Competency Case Delimma

Identity, Self-Awareness,

and Self-Deception: Ethical Implications

for Leaders and Organizations Cam Caldwell

ABSTRACT. The ability of leaders to be perceived as

trustworthy and to develop authentic and effective rela-

tionships is largely a function of their personal identities

and their self-awareness in understanding and making

accommodations for their weaknesses. The research about

self-deception confirms that we often practice denial

regarding our identities without being fully aware of the

ethical duties that we owe to ourselves and to others. This

article offers insights about the nature of identity and self-

awareness, specifically examining how self-deception can

create barriers to self-awareness within both a personal

and a business context.

KEY WORDS: identity, self-deception, self-awareness,

ethical leadership, mediating lens, emotional intelligence

For more than three millennia, ‘‘knowledge of the

self has been considered to be at the very core of

human behavior’’ (Whetten and Cameron, 2007,

p. 58). Personal identity and self-awareness have

been identified as critical elements of effectiveness in

creating relationships with others (Albrecht, 2006;

Goleman, 2006a, b). Despite the importance of self-

knowledge in our lives, we are often unknowingly

and unintentionally guilty of self-deception (War-

ner, 2001) – with a potentially devastating impact on

our own lives and on others (Boyatzis and McKee,

2005).

The purpose of this article is to offer insights

about the nature of identity and self-awareness,

specifically examining how self-deception can create

barriers to self-awareness and conflict with one’s

identity. Section ‘‘Identity, self-awareness, and self-

deception’’ of this article draws on the academic

literature about identity and self-awareness at the

personal level and explains the construct of self-

deception and how it occurs. Section ‘‘Ethical duties

to self’’ presents five specific ethical implications

associated with self-deception. Section ‘‘Implications

for business’’ identifies how an understanding of

identity, self-awareness, and self-deception applies

within a business context. Section ‘‘Contributions

and future research’’ concludes by listing the con-

tributions of this article and opportunities for future

research about identity-related issues.

Identity, self-awareness, and self-deception

One’s identity defines how an individual affirms his/

her worth to others and to self (Ashforth and

Johnson, 2001; Sluss and Ashforth, 2007). Josselson

(1994, p. 82) indicated that identity is at its core

psychosocial, as an ‘‘expression of self, for, with,

against, or despite; but certainly in response to

others.’’ One’s individual identity is a set of mean-

ings applied to the self within a social role or situa-

tion that determines what it means to be who one is

(Burke and Tully, 1977, p. 883). This set of mean-

ings may be complex and ‘‘serves as a standard or

reference’’ for evaluating oneself and one’s behaviors

(Burke, 1991, p. 837). Brewer and Gardner (1996)

explained that identity orientation may be at a

Cam Caldwell obtained a PhD from Washington State

University where he was a Thomas S. Foley Graduate

Fellow. He writes about ethical duties of leaders and orga-

nizations in expanding the ability of organizations to increase

employee commitment and long-term wealth creation. He is

currently Visiting Professor in the College of Business at

Texas A & M University – Corpus Christi.

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 90:393–406 � Springer 2010 DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0424-2

personal (internal), relational (dyadic), or collective

(group or organizational) level. At the organizational

level, Albert and Whetten (1985) conceptualized

identity as encompassing the central, enduring, and

distinctive attributes of an organization. At the per-

sonal or individual level, identity also encompasses

those central, enduring, and distinctive attributes of

an individual (Berger et al., 2006).

Academic discourse can depersonalize identity

and fail to acknowledge the deeply personal

importance of self-image (Lyubomirsky et al., 2006;

Schiraldi, 2001) and the critical nature of self-

assessment in evaluating our sense of worth and

personal happiness (Langer, 1999; Strauss, 2005).

How we act in specific situations is reciprocally re-

lated to one’s identity, the roles that we have iden-

tified as important, and the congruence between our

behavior and how we believe we ideally should

behave (Burke and Reitzes, 1981). Social identity is

correlated with individual identity and deals with

one’s perceived role as a member of a group as

opposed to one’s identity as a unique individual

(Stets and Burke, 2000). Flynn (2005) suggested that

identity at the personal level was validated by

comparing the self to others and by confirming one’s

identity in context with how one believes (s)he is

perceived by others.

Moral identity is also a fundamental part of who

we are (Flanagan, 1991, p. 18) and encompasses our

efforts to answer the three following questions: (1)

‘‘what is the right thing to do?’’ (2) ‘‘how is the best

possible state of affairs achieved?’’ and (3) ‘‘what

qualities make for a good person?’’ (Hart, 2005, pp.

166–168). Moral behavior is behavior which

addresses ethical duties (Hosmer, 2007) and is

socially responsible (Reed et al., 2007, p. 179).

Moral identity encompasses the traits, feelings, and

behaviors that an individual includes in his/her self-

definition (Aquino and Reed, 2002; Brewer and

Gardner, 1996). The degree to which an individual

views moral duties is the most important determi-

nant as to the likelihood that beliefs will be translated

into actions (Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007, p. 1610).

Reflecting on moral duties is critical to moral

decision making and congruent behavior (Kurpis

et al., 2008; Warner, 2001). Lennick and Kiel (2008,

p. 209) suggest that moral intelligence encompasses

three key responsibilities: (1) the responsibility to do

no harm; (2) the responsibility to add current value;

and (3) the responsibility to add future value. Moral

identity adds to our sense of who we are by artic-

ulating the degree to which we feel responsible for

self, family, employer, community, and the other

key stakeholders to whom we owe duties (Caldwell

et al., 2008; Reynolds, 2008).

Powers (1973) suggested that when people per-

ceive their identities they implicitly create a feedback

loop which they use to monitor and control their

behaviors. Carver and Scheier (1981) developed a

model of self-regulation and self-control that is used

– both consciously and sub-consciously – to evaluate

and control our behaviors. In describing how iden-

tity is heavily dependent on an ongoing comparison

with an ideal standard of behavior, Burke (1991,

p. 838) provided the model shown in Figure 1.

According to identity control theory, when an

identity is established, a feedback loop is created

which has four components (Burke, 1991). The

identity cycle begins with the actions and mean-

ingful behaviors, which make up the output of an

identity (Burke, 1991). This output is an attempt to

adjust individual behaviors to match the ideal

internal standard which makes up how we view

ourselves (Burke, 1991). Our behavior occurs within

Figure 1. Identity process control system.

394 Cam Caldwell

the context of a social situation. Typically, we use self-

categorization and social comparisons from the

feedback we receive from others to anticipate how

to act (Stets and Burke, 2000). From the reflected

appraisals of others, we perceive evaluated input, or

our interpretation of how our actions and behaviors

fit within the situation in which we have been en-

gaged (Burke, 1991). Our interpretation of those

appraisals is heavily influenced by the roles we his-

torically play in groups (Stets and Burke, 2000). The

identity standard is the ideal or comparator which makes

up our expectations that are associated with self-

defined roles which incorporate how we have de-

fined ourselves and who we believe we ultimately

are (Stets and Burke, 2000).

