The role of the self, stages of development & self-awareness
This is an excerpt from my dissertation literature review:
Coget, A. (2008). Toward Authentic Leadership Crisis Prevention: Identification of Barriers to Relational Authenticity in Self-awareness (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, Marshall Goldsmith School of Management, San Francisco).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Role of the Self
When discussing the personal topic of authenticity, there is one crucial element involved, the self. With the presence of the self in authenticity it is important to comprehend the multidimensionality of the phenomenological self, the self- structure, the role of memory and social construction on cognitive functioning and the development of the self- schema.
Jones and Gerard (1967) define the phenomenological self as a “person’s awareness, arising out of interactions with his environment, of his own beliefs, values, attitudes, the links between them, and their implications for his behavior.” (p.716) Since the emphasis in the definition of phenomenological self of Jones and Gerard is on the masculine gender, I take note that perhaps there is a gender contribution to the phenomenological self. Chan et al (2005) assert that the phenomenological self is a result of a memory store and a constructivist process. The aspect of the self that is the memory store Kihlstrom et al. (1988) purport that “the self is one of the richest, most elaborative knowledge structures stored in memory. “ (p. 150) In addition, as a constructed entity, the self affects current perceptions of reality such “that memories of past actions and outcomes are available in integrated form to clarify current action possibilities” (Jones & Pittman, 1982, p. 232).
Consistent with the authenticity literature, is the concept of self-structure as a multidimensional whole. It is not a one-dimensional system. It is a complex, interconnected and multidimensional phenomenon (Holyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin, 1999). Chan et al (2005) “. . . proposes that the authentic leader holds a core self of super ordinate beliefs, values, attributes and other factors, as well as a leadership role-based self that contains the differentiated, role-base knowledge held in semantic memory.” (p.15) This multidensionality is extremely crucial to understand as this study is looking at how we can learn about how we see ourselves and how we act with others. The multidensionality of the self adds complexity to the phenomenon in relation to how we own our awareness and how we act with others.
Beyond the self that is understood in relation to memory and social construction, Lord, Brown and Freiberg (1999) proposed that there is a time quality to the self-concept whereas one identifies not only a current self-view, but also holds a futuristic possible self. Chan et al (2005) assert “that the clarity of one’s possible authentic self, coupled the drive to attain this possible self, can provide strong motivation for self-development toward authenticity.” (p. 14)
Because there is so much information of the self in memory, some aspect of organization is necessary for cognitive functioning. Markus and Wurf (1987) discuss how self differentiation, or understanding of the true authentic self, occurs when one has the ability to categorize one’s self concept (self-knowledge) according to roles, situations, relationships, traits, states, emotions, and other categorical factors lead to the creation of multiple phenomenological selves. Donahue, Robbins, Roberts, & John (1993) discuss how this inordinate amount of categorization could result in a fragmentation of the self and they continue to propose that this may occur more in people who are high in self monitoring. Moreover, Brewer and Gardner (1996) noted self- schemas are also thought to be held at the individual, relational and group level. This study explores the self-schema at the individual and relational levels using group discussion to explore at a greater level of depth.
When considering how to develop one’s self-schema , many theorists including (Bower & Hilgard, (1981), Hersey, Walsh, Read, & Chulef, (1990) and Lurgio and Carroll (1985) have concluded the complexity and strength of one’s self beliefs stored in long term memory can be advanced by increasing the intensity and frequency of a person’s exposure to trigger events. Trigger events are events that occur that stimulate positive growth in levels of awareness (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). This is also inline with the notion that authentic leadership development occurs over a lifespan whereas during one’s life a number of trigger events occur. (Luthans & Avolio, 2003) Noting how one may develop the self, is important because this study looks at one term of three month authentic leadership episode, so the temporal dimension of developing the self is present in this study.
In summary, the phenomenological self introduced by Jones and Gerard (1967) was mentioned as a masculine version, whereas the present research seeks to explain the experience of a female perspective of the phenomenological self. Also this research seeks to depict the multidimensionality of the self-structure put forth by Holyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin (1999). This research also looks at the temporal quality of memory and social construction put forth by Lord, Brown and Freiberg (1999). Next the present study explores the construction of and relationship between the self-schema at the individual and relational levels (Brewer and Gardner, 1996). Lastly, further conception of the relationship between trigger events and the role of the self could come to light. One notion of the self that has yet to be seen in the authentic leadership is the role of spirituality. As one considers the self in relation to all of the aforementioned categories, there has been little research on the role of spirituality in relation to the self in the authentic leadership literature.
