See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309067715

Self-efficacy and self-awareness: moral insights to increased leader

effectiveness

Article  in  Journal of Management Development · October 2016

DOI: 10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0011

CITATIONS READS
27 8,342

2 authors, including:

Cam Caldwell

301 PUBLICATIONS   2,079 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Motivation and the Pursuit of Excellence View project

Selecting for Flair Factors View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cam Caldwell on 17 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Self-Efficacy and Self-Awareness:
Moral Insights to Increased Leader Effectiveness
In Aleichem’s enchanting tale, “Fiddler on the Roof,” the milkman, Tevye, explains that

for each person in the village of Anatevka it is vital to understand who he is and without that

knowledge, “our lives would be as shaky . . . As a fiddler on the roof” (Stein and Bock, 2004,

Prologue). In today’s chaotic and constantly evolving world (Cameron, 2003), effective leaders

must also know who they are (Covey, 2004) and how to achieve their desired goals (DePree,

2004). As leaders strive to achieve excellence, they recognize that developing self-efficacy and

self-awareness can empower them to unlock the potential of their organizations and those with

whom they work (Chaterjee, 1998).

This paper identifies the relationships between self-efficacy and self-awareness and the

moral obligations of leaders in developing these personal qualities. We begin by providing a

literature review of the constructs and identify six propositions about leadership effectiveness

associated therewith. We conclude by identifying five contributions of this paper to

understanding effective leadership.

Review of the Literature

Although management scholars differ in the nuances of their definitions, we identify

integrated definitions of key constructs as they relate to the leader’s responsibilities. Effective

leadership requires profound personal insight (Lussier, 2013, p. 66-71), and leaders owe a

complex set of moral duties to themselves and others (Caldwell, 2012).

1
Moral Duties of Leaders

Cameron (2003), Pfeffer (1998), and Kouzes and Posner (2012) are representative of the

highly regarded scholars who emphasize that leaders owe moral duties to stakeholders to

create long-term wealth and assist employees to achieve their highest potential. DePree (2004,

p. 11) described leaders as “servants and debtors” in honoring duties. Paine (2002) emphasized

that leaders achieved superior performance only when they merge normative social and

instrumental financial imperatives in creating value-based and principle-centered organizations.

Other scholars have emphasized the obligation of leaders to be “stewards” who serve

others (Hernandez, 2012). Trevino and colleagues (2000) explained that ethical leaders were

both “moral persons” and “moral managers” who exemplified virtues while seeking optimal

organizational outcomes. Cameron (2011) argued that leaders have the duty to be truly

“virtuous” in creating wealth, honoring duties, and adding value. Shao, Aquino, and Freeman

(2008) emphasized that the personal identity and moral identity of leaders must merge to be

perceived as trustworthy and authentic.

Leaders must balance conflicting ethical perspectives to arrive at a morally sound

framework in weighing ethical, legal, and financial consequences (Hosmer, 2010, Ch. 1). Moral

leaders 1) do no harm, 2) create value in the short term, and 3) create value in the long term

(Lennick and Kiel, 2008). The ability to balance conflicting expectations and complex demands

requires that leaders understand who they are, what they value, and the consequences of their

actions (Covey,2004).

Identity and Moral Leadership

2
 Identity encompasses that which is central, distinctive, and enduring, and one’s moral

choices reflect the way in which (s)he views the self (Caldwell, 2012). For millennia, moral

philosophers have encouraged man to pursue the highest good within themselves (Kant and

Walker, 2009). Implicit in this pursuit of one’s highest potential is the obligation to constantly

review one’s standards and the extent to which one meets them (Stets and Burke, 2014).

Those who fail to formally examine and reflect upon their personal values, establish personal

standards, and compare those standards with their actions are subject to the common error of

self-deception and the erosion of both their own moral identities and the trust in which they

are regarded by others (Arbinger, 2010; Burke and Stets, 2009).

Those who lead have a duty to make a better world, to improve themselves, to optimize

rather than to compromise, and to live life in crescendo rather than in diminuendo (Covey,

2012). A moral leader recognizes that (s)he has the absolute duty to create wealth for society

while honoring duties owed to others. The moral leader knows that good is never good

enough, and is the enemy of great (Collins, 2001, p. 1).

Self-Efficacy and the Self-Concept

Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief that (s)he can perform well within the parameters of a

specific situation (Bandura, 1995). Fast and colleagues (2014, p. 1017) defined managerial self-

efficacy as “the perceived capacity to be effective and influential within the organizational

domain in which one is a manager.” Self-efficacy is a cognitive and affective belief in one’s

personal competence and an assessment of one’s ability to confidently act (Pajares, 2002).