The process of self-assessment in evaluating our

behavior is a complex calculus (Creed and Miles,

1996), typically occurring at the unconscious and

sub-conscious levels (Weick, 1979) that we use to

control our behavior to comply with whom we

believe we are (Carver and Scheier, 1981; Stets and

Burke, 2000). As Stets and Burke (2000, p. 225)

summarized, ‘‘the core of an identity is the catego-

rization of the self as an occupant of a role, and the

incorporation, into the self, of the meanings and

expectations associated with that role and its per-

formance.’’ In the self-assessment process, we com-

pare ourselves to others who are both like us and

different from us in determining our self-image and

identities (Hafner, 2004). Reid and Deaux (1996)

found that our social and personal identities may

integrate both our self-perceptions and the attributes

that make up those identities.

Whereas identity explains who we believe we are

(Flanagan, 1991), self-awareness includes the degree

to which we are sensitive to how we are perceived

by others (Fletcher and Bailey, 2003). Self awareness

theory ‘‘suggests that individuals who are more

cognizant of how they are perceived by others are

better at incorporating information from others into

their self-appraisals, and, ultimately, into their

behavior’’ (Moshavl et al., 2003, p. 407). Identity

and self-awareness are closely related constructs,

with one’s identity being influenced by how one

perceives duties and roles related to stakeholders

and society (Stets and Burke, 2000). Applying

identity and self-awareness to leadership effective-

ness, Ashford (1989) explained that a leader’s

awareness of how subordinates perceived him/her

had important consequences. Leaders are able to

become more effective when they demonstrate that

they are receptive to feedback from others (Kouzes

and Posner, 2007). Self-awareness is a fundamental

element of emotional intelligence and is critical to

our ability to communicate with and build rela-

tionships of trust with others (Goleman, 2006a, b;

Whetten and Cameron, 2007). Individuals high in

self-awareness are skilled at self-monitoring and in

adapting their behaviors to relate effectively with

others (Shivers-Blackwell, 2006).

Self-awareness involves having ‘‘a deep under-

standing of one’s emotions, as well as one’s strengths

and limitations and one’s values and motives’’

(Goleman et al., 2002, p. 40). Self-awareness incor-

porates the self-reflection capacity and thoughtfulness

that Covey (2004) declared as necessary to discover

one’s voice and incorporates the ability to understand

one’s true nature and the freedom to choose how one

consciously wishes to respond to life. Goleman et al.

(2002, p. 40) placed high value on the ability ‘‘to think

things over rather than react impulsively’’ and

acknowledged this sensitivity to context and values to

be a foundation for personal competence that enabled

people to develop a clear understanding of the prin-

ciples that ultimately form the basis of how they wish

to live.

Boyatzis and McKee (2005) have noted that

under times of stress, individuals become less self-

aware and miss the signs from others that enable

them to be effective in managing themselves and

their relationships. Even skilled leaders who recog-

nize the importance of tuning into the nuances of

interpersonal relationships fall prey to the compelling

problems, uncertainty, and often uncontrollable sit-

uations that highjack our physiological responses,

exponentially increase stress, and cause inevitable

self-awareness dysfunction (Dickerson and Kemeny,

2004). Sankar (2003) suggested that self-awareness

and effective leadership required character in care-

fully examining the consistency of one’s personal

attributes and behaviors in relationships with others.

The problem of congruence in how we assess

ourselves is essential to self-awareness, one’s indi-

vidual identity, and self-deception. As a form of

cognitive dissonance, self-deception has been

described as a discrepancy between the way in

395Identity, Self-Awareness, and Self-Deception

which one knows she/he ought to act and how one

actually behaves (Festinger, 1957). Brown and

Starkey (2000) described self-deception as one of

many ego defense mechanisms that enabled one to

maintain self-esteem and the continuity of one’s

identity. Defense mechanisms such as projection,

displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and

denial are virtually universal phenomena (Baumei-

ster, 1998) and lead to feedback-avoiding behavior

(Moss and Sanchez, 2004). Kunda (1990) suggested

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.

In discussing the nature of our mental models and

pre-conceptions, Newman (1999, p. 60) explained:

When people assess the evidence available to them

when they make judgments and decisions about

important people, relationships, places, things, or is-

sues, they may quickly (and happily) conclude that

their pre-existing preferences are supported by the

facts. At other times, the evidence may point in the

opposite direction. A number of studies now indicate

that this unpleasant psychological situation does not

necessarily directly launch one into a search for pref-

erence-consistent information. Instead, it instigates a

different reaction that indirectly leads people to their

preferred conclusions: It leads to a more extensive

search for and analysis of relevant information … In plain language, discovering that one’s preconceptions

might be wrong is a cause for concern. That affective

reaction, in turn, causes an increase in the intensity of

cognitive processing, and that extra processing can

potentially turn up new evidence that is more con-

genial to one’s directional goals.

This tendency to believe in faulty preconceptions is

consistent with several types of self-deception

identified by Siegler (1962). Siegler (1962) identi-

fied eight rationalizations that frequently occur as

part of self-deception. Those eight perceptions and

their respective meanings are briefly summarized

below:

1) A pretense to others. Claiming prior knowledge

about the likelihood of an uncertain out-

come may be either a rationalization or an

attempt to look good in others’ eyes.

2) Discount of a failure. Claiming to have known

in advance that failure was likely may be an

attempt to persuade oneself that one truly

knew about an uncertain probability.

3) Articulation of past fears. Unwillingness to deal

with uncertainty may result in claiming fore-

knowledge of a likely failure – but after that

disappointment actually occurs.

4) Inability to understand. Although evidence of a

fact contrary to what we may want to be-

lieve may be present, our failure to acknowl-

edge a situation may legitimately reflect

something we can not emotionally deal with

or understand.

5) Wanting reality to be different. One’s biases af-

fect how we see the world and affect the

formation of our beliefs so powerfully that

we get dissuaded by wishful thinking.

6) Intentional averting of attention. We know

intuitively that something is unbearably dis-

tressing and deliberately avoid addressing a

painful issue so that we do not have to deal

with it.

7) Resolving to change. At times, we acknowledge

that we have not dealt with issues that we

ought to have addressed in the past.

8) Acknowledged regret. We may express the fact

that we should have been attuned to key infor-

mation in the past, but overlooked key clues.

Understanding exactly how we engage in self-

deception can enable us to avoid those tendencies

that erode relationships with others and that

lower our self-esteem (Covey, 2004; Goleman,

1985; Warner, 2001; Whetten and Cameron,

2007).

Fingarette (2000) suggested that the intent of self-

deception is often an attempt to cope with the

frustrations of life and to create meaning where

incongruity seems to exist. In writing about self-

deception as a coping mechanism, Goleman (1985,

pp. 12–18) explained that self-deception was often a

sub-conscious effort to avoid pain and anxiety,

skewing our conscious awareness by filtering out

painful information. Smith (2004, p. 3) described

self-deception as ‘‘vital for psychological equilib-

rium’’ in enabling people to ‘‘soothe many of the

stresses of life.’’ Maslow (1962, p. 57) reminded 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

396 Cam Caldwell

or to make us feel inferior, weak, worthless, evil,

shameful.’’

