Self-Awareness
As you can see, the title of my blog
this week is self-awareness. I, like
many...okay every, student studying leadership have been told almost daily that
self-awareness is critical to becoming an effective leader. The research literature is filled with
references to this and no one seems to disagree. Therefore, I will agree that before one can
effectively lead others they should first know something about themselves. While I was reviewing some of the literature
available on the subject, I did notice some authors use self-knowledge instead
of self-awareness. Awareness and
Knowledge are not absolute synonyms as far as I know, so I decided to look them
up. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2015)
defines self-awareness as: an awareness of one's own personality or
individuality, and self-knowledge as: knowledge or understanding of one's own
capabilities, character, feelings, or motivations. I felt as though self-knowledge was a bit
more comprehensive, so, self-knowledge it is.
I like to have fun with things sometimes, but I absolutely do agree that
knowing yourself is key to success as a leader.
If you are not aware of yourself,
your followers will have a difficult time trying to figure you out, predict
your next request, or even become comfortable around you. If do not have self-knowledge, you could very
well appear to be someone different every day of the week in the eyes of your
followers. I have worked for people that
were inconsistent in there demeanor, attitude, and mood. Be awesome or be an ass, but whatever you
chose, be that consistently. I will figure
out the best way to work with you. I
know that is not the type of difference the prompt asked, but my point remains.
Be whatever you are, and be that consistently.
In a discussion on authentic leadership, Yukl, (2013) noted, "The
self-concepts and self-identities of these leaders are strong, clear, stable,
and consistent. These leaders have a
high self-awareness about their values, beliefs, emotions, self-identities, and
abilities" (p. 351). These are a
few traits and beliefs of the authentic leader.
By reading alone they are everything leadership good, and no leadership
bad.
The point is that their followers
observe this behavior, witness integrity, and feel their confidence on a daily
basis. And, they are positively influenced
by the experience. I do not know if an
authentic leader even exists. Yukl
(2013), draws a picture of the perfect leader in his describing the authentic
leader. These leaders are not looking
for acknowledgement or accolades with their performance and they are not
concerned for their job. They are
motivated by self-improvement and self-verification. Their behavior is
always consistent with their true values sometimes referred to as their true
self.
Not to be the naysayer, but I do not
believe this leader exists. If one does,
he or she would be lonely. That is just
my opinion, of course. However, the
authentic leader model is one that leaders should all aspire to be.
There are some issues with the
authentic leader model. No clear
definition has been presented that is acceptable to all (Yukl, 2013). And, the theory is very new (1990s) to
leadership theory and while it has gotten a great deal of attention, research
and understanding is limited (Ladkin et al., 2009)(Yukl, 2013).
I was a leader in the Air Force for
24 years. I was not the best nor the worst, I was effective. I will give
my opinion first, then I will discuss some of the existing literature. I stared out awkward and clumsy and I got
better over the years. I tried every
theory presented to me in the schools I attended and they served to make
awkward and clumsy also mechanical. I managed to get the job done but my
people probably felt sorry for me and did everything they could to make me look
better. Then it hit me. That is the way it works. A leader gets to know his or her people, well.
He or she assures they have the
resources (tools, equipment, and money) to get the job done quickly and
correctly. He or she knows their
families, what grades their kids are in at school, asks about their
grandmother, prays with them , celebrates with them teaches them, and grooms
them to take over when he or she leaves. In return, the followers take care of the leader.
That is true leadership in one form. Is it true-self? I don't know the answer to that, but I can say
that I was different at home. When I put
on my uniform, I became Chief Boruty, a true part of self that developed over
the years in my work environment. I did
not give or show some parts of me to my followers, but what I allowed them to
see was always the truth. If something happened
out of the ordinary, and it did, I reacted.
I am human. Why would I do
anything differently? I did not over
react. In other words I did not render myself incapable...nor did I effect my
team in any way that I saw or that any of them ever told me. We let it sink in, we regrouped, and we got back to our business. I still believe the only way to lead people
is honestly, openly, and sincerely. Yes,
exceptions do exist and they always will. Handle those issues in the same manner and
move forward.
Research has referred to
authentic leadership as grounded in true self.
Ladkin, et al., (2009) presented a new and different authentic
leadership theory and called it Embodied Authentic Leadership. Their argument was fairly simple, other
theories could not be correct based on a few oversights. One previous premise stated that the leader
had to be true to their values and self as that is what followers used to
assess authenticity. How are values
measured and evaluated, by each follower with consistency. They are not is the answer. Body
language is what sends the message. There
are voluntary and involuntary reactions to input. Humans can control the voluntary, but not the
involuntary. Therefore, if the leader
was inauthentic, the lack of involuntary response immediately proved them true
or not (Ladkin, et al., 2009).
The argument continued that it is
possible to enact true self using parallels derived from method acting. Intelligently put together and simple enough
in construct, the Theory of Embodied Leadership was presented. It incorporates three key aspects which are:
1) self-exposure - leader must be in tune with the involuntary clues their body
generates in different situations, and choose how to express them. To be perceived as authentic, the internal
feelings and emotions must be matched correctly to context, 2) relating -
present in the here and now and in communion with themselves and others in
situation and context at that moment, 3) leaderly choices - you can do
everything right and still get it wrong depending how and when you apply it
(Ladkin, et al., 2009). I cannot argue
against this theory because in theory I think it is probably right. You can
teach a leader to perform in a way that is perceived as authentic, but at best
in only embodies authenticity. Embodied
Authentic Leadership could be the next breakthrough in leadership research.
But, I cannot say that I am fond of it.
Why would we try to turn leaders into actors?
Do we need gimmicks, acts, and sleight
of hand to lead people? I do not think
we do, nor should we use them. The danger is that, as it applies to the theory,
the leader is present in the here and now, but, in reality, they could not be
further distant from their followers. Now
we can finally get to the original purpose for this week's blog. Goffee & Jones, (2006) use several
examples of how an individual's difference or uniqueness can be used to their
advantage and effectiveness. Yes, Bill
Gates is a geek, maybe the geekiest, and he was before he founded Microsoft. It was his self-image and it definitely
served him and Microsoft well. Unfortunately,
I was not familiar with the story of John Harvey-Jones, a UK manufacturing
giant who did the same using his long hair and crazy ties. The list of successful leaders that employed
this strategy of using personal differences to their own advantage and that of
whom they represented include: Akio Morita, founder of Sony, John Latham, head
teacher at an award winning school, Darwin E. Smith, CEO of Kimberly-Clark for
20 years, and Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London (Goffee, & Jones, 2006).
The authors state that none of the
examples they presented were likely planned but probably realized and utilized very
effectively at some point. They used
their differences like a brand or a trademark that tied them specifically to
their life's work. The article
encourages people to look for their own differences, embrace those differences
and lead uniquely. Used appropriately
and in context they convey the right message, are an authentic form of
self-expression, and they are real (Goffee, & Jones, 2006).
These leaders were smart. When they realized that they were being
identified by the things that make them different, they did not enter into a
self-help program, they embraced it. Their
differences were part of their true self from the beginning and they stayed
true to it. It was honest and real; it
was authentic.
I do not know how to answer the
question, what makes me different and able to lead and live according to my
core values? I think the military leader
leads a sheltered life. The culture is that different. I am a hands on, get dirty, care about my
people, love to see them succeed leader. If I were to be defined by any
one of those differences, I would be ecstatic.
References
Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S.
S.,(2009). Enacting the 'true self': Towards a theory of embodied authentic
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64 - 74. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.005.
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, 2015. Online. Retrieved from: www.merriam-webster.com
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations
(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
No comments:
Post a Comment