Judge and Bono (2001) found that self-efficacy was significantly related to successful task

3
performance. One’s self-beliefs allow a person to “apply self-control over who they are, and

what they want to be” (Jayawardena and Gregar, 2013, p. 377). Self-efficacy has a direct

positive impact on “the initiation, intensity, and persistence of behavior” (Paglis, 2010, p. 771)

Self-efficacy is a key element of a leader’s competence or ability (Mayer, et al., 1995),

and a leader who lacks an accurate understanding of those competencies puts self and others

at risk (Pfeffer, 1998). Smith and Woodworth (2012) explained that a leader’s perceptions of

his/her values, duties, and roles are directly related to making a difference in the lives of others.

Self-worth and self-efficacy are implicitly connected and impact one’s perceptions about

expectations that roles encompass (Burke and Stets, 2009), and affect the choices that

individuals make regarding tasks, goals, and roles that they perform (Razek and Coyner, 2014).

One’s self-concept evolves as individuals enhance their abilities or recognize that they have

previously been operating under false assumptions about competencies (Bandura and Wood,

1989). Lent (2004) explained that life satisfaction increases when individuals feel a sense of

personal capability about their goals, when those goals are aligned with their personal values,

and when their environment supports goal achievement.

Although Bandura (1977, p. 193) originally defined self-efficacy in terms of achieving

specific task-related outcomes, Wang and Hsu (2014) reported that self-efficacy was important

for both task and role performance. Success in personal accomplishments leads to

expectations of successful future outcomes (Fitzgerald and Schutte, 2010, p. 497). Self-efficacy

is influenced by beliefs about the degree to which one controls his/her own destiny (Lussier,

4
2013, p. 31). One’s perceptions about their own personal power affects both their self-esteem

and their self-efficacy (Wojciszke and Struznska-Kujalowicz, 2007).

Self-Awareness and Emotional Intelligence

Goleman (1995) declared that self-awareness is the keystone of emotional intelligence.

Without self-awareness, leaders are unable to demonstrate empathy with others (Richards,

2004). Self-awareness requires “a deep understanding of one’s emotions, as well as one’s

strengths and limitations and one’s values and motives” (Goleman, et al., 2002, p. 40).

Emotional intelligence combines self-awareness with crafting an authentic personal response

that demonstrates that one is able to understand others, their needs, and the context of a

situation (Goleman, 1995). The degree to which leaders are self-aware enables them to select

the most effective responses for working with others (Albrecht, 2009).

Church (1997) defined workplace self-awareness in terms of one’s competencies,

behaviors, and skills. Self-awareness requires a leader to accurately self-observe (Manz, 2015)

and to compare one’s behavior with norms that define oneself (Burke, 1991). Burke and

Reitzes (1991) emphasized that one’s view of self correlates with the commitment in which one

engaged in chosen tasks. Social comparison and self-appraisal are the means by which self-

awareness occurs (Showry and Manasa, 2014). Goleman (1995) explained that self-awareness

involves not only understanding one’s role and relationships but the ability to be authentic in

representing oneself and in dealing ethically with others (cf. Suri and Prassad, p. 2011). The

Stanford University Business Advisory Council identified self-awareness as “the superior

competency that leaders must develop” (Showry and Manasa, 2014, 16).

5
 These definitions frame self-efficacy and self-assessment as moral duties associated

with the identities of leaders and the importance of leaders in understanding their own

capabilities and identities. Having defined the key constructs of this paper, we now present six

propositions.

Presenting the Propositions

As Schmidt and Hunter (2000) explained, a leader’s capability associated with their self-

perception lies not only in the ability to solve problems but to continuously learn. This

commitment to learning and a focus on application and execution increase a leader’s self-

efficacy and are recognized as distinguishing differences between successful and unsuccessful

leaders (Rynes, et al., 2007). Leaders increase self-efficacy by constantly learning about key

elements of their roles – both within their organizations and with customers and competitors

outside their organization (Schein, 2010). By looking beyond “conventional wisdom” that is

often the cause of organizational dysfunction (Pfeffer, 1998, Ch. 1), leaders develop confidence

by increasing their emphasis on evidence-based solutions founded on empirically sound

information (Rynes, et al., 2007; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000). Focusing on evidence-based

execution is a critical requirement for successful leaders and organizations (Franken, et al.,

2009). In a business world where poor decision-making can be disastrous, today’s leader

should adopt an approach to making decisions by “translating principles based on best evidence

into organizational practice” (Rousseau, 2006, p. 256). Consistent with this discussion of

evidence as related to self-efficacy, we offer our first proposition.

6
 P1: Leaders who adopt an evidence-based approach to their organizational roles and
who constantly learn more about their responsibilities have higher self-efficacy and
perform more successfully than leaders who do not adopt this approach.