Peck (1983, pp. 104–105) noted that frequently

those who deceive others or themselves do so

unwittingly and, often, without a conscious aware-

ness of their motives for their deceptions. Philoso-

pher and theologian Buber (1980, p. 11) commented

about the subtle nature of self-deception in writing

about ‘‘the uncanny game of hide and seek in

the obscurity of the soul, in which it, the single

human soul, evades itself, avoids itself, hides from

itself.’’ Peck (1983, p. 119) describes our efforts in

‘‘defending and preserving the integrity of our own

sick selves’’ as inherent within the definition of evil

and suggests that a by-product of self-deception is to

destroy the spiritual growth and welfare of ourselves

and/or others. Self-deception is a warping of per-

ception that elevates a distorted view of reality and

self-interest above the desire for the truth (Peck,

1983, p. 121). The great danger of this warped view

of reality is that those who practice it are unable to

identify how they can create relationships healthy to

themselves and to others and are insensitive to the

feedback that the world offers (Boyatzis and McKee,

2005).

One of the foremost means of self-deception is to

treat others as an object or a means, rather than as a

valued individual or end (Warner, 2001, p. 46).

Citing the study of Buber (1971), Warner explained

that our identities and our relationships with others

becomes distorted when we reduce people to

commodities or objects. People lose their unique

value, and we destroy our ability to create life-

enhancing relationships that betray both ourselves

and others (Warner, 2001, pp. 50–53). Buber (1971)

had noted that when we treat people like an I–It, we

depersonalize them and deny our obligation to them

– as opposed to treating them like an I–You that

acknowledges not only their identity but our moral

duties to them as well. Part of our self-deception,

then, is to deny our humanity and to undervalue the

importance of creating resonating relationships with

others (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005). Ultimately, this

undermining of our ability to create powerful rela-

tionships robs us of the richness of a life that is

personally fulfilling and that enables us to accomplish

our potential – both in terms of serving others and in

becoming what we have the capacity to achieve

(Covey, 2004, p. 5).

Ethical duties to self

Self-deception is a denial of the duty owed to the self

when it causes an individual to avoid confronting the

need to modify one’s behavior (Peck, 1983). The

purpose of this section is to identify five ethical

duties owed to the self which enable individuals to

deal more productively with themselves, with oth-

ers, and with the world around them.

(1): We owe ourselves the duty to understand how vul-

nerable we can be when we are unwilling or unable to

address incongruity in our lives

The ability to confront the realities about life and

about ourselves begins with a willingness to

thoughtfully take a personal inventory of who we

are, what we believe, and the importance of truth in

our lives (Ackerman, 2005). Because self-deception

is implicitly difficult to recognize (Boyatzis and

McKee, 2005), we owe ourselves the duty of

understanding how common self-deception can be

(Fingarette, 2000). In writing about the dissonance

of self-deception, Boyatzis and McKee (2005, p. 47)

describe it as follows:

We end up seeing the world in very black-and-white

terms, and we slowly lose the ability to see ourselves,

or those around us, realistically. We miss a lot. Then,

when things do go wrong, it is very easy to continue to

blame others, and feel sorry for ourselves as things

deteriorate – especially when the downturn feels like a

surprise and follows a period of denial.

The inability to ‘‘define reality’’ (DePree, 2004,

p. 11) and to tune in emotionally to ourselves and to

others is particularly destructive for leaders (Goleman

et al., 2002). Self-awareness includes the ability to

recognize and evaluate what is happening within

oneself and with others, but the most critical com-

ponents of self-awareness and empathy are in how we

respond to and apply information about emotions in

guiding our lives and in building high trust rela-

tionships (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997). Self-deception

results in an inability to care for our own long-term

welfare (Peck, 1983), and short-circuits our ability to

understand reality, resulting in what Albrecht (2006,

p. 34) called ‘‘dumbness and numbness.’’

The consequence of self-deception is to deny

truth and create a reality that masks one’s identity,

397Identity, Self-Awareness, and Self-Deception

destroys trust, erodes relationships, and ultimately

diminishes the quality of one’s life (Mele, 2001).

Recognizing the importance of truth seeking,

integrity, and congruence in our lives is a key

indicator of emotional and spiritual health (Green-

berg, 1985; Peck, 1998), in addition to being

essential in creating relationships of trust (Hosmer,

1996; Kouzes and Posner, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995).

By recognizing how vulnerable we can be to self-

deception, we acknowledge our humanness and

demonstrate a commitment to personal integrity.

(2): In recognizing and identifying self-deceptive behav-

ior, we need to acknowledged the underlying internal factors

that cause us to deny reality

The process of thoughtfully examining the

consistency of our behaviors enables individuals to

explore the beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and motiva-

tions that cause them to be self-deceptive (Taylor,

2006). According to the Theory of Reasoned Action,

behaviors are a by-product of our beliefs, attitudes,

and intentions. Figure 2 shows this relationship.

The Theory of Reasoned Action in Figure 2

shows the interrelated nature of beliefs, attitudes,

intentions, and behaviors (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)

while helping to explain the complexity of the

‘‘conceptual calculus’’ used in sense-making associ-

ated with human behavior (Creed and Miles, 1996,

p. 16). Examining the differences between how we

behave and what we claim to believe or intend to do

is essential to understanding ourselves and our

identities (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).

Beliefs are cognitive perceptions that ‘‘represent

the information’’ that a person has about an object,

and attitudes are emotional responses that interrelate

constantly with cognitive beliefs (Fishbein and Aj-

zen, 1975, pp. 12–14). Within the context of self-

deception, one’s beliefs and attitudes become sub-

jective interpretations of the self within a complex

world (Jun, 2005). Intentions reflect the articulated

or unarticulated personal motivation that an indi-

vidual will carry out a specific behavior (Fishbein

and Ajzen, 1975, pp. 14–17). Intentions are likely

predictors of actual behavior, but intentions do not

equate perfectly with that behavior. When we be-

lieve that a specific behavior reflects our values but

do not behave congruently with those values, our

actions are dissonant with our beliefs and espoused

intentions.

The eight rationalizations identified by Siegler

(1962) put us in a position of denial about truth in

attempt to adjust to that which is uncomfortable.

Horowitz (1983, p. 136) identified nine predictable

consequences of this denial:

• Avoided associations which short-circuit con- nections to the event or issue.

• Numbness or the inability to process appro- priate emotional reactions.

• Flattened response or the constriction of expectable emotional reactions.

• Dimming of attention or the inability to focus clearly on thoughts or sensations.

• Daze or defocused attention that avoids acknowledging the significance of events.

• Memory failure or the inability to recall events, details, or specific facts.

• Disavowal in thinking or saying that obvious meanings are not so.

