognizant of their own existence, self-resources and the context in which they operate. Ilies et al. (2005) propose that being aware of self-resources enables authentic leaders to understand what makes them happy and fulfilled. Luthans and Avolio (2003) consider self-awareness as responsible for authenticity, as it leads to self- regulation. Schwartz (1992) explain that a leader’s values determine the decisions and thus influence the leader’s behavior. A person who recognizes facilitating strengths and crippling weaknesses, feelings, thoughts and actions can make better quality decisions than those who do not.
Social Side of Self-Awareness: Awareness of How Others Perceive Self-awareness is not just a private phenomenon but a social phenomenon too. A leader’s internal awareness of one’s resources tells only one side of the story. We get the reflection of ourselves through the human mirrors, from their opinions, responses and reactions. Effective leaders have the ability to see how others view them and understand the impact of their behavior on others in the organization. An effective leader is ready to gain self- awareness from a range of sources. However, this awareness cannot be learned in isolation but in dynamic interaction with others and being open to the cues others give. Leaders who are obsessive about attainment of goals than follower’s perceptions may be ineffective, as leadership is not merely about getting things done but also about influencing and energizing others. Ashford and Tsui (1991) state that feedback from others can provide managers with a reliable understanding of how others perceive them.
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership 19
An objective evaluation of leaders against certain unambiguous standards and demands of the organizations aids in developing initiatives for leadership development. Today’s competitive culture forces managers to operate as if they know everything or have knowledge of all conditions, resulting in an exaggerated portrayal of self. Leaders who do not paint themselves in such a manner may even be perceived as a failure or ineffective. In contrast, truly self-aware managers express who they really are and are open to objective feedback that increases their integrity and effectiveness. Feedback in the form of informal interactions, meetings and performance reviews increases the performance of managers by drawing their attention to black spots and motivates them to improve. Duval and Lalwani (1999) opine that truly self-aware managers are not just aware of the thoughts, feelings and limitations of self but are also open to the feedback of others and incorporate it in self-appraisal. Thus, awareness and acceptance of how others view them form a key input in behavior modification among managers.
Wegner and Giuliano (1982) state that understanding of self and how others perceive self can improve communication. Improved communication at work place influences the followers and ultimately increases work performance and managerial effectiveness. Scott (2010) observes that leaders become aware of the influence they have on others through initiation of self-focus and self-evaluation against stated extrinsic standards and insights regarding their influence on others. Feedback about the leadership in the organization, characterized by conflicting cues, randomness, ambiguity and risk, is not an easy task. Besides leaders’ ego defense mechanism, self-deception and fear of psychological safety influence the extent to which they seek and accept feedback, which has influence over their interactions and influences their relations.
Obstacles to Self-Awareness In spite of self-introspection, social comparison and anticipation of how others view the leaders through feedback, many are still ignorant in their understanding of self or unconvinced about accepting the feedback. Some even give in to bias, marked by distortions and dissonance. They might even see themselves as better as or worse than they really are. Individuals unrealistically abrogate positive characteristics of self and uncharacteristically deny the negative characteristics they glaringly possess. While inaccurate negative perceptions about self drive people into depression, overly bloated positive perceptions result in unhealthy pride or arrogance or deception which is detrimental to the wellbeing of self, others and organizational effectiveness. This can occur due to the factors discussed below:
Incompetence Only competent individuals can assess their competence. The lesser the competence of the individual to assess self, the worse would be the accuracy of self-assessment. Creed and Miles (1996) note that the process of self-assessment is a complex calculus, typically occurring at the unconscious and subconscious levels. The way we view our self need not be truthful, and thus self-assessment need not be trusted as authentic.
The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 201420
It requires an ability to introspect and be free from prejudices and biases. Hence, assessment of self against a standard criterion can lead to accuracy in self-assessment.
Motives Inability to accept the truth about self without bias or distortion occurs when individuals fail to be dispassionate during self-assessment. Sedikides and Strube (1997) state that individuals are guided by several important motives that push them in one direction or another. Baumeister (1998) holds that leaders’ self-enhancement motives and ego defense mechanisms prevent them from seeking objective feedback against stipulated standards as it guarantees psychological safety. Another study points out the conflict between the need to be accurate and the desire to feel good about ourselves is the major battleground of the self, and how this battle is waged and how it is won are central determinants of who we are and how we feel about ourselves.