Stages of Self-Development
It is important to note the self is far from stagnant. There are multiple theories highlighting the stages of development the self travels throughout a lifespan (for a comprehensive review see Wilbur, 2000) I have already demonstrated the multidimensionality of the self, so now I will discuss how this multidimensional self develops through different stages. Wilbur (2000) notes “What each of us calls an “I” (the proximate self) is both a constant function and a developmental stream. That is, the self has several functional invariants that constitute its central activity- it is the locus of identity, will, metabolism, navigation, defenses and integration, to name the more important.” (p. 37) Wilbur (2000) continues to point out the self not only goes through the developmental stages, the self is responsible for the integration and balance of all dynamics (different needs, different worldview, different tasks, different problems and pathologies) involved with each stage. Hence the self portrayed in the aforementioned on section on the multidimensional self, is not only multidimensional in its complexity of multiple selves in multiple situations, it is ever developing through the stages of self-development.
For the purpose of this research I will highlight key theories within the stages of self-development. I will begin with psychological development (Kegan, 1982) and then discuss moral development (Kohlberg, 1966). Third I will discuss Gilligan’s theories of gender development (1982), then touching on spiritual development (Wilber, 2000). The stages of self-development are imperative to consider in authentic leadership development because self- awareness and authenticity change one travels through the different stages moreover this development could impact all other leadership related dynamics.
Cognitive Development
Lawrence Kohlberg's six stages of moral meaning making are one of the most accepted models in self-development. His twenty years of research have concluded there are six stages and they are grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional (Kohlberg, 1971,1973, 1981) Following Piaget's constructivist model of development which incorporates:
Sensorimotor period (years 0–2)
Preoperational period (years 2–7)
Concrete operational period (years 7–11)
Formal operational period (years 11 and up)
Each stage has its own substages and inner complexities. In brief, the sensorimotor period is how the infant makes sense of the world through differential innate reflexes. In the preoperational period the child learns to use symbolic thinking enabling to name objects yet in this stage thinking is egocentric and the child has difficulty accepting other’s perspectives. In the third stage of the concrete operational period, in which case logic is developed and the ability to classify objects, take multiple perspectives, reverse concepts, understand quantity, and egocentrism is eliminated. The last stage is the formal operational period whereas the child acquires the ability to think in an abstract way, reason logically and draw conclusions from the available information. During this stage the young adult is able to understand such things as love, "shades of gray", logical proofs, and values. (Piaget, 1954). As you can see there are different areas of emphasis within each level so this impacts self-awareness within each stage.
Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg (1966), took Piaget’s developmental constructionist perspective to make his cognitive theory of moral development. In which he reiterated the process of moving through stages noting each stage provides a necessary perspective and is more comprehensive, differentiated and integrated than it predecessor hence the notion a stages must be moved through and not skipped (Kohlberg, 1966). The stages are:
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) – The type of reasoning in this stage is egocentric. The
concern is with an authoritarian orientation to obedience and punishment. The self is
concerned about self interest. This is where the I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine
phenomenon occurs (Kohlberg, 1973) This can occur in children or adults (Kohlberg,
1973).
Stage 1 - Obedience and punishment orientation
Stage 2 - Self-interest orientation
Level 2 (Conventional) – The type of reasoning represented in this stage are that of interpersonal accord and conformity. The self is concerned with authority and maintaining social order. This stage can occur in adolescents and adults (Kohlberg, 1963) There is comparison of the morality of actions to those actions of societal views and expectations.
Stage 3 - Interpersonal accord and conformity
Stage 4 - Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
Level 3 (Post-Conventional) – The type of reasoning in this stage is oriented with the social contract. The notion that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is concerned in this stage, e.g. laws. The self is concerned with ethical principles like democracy and compromise (Kohlberg, 1963). The realization and understanding the self is separate from society and that one’s own views should be viewed before society’s views. In the final stage, moral reasoning is based on principles where action is taken dependent on imagining one could be in someone else’s shoes. This allows decisions to be made simply because it is the right thing to do. Kohlberg (1963) noted people rarely if ever reach the final stage of universal ethical principles.
Stage 5 - Social contract orientation
Stage 6 - Universal ethical principles
Levels of morality are important to take into consideration for the authentic leadership development process (CITE). Every leader has moral choices to make and as self-awareness and authenticity come into deeper understanding, more light may be shed on the topic of the relationship between self-awareness, relational authenticity and stages of moral development.