• Blocking through fantasy by avoiding reality and substituting what might or could be.

The danger of these responses is that they are

palliatives that defer our ability to deal effectively

with reality and move forward in our lives (Gol-

eman, 1985). Understanding the factors that cause us

to deny reality is critical for us to recognize the root

causes of self-deception. Possessing an accurate

assessment of ourselves is critical to goal achievement

and enables individuals to ‘‘inoculate against self-

deception’’ (Taylor, 2006, p. 647).

Beliefs

Attitudes

Intentions Behaviors

Figure 2. Theory of reasoned action.

398 Cam Caldwell

(3): We owe ourselves the duty to thoughtfully examine

our core beliefs and to reflect upon those beliefs on a regular

basis

Examining our core beliefs is fundamental to

developing a clear understanding of our values and

goals and the assumptions upon which those values

and goals are based (Caldwell et al., 2002). A classic

definition of self-deception is that an individual

‘‘believes in two contradictory beliefs’’ at the same

time without acknowledging that a conflict exists

(Mele, 2001, p. 92). The challenge in knowing

ourselves is our willingness to engage ‘‘in objective

self-examination, and also accepting whatever per-

sonal shortcomings’’ that may be uncovered by that

self-examination process (Morris et al., 2005,

p. 1340). The willingness to conduct this self-

examination requires both a personal confidence

and authentic humility, but allows an individual to

more accurately assess the magnitude of the variance

between one’s self-assessment and the evaluations of

others (Rowan et al., 2002).

Caldwell and Hayes (2007) suggested that inven-

torying six core beliefs about self, others, the nature of

the divine, the past, current reality, and the future

were critical to self-assessment and self understanding.

Such an inventory enables one to define reality in

understanding both the self and one’s duties to others.

Formally going through the process of identifying key

issues from the perspective of these six core beliefs

provides an opportunity to raise our understanding

about these issues from the unconscious to the con-

scious level – a process that is essential to confronting

our self-deceptions (Mele, 2001).

Goffee and Jones (2006) observed that our

responsibility to achieve self-knowledge and the self-

awareness associated with how we are observed by

others is a key to becoming more authentic and to

knowing our identities. Ackerman (2005) has iden-

tified the importance of clarifying and understanding

our core beliefs as a critical element to self-under-

standing, goal achievement, and the undertaking of

self-correcting action – including the vital process of

understanding how we deceive ourselves. Gilovich

(1991) noted that our ability to accurately view the

world requires that we understand ourselves and our

preconceived biases that cause us to distort reality.

Goleman (1985, p. 106) has explained that each

individual sees the world through a ‘‘schema (which)

implicitly selects what will be noted and what will

not.’’ Understanding who one is and what one be-

lieves allows an individual to be aware of blind-spots

that can distort reality, impair relationships and

decision quality, and severely impact the quality of

one’s life (Goleman, 1985).

(4): We have the responsibility to evaluate the stresses

that cause us to become vulnerable to self-deception,

acknowledge those stress factors, and seek to mitigate the

potentially destructive influences of stress in our lives

People avoid the discomfort of information that

conflicts with their preferred view of the world by

an unconscious effort to minimize anxiety (Smith,

2003). Goleman (1985, p. 22) has explained that self-

deception occurs in three steps: (1) the mind seeks to

protect itself against anxiety by dimming awareness;

(2) this dimming mechanism creates a blind spot or a

zone of blocked attention and self-deception; and (3)

these blind spots occur at each major level of

behavior from psychological to social. The mind

unconsciously warps reality in self-deception,

including how one views the self and one’s role

within a specific context to create a version of reality

that reduces anxiety by pretending that an anxiety-

producing alternative reality does not exist – even

when evidence of that alternative reality is present

(Litz, 2003).

The mind tunes out threats ‘‘to short-circuit stress

arousal’’ in situations where anxiety has become so

painful that the unconscious mind believes that it

cannot cope (Goleman, 1985, p. 43). In writing

about the internal conflicts created by self-deception,

Sartre (1956) examined the spiritual conflict present

within the human soul. He observed that the

unacknowledged conflict between contradictory

beliefs amounted to a surrendering of one’s integrity

as the reflective consciousness suffers an ‘‘inner dis-

integration in the heart of being’’ (Sartre, 1956,

p. 70). Covey (2004, p. 53) has reminded us that our

inability to honor our moral conscience is spiritually

destructive and makes it impossible to fulfill our

identity and find our voices. Thus, our obligation to

the self is to attempt to understand and mitigate

stresses in an effort to maintain the moral and

spiritual ability to preserve our personal integrity

(Finagrette, 2000). Finagrette (2000, p. 135) sug-

gested that at the level that individuals deepens their

399Identity, Self-Awareness, and Self-Deception

insight into self-deception, ‘we are left with the

paradoxical truth that the self-deceiver ‘‘in his heart’’

knows what he sincerely denies.’ As Kierkegaard

(1959, p. 267) observed, self-deception is a crisis of

spirit and a form of betraying of the self – but is an

attempt to ‘‘bring about a proportionality in the soul,

a harmony, which is the fruit of the personal virtues.’’

Because the nature of self-deception is often

unconscious, the task of self-monitoring our stress,

anxiety, and assumptions about reality is often dif-

ficult to undertake (Mele, 2001). At the same time,

the self-serving bias that is so much a part of self-

deception is universally common and applies to

virtually everyone (Gilovich, 1991). Only when we

consciously make the effort to explore our schemata,

scripts, and frames for viewing the world and to

acknowledge the stresses and conflicts that create

anxiety in our lives are we likely to attune ourselves

to the ongoing self-deception and denial that is

present in our unconscious mind (Goleman, 1985).

Understanding those stresses by an ongoing effort to

know ourselves, acknowledging the impact of stress

in reducing decision quality, and seeking to mitigate

stress to reduce self-deceptive behavior are essential

responsibilities that will enable each of us to honor

our true identities, increase our inner harmony, and

maintain our personal integrity (Mele, 2001).

(5): We owe ourselves the responsibility to periodically

examine whether our conduct is consistent with the beliefs

we proclaim and to confront incongruities between our be-

liefs and our behaviors

In order to be effective, especially in establishing

congruence between our behaviors and beliefs, we

need to clearly understand the often unspoken

assumptions about our beliefs and values that actually

determine how we behave (Schein, 2004; Warner,

2001). In noting that self-deception occurs at both

the individual and organizational levels, Schein’s

(2004, pp. 137–150) research confirms that our

unspoken assumptions often are ‘‘undiscussable’’ and

tacitly off limits for examination. At the same time,

Schein (2004, p. 318) observed that achieving con-

gruence between behaviors and our actual assump-

tions was critical to both individual credibility and

organizational effectiveness.

Goleman (1985, p. 224) referred to subtly agreed

upon ground rules for self-deception as ‘‘questions

that can’t be asked’’ – whether of ourselves or be-

tween parties. This same ‘‘conspiracy of silence’’

often protects inept members of professional groups,

such as physicians or psychiatrists, from the damning

testimony of their peers (Goleman, 1985, p. 225).