Self-Presentation It is the ability to influence public perceptions. To lead people to think of self in a particular way is understood as self-presentation. We are what we persuade others to believe we are. Leaders strategically engage in self-presentation behaviors and deliberately try to create or maintain certain positive impressions of themselves in the follower’s mind or initiate impression management tactics in order to define their situations, wield influence, exercise control over the situations, dictate others’ response to their behavior and improve their role efficacy. Hogan and Briggs (1986) hold that becoming successful in leading others to believe that we possess certain desirable characteristics can have predictable influence on others’ perception about us. This indeed distorts how others perceive a leader. According to Sharp and Getz (1996), such self-presentations often result in misguiding others to believe in what one is not and can degenerate into self-destructive behaviors. Those who present false impression about self to others end up creating a fake identity, leading to high degree of distortion.
Core Self-Evaluation CSE is the fundamental bottom line evaluation people make about themselves which reflects their self-worth. It subconsciously influences others’ evaluation of self in a positive or negative manner. CSE comprises self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism and locus of control. Self-esteem is the affectionate evaluation of one’s own attributes and an ability that reflects the degree to which one sees oneself as worthy, respectable and successful. Campbell (1990) expresses that people with high self-esteem not only make a favorable evaluation of self but are also consistent about their abilities and attributes than people with low self-esteem. Hence, they are more confident about themselves and can become self-protective and resistant to social comparison or feedback, especially when it is negatively directed. Paulhus and Reid (1991) claim that people who score high on self-report measures of self-esteem may trick themselves by defensively claiming to feel better about themselves than they really do. On the other hand, some forms of self-deception may actually be healthy and play an integral role
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership 21
in psychological adjustment. People with high self-esteem show a comparable high regard for others, whereas people with low self-esteem derogate others in an attempt to compensate for feelings of inadequacy (e.g., Rogers, 1951; and Epstein and Feist, 1988). A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback and focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more credit for their group’s work than they give to other members, they are protecting the ego from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self’s need for esteem.
When people assess the evidence available to them while making judgments and decisions about important people and crucial issues, they may quickly conclude if some facts support their preexisting preferences. Indeed, they constantly look for only those facts which support the beliefs they closely hold to guard personal interests. Even when the evidence points in the opposite direction, they produce new evidence that is more congenial to one’s directional goals.
Generalized self-efficacy is one’s estimate of one’s capabilities of performing at a global level across many contexts. Self-efficacy gives rise to self-confidence. Burns (2009) holds that the levels self-efficacy is unstable and varies rapidly across situations; levels of self- confidence fluctuate very little. People who have high core self-evaluations think positively of themselves and are confident of their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations have a negative appraisal of themselves and lack confidence. This can potentially misguide an individual’s reaction to social perceptions and can shape the individual’s self-appraisal. Low self-esteem and self-efficacy can obscure the ability to see what others see about a person. Finkelstein (2003) states that intelligent and competent people in positions of leadership who evaluate self against external standards create a self-reality of their own that is quite different from the reality shared by those with whom they work. This leads to misjudgment and eventually leadership derailment.
High Self-Monitors Leaders who are concerned about others’ perceptions expend considerable efforts to ensure the desired public self. They are spontaneous and deliberate, and regulate and adjust their behavior on the basis of social cues and situations to obtain desirable outcomes. High self-monitors project an impressive image about themselves than the low self-monitor who consistently present their true self. This largely distorts how other perceives self. Also those who are high on self-monitoring are capable of presenting different impressions to different people across different situations and times. Like a skilled actor, they become sensitive to the expectations and often change their behavior to suit the audience or situations. For instance, they might even change a few deeply held ideas and convictions to fit in with the situations. Thus, people may develop a complex and incoherent view of an individual that leads to confusion among followers and eventually self. According to Zuzana (2007), self-monitoring appears to be a double-
The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 201422
edged sword when it comes to rating one’s performance. High self-monitors tend to be more prominent friends, which positively influences workplace performance, but at the same time they report having more outgoing negative ties, which has a detrimental effect on performance.