Psychological Development
Building on Kholberg’s theories, Kegan’s (1982) theory of psychological development has been noted in the authentic leadership literature (CITE). In his pivotal book The Evolving Self, Kegan presents a model of psychological development consisting of six equilibrium stages. Developmental theorists tend to show shifts in the subject-object relationships to define the stages thus in Kegan’s model, the object of each stage is the subject of the preceding stage. When explaining the etymology of the word, object, he says,
“The root (ject) speaks first of all to a motion, an activity rather than a thing- more particularly, to throwing. Taken with the prefix, the word suggests the motion or consequence of “thrown from” or “thrown away from.” “Object” speaks to that which some motion has made separate or distinct from, or to the motion itself. “Object relations,” by this form of reasoning, might be expected to have to do with our relations to that which some motion has made separate or distinct from us, our relations to that which has been thrown from us, or the experience of this throwing itself.” (p. 76)
What Kegan labels as the first order of consciousness is really the second stage of development. The first stage covers the period of time from birth until a child has become aware of and interactive with its environment. During this stage the child senses little separation between its interior world and the environment. At the second stage of development, or first order consciousness, the child has begun to become "conscious" in the way we typically understand the word. The child can communicate clearly, and begins to develop a nascent sense of ego-self, or the sense of separate identity that evolves and matures as the mind develops from childhood to adulthood, but it does not fully perceive the meaning of "the other." By second order consciousness, the child has begun to understand the "other," and is able to see things from another's perspective, but not with priority. With third order consciousness a person gains the ability to fully perceive another's perspective, and defines the way they interact with others by very specific rules. With fourth order consciousness a person's perception and identification continue to expand, allowing them to identify with multiple perspectives. Their relationship to the world is guided by an understanding of the importance of the group, though the self is still considered primary. The last stage, fifth order consciousness, is a multi-perspective worldview that tries to see all other viewpoints and order them into a coherent framework. Persons at this stage do not simply consider how they relate to others, or groups of others, but how all groups and individuals interrelate. (Kegan, 1982)
1 Incorporative stage: The subject of the incorporative stage are reflexes, and it has no object.
2 Impulsive stage: The subjects of the impulsive stage are the individual's impulses and perceptions, and its objects are the reflexes.
3. Imperial stage: The subject of the imperial stage are the individual's needs, interests, and desires, and its objects are the individual's impulses and perceptions.
4. Interpersonal stage: The subject of the interpersonal stage are interpersonal relationships and mutuality, and its objects are the individual's needs, interests, and desires.
5. Institutional stage: The subject of the institutional stage are the individual's authorship, identity, and ideology, and its objects are interpersonal relationships and mutuality.
6. Inter-individual stage: The subject of the inter-individual stage is the interpenetrability of self-systems, and its objects are the individual's authorship, identity, and ideology.
Psychological development is imperative to consider in authentic leadership development. As leaders begin their self development with the authentic leadership development model, perhaps an analysis of the cognitive, moral, and psychological development should be allocated. This is important because the level of self-awareness and authenticity may be different in each stage. Since all of the above models of stages of development have a life span development and so does authentic leadership development it may prove beneficial for each leader to understand which stages they are in and need to travel through in order to truly achieve a progress in self-development.
Women’s Moral Development
Carol Gilligan (1982) added a feminist approach to Kohlberg’s theory whereas she asserted that women have a different experience in moral development than men. She came to this conclusion after discovering Kohlberg’s model of development was based on an all male population hence studied women’s development. Similar to Kohlberg’s theory, Gilligan’s theory has three major divisions: preconventional, conventional and post conventional. Her theory is built on the understanding that women transition between stages by changes in the self instead of changes in cognitive ability. She combined the paradigms of Freud’s ego development with Kohlberg and Piaget yet she also pointed out all of their aforementioned developmental systems are based on a male-centered view (Gilligan, 1982). Pointing out the one dimension of moral reasoning is inadequate, Gilligan introduced the idea of multidimensional development which incorporates the relationship between the social environment and the self (Gilligan, 1982). She points out that the pattern for development for women is based on the ethic of caring which is rooted in an emphasis of connectedness. Gilligan (1982) explains this difference,
“In view of the evidence that women perceive and construe social reality differently from men and that these differences center around experiences of attachment and separation, life transitions that invariably engage these experiences can be expected to involve women in a distinctive way. And because women’s sense of integrity appears to be entwined with an ethic of care, so that to see themselves as women is to see themselves in a relationship of connection, the major transitions in women’s lives would seem to involve changes in the understanding and activities of care.”(p. 171)
In summary, Gilligan trail blazed a path of thinking in human development by involving women. She deconstructed the traditional theories grounded in the biases of men and added the context of lived experiences of women. As her work points out the difference in the gender experience in terms of human development, it may behoove the field of authentic leadership development to also look into the gender difference phenomenon as pointed out by Eagly (2005). Because I am a woman, the main protagonist of the research, it is imperative to note that as I have incorporated data from my personal experience in authentic leadership development, this leadership experience is rooted from a culmination of my experiences being a woman.