Turning internally, our unconscious minds are

unwilling and unable to deal with questions that we

cannot ask ourselves about because we are not

presently able to deal with the disappointments, the

anxieties, and the stress created by acknowledging

that we are being intellectually, emotionally, or

spiritually dishonest (Finagrette, 2000). Lacking the

courage and integrity to acknowledge the conflicts

between two incongruous ideas, we internally justify

our choice by incorporating a subtle moral calculus

that allows us to believe that we have somehow

chosen a greater good (cf. Creed and Miles, 1996;

Weick, 2001; Weick et al., 2005).

White (1988) explained that the self-justification

often associated with self-deception involves exam-

ining our responsibility for an event’s occurrence

and denying responsibility for the unanticipated

events that are caused by our actions. Ultimately,

those who practice self-deception must acknowledge

that their decisions can have a profound impact upon

themselves and upon others (Finagrette, 2000; Mele,

2001). Building into our individual lives and our

organizational systems an inventorying process for

monitoring self-deception seems to be a moral

imperative in a time when self-deception can have

profound potential consequences in individual lives

and for society at large (Goleman, 1985). It is in

bridging the concept of identity, self-awareness, and

self-deception from the individual to the organiza-

tional and societal levels that is often most chal-

lenging for organizational leaders (Covey, 2004, pp.

70–81).

Implications for business

As experts in both academia and business have

examined the keys to organizational effectiveness,

they have confirmed the importance of a clear

understanding of oneself as a key factor in interper-

sonal relationships and organizational outcomes

(Boyatzis and McKee, 2005; Collins, 2001; Collins

and Porras, 2004; Goleman, 2006a, b; Pfeffer, 1998).

Understanding insights about identity, self-awareness,

400 Cam Caldwell

and self-deception has practical implications for

business in six important ways:

(1): Developing a clear insight into ourselves and how we

are perceived is fundamental to establishing effective rela-

tionships

The ability to be self-aware and to understand the

nuances of who we are and how we relate to people

are fundamental elements of emotional and social

intelligence (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006a, b).

The evolving demands placed upon today’s leaders

are increasingly acknowledged as related to the

ability of the leader to resonate with others (Boyatzis

and McKee, 2005). Knowing oneself and being

open to feedback are essential to being perceived as

genuine and authentic (George et al., 2007; Spar-

rowe, 2005). Self-deception destroys the ability to

perceive oneself accurately and creates a false belief

about oneself (Sartre, 1956; Wood, 1988).

(2): Identifying a clear understanding of oneself and how

we are seen by others provides valuable insight in being able

to manage social contracts that exist

Honoring commitments and recognizing the

importance of the social contract are important in

maintaining interpersonal trust and in being per-

ceived as an effective leader (Caldwell and Hayes,

2007). Attuning oneself to feedback from others

about implicit duties that are owed is a fundamental

element of understanding the nature of social con-

tracts and demonstrates one’s commitment to hon-

oring the relationship between the parties (Boyatzis

and McKee, 2005). Self-deception may include the

denial of obligations owed within a relationship and

can undermine one’s reputation for integrity and

honesty (Arbinger, 2002). Rousseau (1995) affirmed

that the duties of social and psychological contracts

are frequently not articulated and the nature of self-

deception is such that the selective rationality of self-

delusion allows us to ignore information that con-

flicts with how we want to see the world (Finagrette,

2000; Smith, 2004). The risk to the self-deceiver is

that in ignoring feedback the resulting self-inflicted

injury can destroy trust and even ruin individual

careers (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005; Cole, 1980).

(3): Conducting a regular personal inventory or self-

assessment can be a powerful aid to goal attainment

The ability to be effective at self-monitoring

and self-leadership has been acknowledged as an

important element for successfully setting and

achieving goals (Carver and Scheier, 1998; Neck and

Houghton, 2006; Oettingen, 1996). Using a model

of self-assessment such as the six beliefs model

(Caldwell and Hayes, 2007) provides individuals

with a structured and highly conscious way to tease

out their beliefs, values, and priorities which are key

to goal achievement. Self-monitoring by examining

inconsistencies between our beliefs and our inten-

tions (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) also provides an

opportunity to reflect on why we may be falling

short in reaching proclaimed goals – and whether

those goals are really what we value in our lives.

Boyatzis and Akrivou (2006) have identified the

importance of our perception of the self in maxi-

mizing goal attainment. When our view of who we

are at the unconscious level is inconsistent with our

espoused goals, our ability to focus rationally on

what we want to achieve is hampered by our self-

deceptions (Mele, 2001).

(4): Acknowledging the incongruence of our behaviors

with our commitments can help organizations avoid

destroying trust

The trust literature affirms that sustaining trust is

dependent upon a leader’s ability to be consistent

and congruent (Joseph and Winston, 2005; Mayer

et al., 1995). Behavior that is incongruent with

proclaimed values erodes trust, while living those

values creates a reputation for honesty and trust-

worthiness (Stephenson, 2004). Because self-decep-

tion causes an individual to be insensitive to the

nature of his or her commitments by unconscious

rationalization, the self-deceiving person is more

prone to overlook duties owed to others (Sanford,

1988).

The stress and denial accompanying self-decep-

tion can cause previously successful individuals to fail

to recognize the vulnerability and distrust that they

engender by their lack of awareness of how they are

being perceived (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005).

Leaders who violate commitments and lose trust

must honor promises, rebuild relationships, and

model personal integrity if they expect to rebuild lost

trust (Schoorman et al., 2007; Stephenson, 2004).

When leaders do not acknowledge the lack of

401Identity, Self-Awareness, and Self-Deception

congruence between their words and their actions,

they destroy trust and undermine faith in the orga-

nization (Schein, 2004) and in themselves (Kouzes

and Posner, 2007).

(5): Understanding the characteristics of self-deception in

individual and organizational relationships increases one’s

awareness of the likelihood of being vulnerable to engaging

in self-deceptive behavior

The Arbinger Institute (2002) has noted that the

blind spots of human behavior and the very nature of

self-deception make it difficult to recognize when

our behavior is self-deceptive and self-defeating.

Consciously examining behaviors, motives, and

assumptions is critical to identifying the traps that are

endemic in unconscious self-deception (Mele,

2001). Goleman (1985) has suggested that we have a

strong moral and ethical obligation to be aware of

the dangers of self-deception in our lives. Lennick

and Kiel (2008) identify confronting reality and

dealing responsibly with consequences as funda-

mental elements of moral intelligence. Boyatzis and

McKee (2005) have encouraged leaders to attune

themselves to understanding how they are perceived

and comparing that feedback with their conception

of themselves. Advocating our increased attention to

that with which we are engaged, Finagrette (2000)

noted the moral threats implicit in self-deceptive

behavior.

