Self Leadership and Individual Values - Essay Example

?Running head: self-leadership Self leadership and personality and/or individual values Self-leadership may be considered as a philosophy rather than a definable concept. This philosophy is derived from or based on individual values and principles that create a character embodying leadership attributes in an individual. Houghton et al., (2003) define self-leadership as the process of influencing oneself to achieve the self-direction and self-motivation needed to perform or achieve desired goals (qtd. in Conger & Pearce, 2009). This research arrives at the proposition that self-leadership is strongly related to individuals’ personality traits and values. In the present context, this proposition is studied in detail with reference to other researches that point at aspects of self-leadership and individual values/personality along with linkage to relevant theoretical proposition. Alternative and contradictory propositions from various other researches related to this concept are also studied. The correlation between self-leadership and personality and/or individual values has been extensively explored, debated and analyzed by researchers from the fields of psychology, management, sociology as well as history and political sciences. Literature produced by psychologists and management specialists will be reviewed in the present context. Individual values with respect to self-leadership refer to norms, beliefs, goals, affiliations, and needs; individual personality refers to attitude, behavior, traits etc. Houghton et al (2004) conducted extensive research on impact of personality on self-leadership, which established strong correlation between personality traits and self-leadership. This extensive study throws light on almost every conceivable aspect of self-leadership and the related practical aspects of personality traits that shape the individual’s leadership of the self. The researchers claim that their study was the first one to explore empirical relationship between self-leadership and personality traits through leadership traits such as behavior-focused, natural reward and constructive thought with personality traits such as extraversion, emotional stability, and conscientiousness. Houghton et al (2004) quote other authors (Turner et al, 1982) that believed personality traits and self-leadership were unrelated; and that self-leadership is a unique concept. However, this seminal work reinforced the relationship between self-leadership and personality traits. Porter and Lawler’s (1968) elaboration of Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy Theory of Motivation on individual’s behavior suggests that individual’s effort will be determined by expectation that an outcome may be attained and the degree of value placed on the outcome in the person’s mind (Isaac, Zerbe & Pitt, 2001, p.214). This suggestion provides sufficient base to ascertain that self-leadership and individual values and personality are related. Keeping this notion in mind, various researches will be studied and analyzed in order to understand different perspectives that have been framed on this concept. Houghton et al’s (2004) research explored the relation between self-leadership and personality traits alongside differentiating between self-leadership dimensions and personality dimensions. Through their research, Houghton et al (2004) found that a person’s self-leadership tendencies and personality configurations are closely related and that the self-leadership dimensions are behavioral manifestations of personality traits. However, this research also established a point to debate that the relationship between self-leadership and personality traits is positive only if the individual was never exposed to self-leadership activities; however, the same cannot be true if the individual obtains formal training on self-leadership behavior and that the personality traits really do not matter in acquiring self-leadership. This point was previously established through McCauley and Hughes-James’s (1994) leadership development program in which self-leadership for effecting any kind of improvement actually came from intensive feedback and coaching. In the absence of external intervention, self-governance is marred by individual’s original nature/attitude, thereby ruling out possibilities of self-leadership. Another perspective of relation between self-leadership and individual values is that presented by Judge and Locke (1993), in relation to job satisfaction, in which they support the argument presented by Hulin et al (1985) and Smith et al (1969) that individuals tend to relate their past experiences with relevant or experienced outcomes, which in turn decide their future course of action. With reference to job satisfaction, which denotes self-esteem and self-awareness, individuals tend to relate to past outcomes through comparisons. Sahin (2011) relates self-leadership with higher self-esteem, communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and better management through a positive psychological climate. This reinforces the argument presented by Houghton et al.’s (2004) research, McCauley and Hughes-James’s (1994) study. On a different note, Asforth and Kreiner (1999) had related individual values with self-leadership through their work on studying the self-motivation of people performing the so-called ‘dirty work’ with lower occupational prestige in others’ view. People are involved in such work with pride that they attach to certain occupational ideologies to lower the impact of stigmatization of such occupations. Here, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) propose various strategies to mitigate the negative impressions of ‘dirty work’ for both existing and new workers, which influence the workers’ perception and attitude towards the work. A few strategies include elevating the identity and collective esteem. These strategies can influence or create positive value for the work only if the individuals’ values (goals, beliefs, and understanding) are aligned to the positive value attached to the work. Individuals, in this context, workers, tend to attach subjective evaluation of the strategies on their momentary and enduring values and also on perceived situational constraints (Schneider, 2001). Considering Houghton et al.’s (2004) proposition that self-leadership and individual values/personality are related, it would be difficult to address certain contradictions produced by other studies. Houghton et al.’s (2004) study missed the argument presented by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) who had earlier argued that attempting to help employees develop self-leadership