Spiritual Development
Another component to self-development is the spiritual component. Since my personal experience in this authentic leadership experience was fueled by an overwhelming sense of spiritual mission, it is important to explore the role of spirituality in authentic leadership development; more specifically, the aspect of spirituality as a component of self-awareness and its role in relational authenticity.
The absence of spirituality in most management literature is startling and has been noted by Mitroff (????) among other researchers. Wilbur (2000), noted
“The spiritual dimension, it was solemnly announced, was nothing but a wish-fulfillment of infantile needs (Freud), an opaque ideology, for oppressing the masses (Marx), or a projection of human potentials (Feuerback). Spirituality is thus a deep confusion that apparently plagued humanity for approximately a million years, until just recently, a mere few centuries ago, when modernity pledged allegiance to sensory science, and then promptly decided that the entire world contained nothing but matter, period.” (p. 55)
Wilber (2000) continues his ferocious opinion about how this has impacted scientific reality,
“The bleakness of the modern scientific proclamation is chilling. In that extraordinary journey from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit, scientific materialism halted the journey at the very first stage, and proclaimed all subsequent developments to be nothing but arrangements of frisky dirt. Why this dirt would get right up and eventually start writing poetry was not explained. Or rather, it was explained by dumb chance and dumb selection, as if two dumbs would make a Shakespeare. The sensorimotor realm was proclaimed the only real realm, and it soon came to pass that mental health would be defined as adaptation to that “reality”. Any consciousness that saw something other than mater was obviously hallucinating.” (p.55)
Aristotle (n.d.) noted in order to experience authenticity one must embrace a connection with spirit so science that has yet to embrace the presence of spirit in topics such as self-awareness and relational authenticity. Since positive psychology claims to have Aristotelian roots (Seligman, 2003), it is important for all topics branching from this foundation must incorporate spirituality in some sense.
In this dissertation, it is through a developmental lens in which spirituality is incorporated. Looking to Ken Wilber for literature of spiritual development for he is one of the more modern comprehensive spiritual developmental theorists he has incorporated five different definitions of spirituality to explain spiritual development. Some of the definitions have stages and some do not. Due to the latency of understanding of spirituality and its role in the workplace, leadership development, and authenticity, the current research is strictly theoretical in this area.
Wilber’s (2000) definitions of spirituality are as follows,
“(1) Spirituality involves the highest levels of any of the developmental lines. (2) Spirituality is the sum total of the highest levels of any of the developmental lines. (3) Spirituality is itself a separate developmental line. (4) Spirituality is an attitude (such as openness or love) that you can have at whatever stage you are at. (5) Spirituality basically involves peak experiences, not stages.” (p. 129)
The first definition explicitly describes stage like or sequential development. It is concerned with what Wilber refers to as the post-postconventional stages. Aspects of spirituality under this definition are concerned with the “… noblest motives, the best of aspirations; the farther reaches of human nature; the most highly evolved, the growing tip, the leading edge- all of which point to the highest levels in any of the lines.” (p. 130) This is of particular interest for authentic leadership development since there is no developmental assessment of self-development to discern which stage a leader is in prior to becoming a bonified leader let alone an authentic leader.
The second definition is similar to the first as it is a combination of the higher levels of development. However there is not a hierarchical theory of development but more of a stage that is comprehensive of multiple other stages yet without a specific order. Again this is important to authentic leadership development because as Aristotle asserted, embracing the human sense of spirit is essential for authenticity. Therefore spirituality may be an essential component for authentic leadership development.
Thirdly, being that spirituality would be a stage in and of itself, offers the assumption it is developmental. After comparing over two dozen self – development theories from both the East and the West side of spirituality it was found that most present convincing evidence there is a sequential and developmental aspect to spiritual development (Wilber, 2000). Hence this definition offers spirituality is a developmental system in and of itself so if this is true and positive psychology claims Aristotelian epistemological roots then spiritual development may be a pre-requisite before authentic leadership development is possible.