(6): Examining moral duties enhances an understanding

of the breadth of obligations owed to other parties and

makes those duties specific

The nature of identity, self-awareness, and self-

deception provides an opportunity to enrich our

understanding of moral duties implicit in human

relationships (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005; Goleman,

1985). Hosmer (1995, 1996) reminded organiza-

tional leaders that relationships based upon trust are

fundamentally ethical assumptions. Caldwell and

Hayes (2007) explained that in evaluating relation-

ships each individual makes inferences about the

ethical behaviors of others via a subjective mediating

lens which consists of a complex but individually

personal ethical component. Identifying the under-

lying ethical assumptions implicit in each person’s

meditating lens allows individuals to identify the

duties that they owe and helps to clarify moral

responsibilities (Caldwell and Clapham, 2003;

Caldwell and Hayes, 2007). Self-deception is the

unconscious process of choosing not to acknowledge

implicit moral duties owed to ourselves and to others

(Finagrette, 2000; Goleman, 1985; Mele, 2001).

By understanding how identity, self-awareness,

and self-deception apply within a business context,

individuals and organizations can enhance relation-

ships, build trust and commitment, and improve

organizational outcomes.

Contributions and future research

The primary contribution of this article is that it

provides a practical insight into the importance of

examining our identity, increasing self-awareness,

and confronting our self-deceptions. Although much

has been written about self-deception over the last

five decades, the practical implications of self-

deception are often difficult to acknowledge simply

because self-deception is fundamentally an uncon-

scious phenomenon (Finagrette, 2000). Identifying

the practical implications of self-deception provides

justification for academicians and practitioners to

invest more efforts into understanding this important

element of our daily lives. Although we may

sheepishly acknowledge that we catch ourselves in

self-deceptions (Arbinger Institute, 2000; Warner,

2001), the implications of our choices often escape

us until we look back in shock at our failure to

honor what we reluctantly acknowledge were ethi-

cal duties (Goleman, 1985).

In addition to providing insights about the ethical

implications of self-deception, this article offers the

following contributions:

1) Affirms the importance of attuning ourselves to

feedback from others. Great leaders resonate

with others because they know themselves

and are attuned to what others think and feel

(Boyatzis and McKee, 2005). Learning how

to be more aware of the perceptions of oth-

ers is a skill set that will benefit those who

seek to be more effective as leaders or in any

relationships (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman,

2006a, b).

2) Confirms the importance of the mediating lens.

The individual subjective ability to define

402 Cam Caldwell

social contracts, assess the trustworthiness of

others, and impose a set of ethical duties in

relationships is an implicit part of human rela-

tionships (Caldwell and Hayes, 2007; Creed

and Miles, 1996; Weick, 1979). Understand-

ing how that lens impacts interpersonal

relationships is an important part of self-assess-

ment, relationship building, and leadership.

3) Validates the importance of ongoing ethical self-

assessment. Those who lead others take upon

themselves a profound set of moral obliga-

tions (Hosmer, 1995, 1996). Identifying our

assumptions about the duties that leaders

owe to others is an implicit responsibility

that often gets lost in the details of day-to-

day administration, resulting inevitably in

inconsistencies between how we act on what

we claim are our values (Schein, 2004).

Although it may be difficult for academicians and

practitioners to measure the sub-conscious and

unconscious nature of self-deception (Finagrette,

2000), many research opportunities exist related to

self-deception. Practitioners interested in improving

trust within their organizations have the opportunity

to measure attitudes of employees about leaders and

perceived trust in context with providing leaders

training about self-deception. Academicians have the

opportunity to research and explore methods for

training individual employees and organizational

leaders about self-deception, self-awareness, and the

application of those concepts within an organiza-

tional context. The greatest value in studying self-

deception may very well lie in increasing our

awareness of the factors and frameworks that per-

petuate this dysfunctional and self-destructive prac-

tice (Warner, 2001).

Conclusion

David Livingstone Smith (2004, p. 146) has ob-

served that ‘‘the conscious mind is relatively blind to

the nuances of social behavior.’’ By understanding

more about ourselves and our unconscious tenden-

cies to self-deceive, we can improve our ability to

build relationships, strengthen organizations, and

confront the fears that cause us to live beneath our

potential. Brower (1964, p. 156) wisely observed

that ‘‘self-examination is a preparation for insight, a

groundbreaking for the seeds of self-understanding

which gradually bloom into changed behavior.’’

Making the commitment to explore the inner

reaches of our hearts and minds allows us to be true

to ourselves and enables us to honor the duties we

owe to self, others, and the society in which we live

(Warner, 2001).

References

Ackerman, L.: 2005, The Identity Code: The 8 Essential

Questions for Finding Your Purpose and Place in the World

(Random House, New York).

Albert, S. and D. A. Whetten: 1985, ‘Organizational

Identity’, in L. L. Cummings and M. M. Staw (eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (JAI Press,

Greenwich, CT), pp. 263–295.

Albrecht, K.: 2006, Social Intelligence: The New Science of

Success (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Aquino, K. and A. Reed II: 2002, ‘The Self-Importance

of Moral Identity’, Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology 83(6), 1423–1440.

Arbinger Institute: 2000, Leadership and Self-Deception:

Getting Out of the Box (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San

Francisco, CA).

Arbinger Institute: 2002, Leadership and Self Deception:

Getting Out of the Box (Berrett-Koehler, Berkeley,

CA).

Ashford, S. J.: 1989, ‘Self-Assessments in Organizations,

A Literature Review and Integrative Model’, Research

in Organizational Behavior 11, 133–174.

Ashforth, B. E. and S. A. Johnson: 2001, ‘Which Hat to

Wear? The Relative Salience of Multiple Identities in

Organizational Contexts’, in M. A. Hogg and D. J. Terry

(eds.), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts

(Psychology Press, Philadelphia), pp. 31–48.

Baumeister, R. F.: 1998, ‘The Self’, in D. T. Gilbert,

S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds.), The Handbook of

Social Psychology, 4th Edition (McGraw-Hill, New

York), pp. 680–740.

Berger, I. E., P. H. Cunningham and M. E. Drumwright:

2006, ‘Identity, Identification, and Relationship

Through Social Alliances’, Academy of Marketing Science

Journal 34(2), 128–137.

Boyatzis, R. E. and K. Akrivou: 2006, ‘The Ideal Self as

the Driver of Intentional Change’, Journal of Manage-

ment Development 25(7), 624–642.

Boyatzis, R. E. and A. McKee: 2005, Resonant Leadership

(Harvard Business School, Boston, MA).

403Identity, Self-Awareness, and Self-Deception

Brewer, M. B. and W. Gardner: 1996, ‘Who is

This ‘‘We’’?: Levels of Collective Identity and

Self-Representations’, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 71, 83–93.

Brower, P. J.: 1964, ‘The Power to See Ourselves’,

Harvard Business Review 42, 156–165.

Brown, A. D. and K. Starkey: 2000, ‘Organizational

Identity and Learning: A Psychodynamic Perspective’,

Academy of Management Review 25(1), 102–120.