Self-Deception Maslow (1962) reminds us that we deny reality and practice self-deception and similar defenses because “we tend to be afraid of any knowledge that would cause us to despise ourselves.” Peck (1983) opines that self-deception is an attempt to distort the view of reality with an intention to place self-interest above the desire for the truth. Goleman (1985) explains that self-deception is often a subconscious effort to avoid pain and anxiety, skewing our conscious awareness by filtering out painful information. Smith (2004) describes self-deception as “vital for psychological equilibrium” in enabling people to ‘‘soothe many of the stresses of life.” When it comes to organizations, self- deception can be rampant when individuals lack openness and objective self-evaluation.
Defense Mechanism Defense mechanisms such as projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial are virtually universal phenomena (Baumeister, 1998) and lead to feedback- avoiding behavior (Moss and Sanchez, 2004). Kunda (1990) suggests that anticipating a desired conclusion and viewing the world through a self-serving bias can directly affect the way in which people gather evidence and reach conclusions about self.
Distorted Feedback We tend to see ourselves in the way we think others see us. Others’ misconception about us can influence self-awareness. Organizational feedback on the leader’s behavior against the extrinsic standards often gets contaminated due to various reasons. Ashford (1986) is of the view that those in an organization for a longer period tend to be negatively disposed to seek feedback so as to appear more confident and well in control of the organization. Such disposition automatically prevents objective feedback from others. Those in higher echelons of power do not get candid feedback due to the fear of retaliation or reprisal. Goleman et al. (2002) hold that followers’ feedback about those in power often filters out negative information and exaggerates positive information, leading to distortions. To understand the way leaders exert pressure on individuals to influence favorable feedback, we take recourse to reward power, coercive power and legitimate power. These powers can reward persons for conformity and punish for non- conformity leading to more favorable feedback. Finkelstein (2003) opines that distortions in feedback often misguide leaders to believe in a concocted reality that is contrary to the realities of the organization. Thus, delusion often drives leader’s perceptions. Indeed, no one may risk saying that the King indeed does not have any clothes! However, individuals can also fall prey to unreasonable negative feedback given out of prejudices
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership 23
and jealousy. Hence, it is vital to evaluate the feedback for what it is and ignore if the tide of others’ opinions poses grave danger to actual self.
Narcissism Narcisst leaders are obsessively interested in self at the expense of others by demonstrating arrogance, dominance and hostility, often resulting in authoritarian emotional decision making.
According to Rosenthal and Pittinsk (2006), managers with narcissistic tendencies develop a distorted self-image which makes them ignorant of their limitations and conceals their imperfections. According to Downs (1997), the narcisst leader assembles a team of those who subscribe to narcissist tendencies and committed own interests than organizational interests. Such teams and individuals often exert considerable pressure against objective and unfavorable evaluation of leaders. “Thou shall confirm” pressure forces the subordinates to desist from giving a negative and objective feedback. Thus there exists a gap between the leader’s perception of self and that by others.
Conclusion Leaders often possess desirable characteristics and competencies. At times, the problems surface as they get elevated in the organizational hierarchy when behaviors may act as an obstacle or brakes than drivers of others’ performance. Self-aware leaders understand who they are and what they want to achieve. Instead of becoming defensive about the black spots, they accept them, transform themselves and thrive as leaders. They give creative response to opportunities and challenges. Managers desirous of being successful are unrelenting in exploring opportunities to gain self-awareness. Low self-awareness gravely deters individual growth and impedes organizational performance. There has been a spate of instances of executives who, ignorant of their strengths and weaknesses, made risky moves and became ineffective and unsuccessful or even let their careers go off the track. Companies too are organizing behavioral training and coaching programs for their top leaders to gain deeper insights into personality, problem solving skills and managerial styles. The voyage of an effective manager begins with developing self-awareness as a competency through self-assessment and being well-disposed to social feedback.
References 1. Ashford S J (1986), “Feedback-Seeking in Individual Adaptation: A Resource
Perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 465-487.
2. Ashford S J and Tsui A S (1991), “Self-Regulation for Managerial Effectiveness: The Role of Active Feedback Seeking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 251-280.
3. Avolio B J and Gardner W L (2005), “Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 315-338.
The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 201424
4. Baron R A and Byrne D (1991), Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction, 6th Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
5. Baumeister R F (1998), “The Self”, in D T Gilbert, S T Fiske and G Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 680-740, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. Bem D J (1972), “Self-Perception Theory”, in L Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 1-62, Academic Press, New York.
