Self-Leadership and Personality and Individual Values - Literature review Example

Self-leadership may be considered to be 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 that aims at influencing one’s behavior and attitudes in a manner, which results in the facilitation of self motivation and self direction, the two attributes that constitute the quintessence of any attempt to perform optimally or to achieve the coveted goals (qtd. in Conger & Pearce, 2009). This research extends the proposition that self-leadership is strongly related to individuals’ personality traits and values. In the present context, this proposition is to be studied in detail with reference to other researches that point at aspects of self-leadership and individual values/personality along with linkages to relevant theoretical propositions. 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 on 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 attributes 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 the 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 this 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 is most of the times determined to a great extent by the commensurate expectations as to whether an outcome could be attained and the overall magnitude of value that the individual’s mind places on the achievement of that outcome (Isaac, Zerbe & Pitt, 2001, p.214). This suggestion provides sufficient bases 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 while differentiating between self-leadership dimensions and personality dimensions. Through their research, Houghton et al (2004) found that there exists a correlation between an individual’s self leadership tendencies and one’s personality configurations and that a person’s expressions of the varied aspects of self leadership do tend to be the actual behavioral manifestations of one’s 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 affecting 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 any intention to help employees accrue self leadership at work by affiliating to particular motivational strategies may not yield positive results, because some of the results that these strategies claim to furnish may be accrued by the employees out of the job. For instance, strategy to develop positive image for the nature of 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 inculcate self discipline by resorting to job crafting, which tends to value an attribute that employees may glean from somewhere else as well; secondly, employees simply cannot benefit in terms of motivation facilitated by job crafting, as it does not synchronizes with and blends with their value system. Houghton et al.’s (2004) alternative, in line with McCauley and Hughes-James’s (1994) findings, is also true if individuals are exposed to pressure facilitated by outer interventions like management expectations, goals, objectives, targets 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 could not be attributed to self-leadership, but rather to an obligation to achieve, perform and/or act. This constitutes 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) put forth the assertion that the effective managers are endowed with the requisite competencies like team work, leadership attributes, problem solving abilities, a result driven mindset, refined communication skills and customer focus, which happen to be the core competencies that define managerial and organizational success. These competencies also tend to have varied personal dimensions in the sphere of self motivation, discipline, determination, ability to empathize and compassion. These personal traits constitute the fundamental necessitates and requisites that an effective leadership need to have in the contemporary organizational environments, which are imbued with 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 extend useful insights which can be employed to facilitate 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 organizational systems, goals and objectives, cultural differences, coaching and feedback, psychological climate do influence self-leadership, which many not are in consonance with an individual’s 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 20 2011 from, http://search.proquest.com/docview/216368010?accountid=13380 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. . Retrieved December 20 2011 from, http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/10.2307/259134?origin=api 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 19, 2011 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215866136?accountid=13380 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 20 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. 13(2), 212-226. Retrieved December 19, 2011 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194165049?accountid=13380 McCauley, C. and Hughes-James, M.W. (1994). An Evaluation of the Outcomes of a Leadership Development Program. Center for Creative Leadership. Retrieved December 20, 2011 from, http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/EvalOutcomesLDP.pdf 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 20, 2011 from, http://www.academicjournals.org/ajbm/pdf/pdf2011/4Mar/Sahin.pdf Schneider, S.L. (2001). In Search of Realistic Optimism: Meaning, Knowledge and Warm Fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56(3), 250-263. Retrieved December 20 , 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f26b73f7-c41d-48c7-930b-4ac8fe1a4225%40sessionmgr104&vid=2&hid=107. 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 20 2011 from, http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/259118 Read More