The next definition focuses on spirituality as an attitude which is the most common and most popular (Wilbur, 2000). It encompasses aspects of love, openness, and integration yet Wilber points out that each one may be experienced at different levels of development in different ways so this means there is also different experiences of love, openness and integration at each level or stage. However, as it is popular, this definition has limited coherent examples (Wilber, 2000). The variety between each experience and understanding of the reality of love, openness, and integration can be detrimental for objective measures of authentic leadership development. This is assumed that love, openness and integration become core competencies as they may be that of Aristotle’s daimon, or spirit consequently it would be crucial of authentic leadership development to incorporate specific values held by an authentic leader. This being said, the developing of love, openness, and integration would add a whole new espoused dimension of spirituality to authentic leadership development.
The final definition of spirituality offered involves peak experiences. If spirituality by this definition is construed from individual experiences it is by the nature not developmental or stage like. Taking note of what peak experiences involve, Wilber (2000) offers, “psychic, subtle, causal, or nondual peak experiences interpreted through archaic, magic, mythic, or rational structures- and each of those show stage – like development” (p.134). These peak experiences can occur at any level of development. Within the authentic leadership development model (See Figure ?.? ), there is a component of ‘trigger events’ occurring which impacts the self awareness and self regulation of the leader. As further research is explored in this area of trigger events it may be there is in fact a spiritual component.
Taking into account all five definitions of spirituality, Wilber (2000) begs the question does psychological development have to be completed before spiritual development can begin?” (p. 135) He notes this is depending on the definition where as if one accepts a definition of spirituality as a “… separate line of development, the answer is ‘No’ (because it occurs alongside, not on top of, psychological development.) If spirituality is defined as peak experience the answer is also ‘No’ (because that can occur at any time.” (p.135) The other definitions offer more complexity to this question because “… the spiritual comes only after the psychological in any given line, nonetheless all sorts of spiritual developments can occur before, alongside, or after, all sorts of psychological developments, precisely because the lines themselves are relatively independent.” (p. 135) Wilber (2000) continues to purport an individual can be at multiple phases of development in different categories of life at the same time. Hence, “… overall psychological development does not have to be completed before any sort of spiritual development can occur.” (Wilber, 2000; p.135)
Due to the multiplicity of definitions of spirituality and their related understanding of development, spiritual development is still in its infancy of theoretical understanding. So as authentic leadership development literature begins to accept the inevitability (because positive psychology is based in Aristotelian roots) of including spirituality the development system may prove to be complex and arduous in its theoretical understanding let alone practical in its efficacy. The present research seeks to explore the notion of spirituality in the experience of authentic leadership development.
If authenticity is defined as “..owning and acting as one’s true self” (Harter, 2002) the self is essential to authenticity. Since the self is fundamental in authenticity, all different components of the self are also essential. The dynamic complexity of the self is crucial to take into consideration. As the self moves through the different inevitable stages of development, it is important to capture and make explicitly known the progress during different time frames throughout the lifespan development of authentic leadership. It is also important for authentic leadership development to consider there may be a different experience for women in the developmental experience as gender is a significant component of the self. Lastly, the acceptance of spirituality as a factor in the self and in the stages of development are addressed in the current research because of the presence of the feeling of a strong spiritual calling. A calling orientation toward work “… is usually associated with the belief that the work contributes to the greater good and makes the world a better place” (Wrzesniewski, 2003; p. 301). Exploring authentic leadership development, it is clear the self plays a strong role. The dynamism of the self is crucial to incorporate in the understanding of authenticity. The different stages of self development are also crucial to take into consideration. The one element of the self that is consistently present with the self in each level of development is self-awareness. This component of the authentic leadership development model is elementary in understanding and is explored in depth through the current research.