Self-efficacy and the increasing of one’s capabilities to lead are enhanced by the process

of formally assessing 1) what one loves to do, 2) one’s strengths or what one does best, 3)what

the marketplace will pay for, and 4) what one’s conscience dictates is the best use of one’s

time. Covey (2004) explained that the overlapping area of these four critical dimensions

constitutes one’s ”voice,” or that unique area in which one should devote his or her efforts to

create value for the world. Collins (2001) also identified what one does best, what one loves to

do, and what the market will compensate as key elements of organizational success. Knowing

where to focus one’s efforts and skills to compete at a world class level enables each one of us

to maximize our potential (Collins, 2001). In keeping with this relationship between one’s voice

and self-efficacy, we present our second proposition.

P2: Leaders who formally assess what they do best, what they love to do, what the
marketplace will pay for, and what their conscience then dictates create greater
organizational value for their organizations than leaders who do not formally seek to
conduct such a self-assessment.

Self-awareness enables leaders to more fully understand their values and the events

that have shaped their lives. Recognizing these factors enables leaders to define how they

wish to lead their lives, how they will interact with others, and the standards by which they

measure their accomplishments (Covey, 2004). Self-awareness enables individuals to establish

an overarching purpose for their lives that serves as an ongoing motivation for their priorities.

Authentic leaders strive to become aware of their strengths and limitations, their resources,

and the context of their situations (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). With regard to the importance

of self-awareness as a duty that leaders owe themselves, we present our third proposition.

7
 P3: Leaders who are aware ofsensitive to their own feelings are more effective in
dealing with others and who seek feedback from others have higher emotional
intelligence than leaders who do not recognize the importance of self-awareness.

The ability to control one’s responses associated in a specific relationship are key

elements of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Goleman, 2007) and acknowledges to be

an important element of leadership success (Sturm, et al., 2014). The desire for control is a

universal personality trait associated with self-awareness (Burger, 1992). Although our ability

to control is limited within our sphere of influence, we seek to control ourselves and others in

an effort to maintain stability and predictability (Viorst, 1998). As an element of emotional

intelligence, self-control includes an understanding of 1) one’s intended objectives, 2) one’s

own feelings and responses, 3) the context of a situation and the needs of others, 4) the likely

responses of others to one’s individual actions and behaviors, and 5) the degree to which one

can regulate his or her response to achieve the desired result (Goleman, et al. 2002).

Self-awareness requires the integration of responsibility and control in leading oneself

(Ross, 2014). Leaders who effectively manage their emotions and impulses and channel them

in useful ways demonstrate high empathy for others and use that insight to craft a response

that engenders the best possible cooperative relationship (Goleman, et al., 2002, p. 254-255).

Monitoring oneself and responding effectively is a refined ability that differentiates emotionally

intelligent leaders from others and reflects the degree to which one understands his or her own

identity (Mascolo and Fischer, 1998). Our fourth proposition identifies the importance of self-

control as a key element of self-awareness and emotional intelligence.

P4: Leaders who monitor their own behaviors, who develop empathy for others and a
sensitivity for what constitutes an appropriate response, and who actively strive to

8
 control their responses are trusted by others more than leaders who do not
demonstrate these behaviors.

Those who lead are clear about their goals and recognize that they are ineffective if they

are not perceived as involved in the pursuit of outcomes that achieve an organization’s purpose

while also meeting the needs of others (cf. Barnard and Andrews, 1971). Self-reflection about

why one pursues a course of action also enables individuals to examine their underlying

motives and values that drive their actions (Natsoulas, 1998). This increased self-awareness

requires This ongoing self begins by comparing one’s personal standard for behavior with one’s

actions (Peus, et al., 2012). One’s actions are ultimately the consequence of core beliefs and

values (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2009), and we constantly evaluate ourselves at the conscious and

unconscious levels (Stets and Burke, 2014). By acting consistently with their espoused values,

leaders whose behaviors demonstrate integrity earn the followership of others (Schein, 2010).

Associated with the nature of self-assessment and how it is formed, we present our fifth

proposition.

P5: Leaders whose behaviors are consistent with their consciously articulated beliefs,
values, and identity standards are perceived as betterviewed as more trustworthy
leaders than thoseleaders who have not adopted consistentthese behaviors.

In writing about the importance of seeing oneself as (s)he truly is, Marianne Williamson

(1992, p. 190-191) explained

”. . . . Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are
powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We
ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are
you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure
around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest
the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we

9
 let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

The ability to view oneself and others as truly great is a key attribute of great leadership

(Havard, 2014) and recognizing one’s unlimited individual potential is a fundamental element of

self-awareness (cf. Tsuchiya, 1996). Consistent with these insights, we offer our sixth

proposition.

P6: Leaders who have high self-awareness have a greater appreciation of their own
capabilities and the value of others and thereby develop more effective organizations
than leaders with lower self-awareness.