7. Burns Jodi A (2009), “Assessing the Importance of Building Self-Efficacy to Impact Motivation, Performance Levels, and Team Effectiveness”, United States Sports Academy America’s Sports University, Vol. 17, No. 4.
8. Campbell J D (1990), “Self-Esteem and Clarity of the Self-Concept”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 538-549.
9. Church A H (1997), “Managerial Self-Awareness in High-Performing Individuals in Organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 281-292.
10. Coopersmith S (1967), The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, Freeman, San Francisco.
11. Creed Douglas W E and Miles R E (1996), “Trust in Organizations – A Conceptual Framework Linking Organizational Forms, Managerial Philosophies, and the Opportunity Costs of Control”, in Roderick M Kramer and Tyler Tom (Eds.), Trust in Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, London.
12. Downs Alan (1997), Beyond The Looking Glass: Overcoming the Seductive Culture of Corporate Narcissism, Amacom.
13. Duval T S and Lalwani N (1999), “Objective Self-Awareness and Causal Attributions for Self-Standard Discrepancies: Changing Self or Changing Standards of Correctness”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, pp. 1220-1229.
14. Epstein S and Feist G J (1988), “Relation Between Self- and Other-Acceptance and its Moderation by Identification”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 309-315.
15. Finkelstein S (2003), “Seven Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful People”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 39-50.
16. Goleman D (1985), Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, Simon and Schuster.
17. Goleman D (2000), “Leadership that Gets Results”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 78-90.
18. Goleman D, Boyatzis R and McKee A (2002), Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership 25
19. Hall D T (2004), “Self-Awareness, Identity, and Leader Development”, in D V Day, S J Zacarro and S M Halpin (Eds.), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow, pp. 153-176, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
20. Hogan R and Briggs S R (1986), “A Socioanalytic Interpretation of the Public and the Private Selves”, in R F Baumeister (Ed.), Public Self and Private Life, pp. 179-188, Springer-Verlag, New York.
21. Ilies R, Morgeson F P and Nahrgang J D (2005), “Authentic Leadership and Eudaemonic Well-Being: Understanding Leader-Follower Outcomes”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 373-394.
22. Kunda Z (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 480-498.
23. London M (2003), Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
24. Luthans F and Avolio B J (2003), “Authentic Leadership: A Positive Developmental Approach”, in K S Cameron, J E Dutton and R E Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship, pp. 241-261, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
25. Maslow A H (1962), Toward a Psychology of Being, D. Von Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ.
26. Moss S E and Sanchez J I (2004), “Are Your Employees Avoiding You? Managerial Strategies for Closing the Feedback Gap”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 32-44.
27. Paulhus D L and Reid D B (1991), “Enhancement and Denial in Socially Desirable Responding”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 307-317.
28. Peck M S (1983), People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil , Touchstone, New York.
29. Rogers C R (1951), Client-Centered Therapy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
30. Rosenthal S A and Pittinsky T L (2006), “Narcissistic Leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 617-633.
31. Schwartz S H (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 1-65.
32. Sedikides C and Strube M J (1997), “Self-Evaluation: To Thine Own Self Be Good, to Thine Own Self Be Sure, and to Thine Own Self Be True, and to Thine Own Self Be Better”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 209-269.
33. Sharp M J and Getz J G (1996), “Substance Use as Impression Management”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, pp. 60-67.
The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 201426
34. Smith D L (2004), Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind, St. Martin’s Griffin, New York.
35. Suls Jerry M and Miller Richard L (1977), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Hemisphere Publishing Company.
36. Taylor A (2010), “Using the Lever of Leadership to Drive Environmental Change: Ten Tips for Practitioners”, Proceedings of the Enviro2010 Conference, July 21- 23, Melbourne, Victoria.
37. Wegner D M and Giuliano T (1982), “The Forms of Social Awareness”, in W J Ickes and E S Knowles (Eds.), Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior, Springer- Verlag, New York.
38. White R P, Hodgson P and Crainer S (1996), The Future of Leadership: Riding the Corporate Rapids into the 21st Century, Pitman Publishing, London.
39. Zuzana Sasovova (2007), “To Dislike and to Be Liked, Self-Monitoring, Affect and Intensive Relations and Work Performance”, Vrije University, Amsterdam.
Reference # 50J-2014-03-02-01
Copyright of IUP Journal of Soft Skills is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.