Buber, M.: 1971, I and Thou (Free Press, New York).

Buber, M.: 1980, Good and Evil (Charles Scribner’s Sons,

New York).

Burke, P. J.: 1991, ‘Identity Processes and Social Stress’,

American Sociological Review 62(1), 134–150.

Burke, P. J. and D. C. Reitzes: 1981, ‘The Link Between

Identity and Role Performance’, Social Psychology

Quarterly 44(2), 83–92.

Burke, P. J. and J. Tully: 1977, ‘The Measurement of

Role/Identity’, Social Forces 55, 880–897.

Caldwell, C., S. J. Bischoff and R. Karri: 2002, ‘The Four

Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership’, Journal of

Business Ethics 36(1/2), 153–163.

Caldwell, C. and S. Clapham: 2003, ‘Organizational

Trustworthiness: An International Perspective’, Journal

of Business Ethics 47(4), 349–364.

Caldwell, C. and L. Hayes: 2007, ‘Leadership, Trust-

worthiness, and the Mediating Lens’, Journal of Man-

agement Development 26(3), 261–278.

Caldwell, C., L. Hayes, P. Bernal and R. Karri: 2008,

‘Ethical Stewardship: The Role of Leadership Behav-

ior and Perceived Trustworthiness’, Journal of Business

Ethics 78(1/2), 153–164.

Carver, C. S. and M. F. Scheier: 1981, Attention and

Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach to Human

Behavior (Springer-Verlag, New York).

Carver, C. S. and M. F. Scheier: 1998, On the Self-Regu-

lation of Behavior (Cambridge University Press, New

York).

Cole, D. W.: 1980, Professional Suicide (McGraw-Hill,

New York).

Collins, J.: 2001, Good to Great: Why Some Companies

Make the Leap… and Others Don’t (Harper, New York). Collins, J. and J. I. Porras: 2004, Built to Last: Successful

Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperCollins Publish-

ing, New York).

Cooper, R. K. and A. Sawaf: 1997, Executive EQ: Emo-

tional Intelligence in Leadership and Organizations (The

Berkley Publishing Group, New York).

Covey, S. R.: 2004, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to

Greatness (Free Press, New York).

Creed, W. E. D. and R. E. Miles: 1996, ‘Trust in Orga-

nizations: A Conceptual Framework Linking Organi-

zational Forms, Managerial Philosophies, and the

Opportunity Costs of Controls’, in R. M. Kramer and

T. R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers

of Theory and Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA),

pp. 16–38.

Depree, M.: 2004, Leadership is an Art (Doubleday,

New York).

Dickerson, S. S. and M. Kemeny: 2004, ‘Acute Stressors

and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and

Synthesis of Laboratory Research’, Psychological Bulletin

130(3), 355–391.

Festinger, L.: 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

(Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA).

Finagrette, H.: 2000, Self-Deception (University of Cali-

fornia Press, Berkeley, CA).

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen: 1975, Belief, Attitude, Intention,

and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research

(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

Fletcher, C. and C. Bailey: 2003, ‘Assessing Self-

Awareness: Some Issues and Methods’, Journal of

Managerial Psychology 18(5), 395–404.

Flynn, F. J.: 2005, ‘Identity Orientations and Forms of

Social Exchange in Organizations’, Academy of Man-

agement Review 30(4), 737–750.

George, B., P. Sims, A. N. McLean and D. Mayer: 2007,

‘Discovering Your Authentic Leadership’, Harvard

Business Review 85(2), 129–138.

Gilovich, T.: 1991, How We Know What Isn’t So: The

Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life (Free Press,

New York).

Goffee, R. and G. Jones: 2006, ‘The Route to Authentic

Leadership’, Training Journal Nov., 31–34.

Goleman, D.: 1985, Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psy-

chology of Self-Deception (Touchstone, New York).

Goleman, D.: 2006, Social Intelligence: The New Science

of Human Relationships (Bantam Publishing, New York).

Goleman, D.: 2006, Emotional Intelligence: 10th Anniversary

Edition; Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (Bantam

Publishing, New York).

Goleman, D., R. Boyatzis and A. McKie: 2002, Primal

Leadership (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,

MA).

Greenberg, J. S.: 1985, ‘Health and Wellness: A Con-

ceptual Differentiation’, Journal of School Health 55,

403–406.

Hafner, M.: 2004, ‘How Dissimilar Others May Still

Resemble the Self: Assimilation and Contrast After

Social Comparison’, Journal of Consumer Psychology

14(1–2), 187–196.

Hart, D.: 2005, ‘The Development of Moral Identity’,

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 51, 165–196.

Horowitz, M.: 1983, ‘Psychological Response to Serious

Life Events’, in S. Breznitz (ed.), The Denial of Stress

(International Universities Press, New York).

404 Cam Caldwell

Hosmer, L. T.: 1995, ‘Trust: The Connecting Link

Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical

Ethics’, Academy of Management Review 20(2), 379–403.

Hosmer, L. T.: 1996, The Ethics of Management (Irwin,

Chicago, IL).

Hosmer, L. T.: 2007, The Ethics of Management, 6th

Edition (McGraw-Hill, New York).

Joseph, E. E. and B. E. Winston: 2005, ‘A Correlation of

Servant Leadership, Leader Trust, and Organizational

Trust’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal

26(1/2), 6–22.

Josselson, R.: 1994, ‘The Theory of Identity Develop-

ment and the Question of Intervention: An Intro-

duction’, in S. L. Archer (ed.), Interventions for

Adolescent Identity Development (Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 12–25.

Jun, J.: 2005, ‘The Self in the Social Construction of

Organizational Reality: Eastern and Western Views’,

Administrative Theory & Praxis 27(1), 86–111.

Kierkegaard, S.: 1959, Either/Or, Vol. II, W. Lowrie,

Trans (Anchor Books, New York).

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner: 2003, Credibility: How

Leaders Gain It and Lose It, Why People Demand It,

2nd Edition (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Kouzes, J. and B. Posner: 2007, ‘Credibility’, Leadership

Excellence 24(11), 7–8.

Kunda, Z.: 1990, ‘The Case for Motivated Reasoning’,

Psychological Bulletin 108, 480–498.

Kurpis, L., M. Beqiri and J. Helgeson: 2008, ‘The Effects

of Commitment to Moral Self-Improvement and

Religiosity on Ethics of Business Students’, Journal of

Business Ethics 80(3), 447–463.

Langer, E.: 1999, ‘Self-Esteem vs. Self-Respect’, Psy-

chology Today 32(6), 32.

Lennick, D. and F. Kiel: 2008, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing

Business Performance & Leadership Success (Wharton

School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ).

Litz, R. A.: 2003, ‘Cheating at Solitaire: Self-Deception,

Executive Mental Health, and Organizational Perfor-

mance’, Business & Society Review 108(2), 235–261.

Lyubomirsky, S., C. Tkach and M. R. DiMatteo: 2006,

‘What are the Differences Between Happiness and

Self-Esteem’, Social Indicators Research 78(3), 363–382.