Self-Awareness
As it is important to note the complexity of the self, the current stage of self development it is also imperative to explore self-awareness as it relates with authenticity. A consensus is developing in regard to self-awareness as an important starting point for authentic leadership and a heightened level of self-awareness is required for authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Duval and Wicklund (1972) were first to introduce theories of self- awareness. They noted the difference between objective self- awareness and subjective self-awareness, “When attention is directed inward and the individual’s consciousness is focused on himself, he is the object of his own consciousness—hence ‘objective’ self awareness” (Duval & Wicklund, 1972, p. 2). Subjective self- awareness occurs when a person “experiences himself as the source of perception and action” (Duval & Wicklund, 1972, p. 3). Duval and Wicklund (1972) used only a few constructs, relations, and processes to develop these theories. To bring attention to the self was the core of self-evaluation (Silva & Duval, 2001); hence development of self-awareness occurred. Yet as this occurred, there was an automatic comparison of the self versus perceived societal standards (Silva & Duval, 2001). Whereas a standard is “…defined as a mental representation of correct behavior, attitudes, and traits … All of the standards of correctness taken together define what a ‘correct’ person is” (Duval & Wicklund, 1972, pp. 3, 4). As noted earlier, Kernis describes self-awareness as “having awareness of and trust in one’s motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions” (p. 13). This method of thinking implies there is one correct self-awareness or one correct person, or one correct form of authenticity.
If authenticity is in fact “being true to oneself” and is owning and acting with accordance to each other then the multidimensionality of the self must be honed so every authentic leader has the exact same self-awareness. That is so one can achieve true authenticity. This type of thinking is impossible given the uniqueness of each person and that person’s personal experience. It seems there is an inherent flaw with the understanding that each person’s motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions need to be inline with the standards externally. Impacting authentic leadership this difference between self- awareness as noted objectively by the self and the comparison with standards of society, the organization, or even the family could in fact prohibit uniqueness of the true self to be repressed or ignored. Or if the self experiences failure a process of understanding the failure as it relates to the self is plausible. The current research explores this phenomenon because I was an authentic leader in development within a leadership experience where failure was the outcome consequently this research looks into the self-awareness and relational authenticity for a likely cause of failure.
Early research in self-awareness showed a heightened self-focus which had a main effect on attributions. Self-focused individuals saw themselves as more responsible for both positive and negative aspects (Duval & Wicklund, 1973). Duval and Duval (1983, 1987) advocate how a person comes to attribute failure to the self is through the intersection of the self-to-standard comparison system. This system is goal directed with a preferred state (Rudner, 1966). The preferential state is where the self and standards are identical. Yet when failure is perceived through the goal directed attribution system the preferential state is when the effects are connected with the most probable causes (Heider, 1944, 1958). It is the interplay between the motives of the two systems where success or failure is attributed to the self or to an external possible cause (Silva & Duval, 2001). Research has found people who are highly self-focused attribute failure to the self when they felt they could improve (Duval & Duval, 1983, 1987; Duval & Silvia, 2002) The current research illustrates a personal account of myself reflecting on my failure in a leadership experience during authentic leadership development highlighting the perspective of my self- awareness and relational authenticity.
Noting this research is a personal account of my self awareness during the leadership experience it is imperative to understand that self awareness is indeed a continuum (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Day, 2000; George, 2003; London, 2002). Therefore, at the time of this research it is likely my self-awareness is different now, years after the fact. Avolio and Gardner (2005) describe self-awareness as an emergent process where one is constantly coming to “. . . understand his or her unique talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and desires. It can include having a basic and fundamental awareness of one’s knowledge, experience, and capabilities” (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 324). These components of self-awareness were used to build relevant models from the data in the current research.
The literature also shows that self-awareness is linked to self-reflection, which is in support of the use of archival data in this study. “We view self-awareness in part as being linked to self-reflection; by reflecting through introspection, authentic leaders gain clarity and concordance with respect to their core values, identity, emotions, motives, and goals” (Gardner et al., 2005, p. 347).
Some of the researchers in the literature discussed what it would be like for someone to gain self-awareness: “Gaining self-awareness means working to understand how one derives and makes meaning of the world around us based on introspective self-reflective, testing of our own hypotheses and self-schema” (Gardner et al, 2005, p. 347). Moreover, Silva and Duval (2001) introduced the concept that a high level of awareness occurs when individuals are cognizant of their own existence, and what constitutes that existence within the context within which they operate over time. Gardner et al. (2005) suggested that a more authentic self would spend time learning who she is and what she values while authentic leaders build understanding and a sense of self that provides a firm anchor for their decision and actions. Gardner et al. also introduced four components of self-awareness that are particularly important in authentic leadership development: values, cognitions regarding identity, emotions, and motives, or goals.
In summary, self-awareness is a fundamental component to authenticity and is the first place to start when considering authentic leadership development. Self-reflection has been identified as a way of increasing self-awareness, and this study is based on self-reflection of the leader two years after the data were collected.
To find out more about our leadership, happiness, and positive psychology courses visit our website at www.happinessforhumankind.com