at work through specific motivational strategies may not be effective because certain values that these strategies promise may be acquired by the employees out of the job. For instance, strategy to develop positive image for the nature job could be earned by the employee through association with the company itself and hence nature of job would really not matter. In such situation, instilling discipline and determination for better performance may not be possible. This argument presents a paradoxical view that supports as well as contradicts Houghton et al’s (2004) point. Firstly, managers may not be able to instill self-leadership by focusing on job crafting that would value something that employees would acquire from elsewhere; secondly, employees would not be motivated with outcome of job crafting because it does not fit in their value system. Houghton et al.’s (2004) alternative, in line with McCauley and Hughes-James’s (1994) finding, is also true if individuals are pressurized through external interventions such as goals, objectives, targets, management expectations etc. These pressures automatically condition the individual to assume certain qualities, which could facilitate achievement through self-determination, self-efficacy, self-motivation and discipline. However, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation gives sufficient ground to argue that self-leadership may not be achieved through external intervention until the external interventions are a part of the individual’s value system. If the external interventions are not a part of the individual’s value system, then individual’s achievement, performance, actions are not because of self-leadership, but an obligation to achieve, perform and/or act. This forms an important learning for leaders/managers in the contemporary workplace that is laden with vast opportunities for employees to choose from. If leaders/managers are able to identify or assess their employees’ needs and their values, then they can not only motivate the employees by helping them achieve their valued outcomes but also make them self-motivated leaders. Based on their research, Abraham et al (2001) asserted that successful managers possess competencies such as leadership skills, customer focus, results oriented, problem solver, communication skills and team worker as the core competencies for managerial and organizational success. These competencies also relate to personality traits such as discipline, compassion, determination, and self-motivation. These personality traits form the basic requirements of leaders in the contemporary workplace, which exemplify self-leadership. Hofstede’s (1980) groundbreaking work on impact of cultural conditioning on leadership and management styles lays a different paradigm to the relationship between self-leadership and individual values/personality for contemporary leaders. This can be best understood by relating the impact of psychological climate on self-leadership, as explained by Sahin (2001). Multinational corporations that employ individuals from different regions of the world bring diverse leadership to the workplace. In such situations, blending individuals’ personality and value system with the psychological climate that is partly influenced by organizational culture, systems and policies would become extremely difficult; this would in turn affect motivation, self-determination and focus of the individual. Considering the implications of cultural dimensions on management and leadership, as explained by Hofstede (1980), leaders/managers have to not only learn cultural differences but also spread awareness of these differences among foreign nationals so that the differences and/or psychological climate has little effect on their job satisfaction, motivation and commitment levels. To conclude, various researches considered in this review provide useful insight which can be employed towards better leadership and management. Both theory and research establish a positive relationship between self-leadership and individual values/personality to some extent. However, influences from external factors such as goals and objectives, coaching and feedback, psychological climate, cultural differences, and organizational systems have an effect on self-leadership, which may not be in line with the individuals’ value system. These conditions provide useful insight for leaders/managers to understand their employees’ needs and expectations and values, which determine their behavior and attributes of self-leadership. These implications also provide sufficient opportunity for future research related to self-leadership, which can be used to frame new models of management in contemporary workplace. References Abraham, S.T., Karns, L.A., Shaw, K., & Mena, M.A. (2001). Managerial competencies and managerial performance appraisal process. Journal of Management Development, 20(10), 842-852. Retrieved December 12 2011 from, http://www.ctu.edu.vn database. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 21, 413-434. Houghton, J,D, Bonham, T.W, Neck, C.P, Singh, K (2004). The relationship between self- leadership and personality: A comparison of hierarchical factor structures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (4), 427 – 441. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu database. Conger, J.A and Pearce, C.L. Using Empowerment to Motivate People to Engage in Effective Self-and Shared Leadership. Locke, E (Ed.) Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-Based Management. (2nd ed. , pp:201-216). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1), 42-63. Retrieved December 13 2011 from, http://alangutterman.typepad.com/files/motivation-ldrshp-and-orgn-do-american-theories.pdf. Isaac, R.G, Zerbe, W.J and Pitt, D.C. (2001). Leadership and Motivation: The Effective Application of Expectancy Theory. Journal of Managerial Issues. 8(2), 212-226. Retrieved December 9, 2011 from http://www.cs.unca.edu. McCauley, C. and Hughes-James, M.W. (1994). An Evaluation of the Outcomes of a Leadership Development Program. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Sahin, F. (2011). The Interaction of Self-Leadership and Psychological Climate of Job Performance. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1787-1794. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from, Academic Journals database. Schneider, S.L. (2001). In Search of Realistic Optimism: Meaning, Knowledge and Warm Fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56(3), 250-263. Retrieved December 11, 2011 from http://commonsenseatheism.com. Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. Retrieved December 12 2011 from, http://www.centerforpos.org Read More