Maslow, A. H.: 1962, Toward a Psychology of Being

(D. Von Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ).

Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis and F. D. Schoorman: 1995,

‘An Integration Model of Organizational Trust’,

Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–729.

Mele, A. R.: 2001, Self-Deception Unmasked (Princeton

University Press, Princeton).

Morris, J. A., C. M. Brotheridge and J. C. Urbanski:

2005, ‘Bringing Humility to Leadership: Antecedents

and Consequences of Leader Humility’, Human Rela-

tions 58(10), 1323–1350.

Moshavl, D., F. W. Brown and N. G. Dodd: 2003,

‘Leader Self-Awareness and Its Relationship to Sub-

ordinate Attitudes and Performance’, Leadership &

Organization Development Journal 24(7/8), 407–418.

Moss, S. E. and J. I. Sanchez: 2004, ‘Are Your Employees

Avoiding You? Managerial Strategies for Closing the

Feedback Gap’, Academy of Management Executive 18(1),

32–44.

Neck, C. P. and J. D. Houghton: 2006, ‘Two Decades of

Self-Leadership Theory and Research; Past Develop-

ments, Present Trends, and Future Possibilities’, Journal

of Managerial Psychology 21(4), 270–295.

Newman, L. S.: 1999, ‘Motivated Cognition and Self-

Deception’, Psychological Inquiry 10(1), 59–63.

Oettingen, G.: 1996, ‘Positive Fantasies and Motivation’,

in P. M. Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh (eds.), The Psy-

chology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to

Behavior (Guilford, New York), pp. 236–259.

Peck, M. S.: 1983, People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing

Human Evil (Touchstone, New York).

Peck, M. S.: 1998, The Road Less Traveled and Beyond:

Spiritual Growth in an Age of Anxiety (Touchstone,

New York).

Pfeffer, J.: 1998, The Human Equation: Building Profits

by Putting People First (Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA).

Powers, W. T.: 1973, Behavior: The Control of Perception

(Aldine Publishing Co, Chicago).

Reed, A., K. Aquino and E. Levy: 2007, ‘Moral Identity

and Judgments of Charitable Behaviors’, Journal of

Marketing 71(1), 178–193.

Reid, A. and K. Deaux: 1996, ‘Relationship Between

Social and Personal Identities: Segregation or Inte-

gration?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

71(6), 1084–1091.

Reynolds, S. J.: 2008, ‘Moral Attentiveness: Who Pays

Attention to the Moral Aspects of Life?’, Journal of

Applied Psychology 93(5), 1027–1041.

Reynolds, S. J. and T. L. Ceranic: 2007, ‘The Effects of

Moral Judgment and Moral Identity on Moral Behavior:

An Empirical Examination of the Moral Individual’,

Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6), 610–616.

Rousseau, D.: 1995, Psychological Contracts in Organiza-

tions: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements

(Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks).

Rowan, W., A. Ottncbrcit, K. Ncssclradc Jr. and

P. Cunningham: 2002, ‘On Being Holier Than Thee:

A Social-Psychological Perspective on Religiousness

and Humility’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

41, 227–237.

405Identity, Self-Awareness, and Self-Deception

Sanford, D. H.: 1988, ‘Self-Deception as Rationaliza-

tion’, in B. P. McLaughlin and A. O. Rorty (eds.),

Perspectives on Self-Deception (University of California

Press, Berkeley, CA), pp. 157–169.

Sankar, Y.: 2003, ‘Character Not Charisma is the Critical

Measure of Leadership Excellence’, Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies 9(4), 45–55.

Sartre, J.-P.: 1956, Being and Nothingness, Hazel Barnes,

Trans (Philosophical Library, New York).

Schein, E. H.: 2004, Organizational Culture and Leadership

(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Schiraldi, G. R.: 2001, The Self-Esteem Workbook (New

Harbinger Publications, Oakland, CA).

Schoorman, F. D., R. C. Mayer and J. H. Davis: 2007,

‘An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past,

Present, and Future’, Academy of Management Review

32(2), 344–354.

Shivers-Blackwell, S.: 2006, ‘The Influence of Percep-

tions of Organizational Structure & Culture on

Leadership Role Requirements: The Moderating

Impact of Locus of Control and Self-Monitoring’,

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 12(4),

27–49.

Siegler, F. A.: 1962, ‘Demos on Lying to Oneself’, Journal

of Philosophy 59, 469–475.

Sluss, D. M. and B. E. Ashforth: 2007, ‘Relational Identity

and Identification: Defining Ourselves Through Work

Relationships’, Academy of Management Review 32(1),

9–32.

Smith, T.: 2003, ‘The Metaphysical Case for Honesty’,

Journal of Value Inquiry 37(4), 517–532.

Smith, D. L.: 2004, Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of

Deception and the Unconscious Mind (St. Martin’s Press,

New York).

Sparrowe, R. T.: 2005, ‘Authentic Leadership and the

Narrative Self’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3), 419–439.

Stephenson, C.: 2004, ‘Rebuilding Trust: The Integral

Role of Leadership in Fostering Values, Honesty, and

Vision’, Ivey Business Journal Online Jan/Feb., 1.

Stets, J. E. and P. J. Burke: 2000, ‘Identity Theory and

Social Identity Theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly

63(3), 224–237.

Strauss, J. P.: 2005, ‘Multi-Source Perspectives of Self-

Esteem, Performance Ratings, and Source Agreement’,

Journal of Managerial Psychology 20(5/6), 464–482.

Taylor, S. N.: 2006, ‘Why the Real Self is Fundamental

to Intentional Change’, Journal of Management Devel-

opment 25(7), 643–656.

Warner, C. T.: 2001, Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our

Relationships, Coming to Ourselves (Shadow Mountain

Publishing, Salt Lake City, UT).

Weick, K. E.: 1979, The Social Psychology of Organizing,

2nd Edition (McGraw-Hill, New York).

Weick, K. E.: 2001, ‘Friendly Fire: The Accidental

Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks Over Northern

Iraq’, Administrative Science Quarterly 46(1), 147–151.

Weick, K. E., K. M. Sutcliffe and D. Obstfeld: 2005,

‘Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking’, Organi-

zation Science 16(4), 409–424.

Whetten, D. A. and K. S. Cameron: 2007, ‘Key

Dimensions of Self-Awareness’, in Developing Manage-

ment Skills, 7th Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle

River, NJ).

White, S. L.: 1988, ‘Self-Deception and Responsibility

for the Self’, in B. P. McLaughlin and A. O. Rorty

(eds.), Perspectives on Self-Deception (University of

California Press, Berkeley, CA), pp. 450–484.

Wood, A. W.: 1988, ‘Self-Deception and Bad Faith’, in

B. P. McLaughlin and A. O. Rorty (eds.), Perspectives

on Self-Deception (University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA), pp. 207–227.

Department of Business and Legal Studies,

Paul Quinn College,

Dallas, TX, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

406 Cam Caldwell

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.