Insights for Applicationtegrating the Constructs

Self-efficacy and self-awareness are constructs that define one’s identity, promote self-

development, and enhance “environmental mastery, connection to ideals, and mind and heart -

based actions” that are critical to effective leadership (Karp, 2012, p. 128). Effective leaders

earn trust by demonstrating personal integrity, high levels of competence, and a commitment

to the welfare of others (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Enhancing self-awareness and increasing self-

efficacy enable leaders to create trust-based relationships and increase their impact in a world

desperately seeking leaders (Bennis and Nanus, 2007).

Contributions of the Paper

The importance of leaders examining themselves and assessing their obligation to

optimize personal effectiveness are important leadership factors in a world where leaders

struggle to be perceived as trustworthy (Maritz, 2010). This paper makes five insights for

application significant contributions in examining the moral duties associated with self-efficacy

and self-awareness.

10
1) We focus on duties of self-efficacy and self-awareness as important parts of

individual growth, with specific application to the roles of leaders. We affirm that

those who lead owe an array of duties which enable them to live more fulfilling and

successful lives and be more effective in dealing with others. Understanding the

moral and ethical responsibilities of leadership associated with self-efficacy and self-

awareness will enable leaders to be more successful in building followership, trust,

and commitment.

2) We identify testable propositions about improving leadership effectiveness which

can be used by both academic scholars and individual practitioners. We encourage

practitioners to reflect on the six propositions and to test them in practical ways in

their own organizations. We note that recent research has affirmed that self-

awareness and leadership effectiveness can be enhanced by well-structured training

and suggest that such training is of great potential value to those who would lead

(Gill, et al., 2015). We also encourage additional academic research about the

nature of self-efficacy and self-awareness.

3) We emphasize the importance of leaders regularly evaluating their beliefs, values,

goals, assumptions, and behaviors which match key elements of their individual

identities. Understanding oneself and the core beliefs that frame one’s actions and

decisions is a key step for leaders in making integrated decisions and being

perceived as trustworthy (Schein, 2010). We encourage leaders to constantly

examine the degree to which they are congruent in aligning their behaviors with

what they espouse and with their personal identities.

11
 4) We emphasize the importance of leaders reflecting on and identifying the moral

criteria which motivates them as they seek to lead. Leaders who formally conduct

such a moral self-assessment are more likely to honor those criteria and lead with

greater integrity. By emphasizing the importance of examining their moral

standards and understanding their personal motivation to lead, leaders will not only

increase their self-awareness but improve their ability to explain the justification for

moral decisions (cf Hosmer, 2010; Caldwell, et al., 2015).

5) We describe leaders as moral stewards and provide added insights about that role

and its moral implications. As a stewardship responsibility to create wealth and

honor duties owed to stakeholders, leadership imposes obligations that rise to the

level of a covenantal responsibility (Pava, 2003). We encourage leaders to reflect on

the duties that they owe to others as ethical stewards (Caldwell, et al., 2010).

Conclusion

Like Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye, leaders who have a clear understanding of who they

are will be prepared to deal with the inevitable vicissitudes of life and feel a sense of stability

and confidence despite the turmoil that may surround them. Although the focus of leadership

and the success of organizations have tended to be based upon cost effectiveness, profitability,

and competitive advantage, we join with a growing group of scholars who suggest that

normative values in organizations can lead to greater profits than focusing simply on achieving

instrumental or financial goals (Collins, 2001; Collins and Porras, 2004; Paine, 2002; Cameron

and Spreitzer, 2013).

12
 We encourage scholars to empirically test the propositions presented in this paper, but

we also encourage practitioners to commit themselves to the self-reflection and assessment

suggested herein as well. In a world increasingly struggling to make decisions viewed as quality

of life enhancing, wealth creating, and beneficial to mankind, leaders may need to begin with

the outside-in approach of self-assessment to understand themselves, their values, and the

principles to which they are committed as they fulfill their moral responsibilities (cf. Covey,

2004).

13
 References

Albrecht, K., (2009). Social intelligence: The new science of success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Arbinger Institute, (2010). Leadership and self-deception: Getting out of the box (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Avolio, B. J., and Gardner, W. L., (2005). “Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership.” Leadership quarterly, Vol. 16, Iss. 3, p. 343-372.

Bandura, A., (1977). “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.” Psychological
Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth Publishers.

Bandura, A., and Wood, R., (1989). “Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on
self-regulation of complex decision-making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56, pp.
805-814.

Barnard, C. I., and Andrews, K. R., (1971). The functions of the executive: 30th anniversary edition.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B., (2007). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York: Harper-
Collins.

Burger, J. M., (1992). “Desire for control and academic performance.” Canadian journal of behavioural
science, Vol. 24, pp. 147-155.

Burke, P. J., (1991). “Identity processes and social stress.” American sociological review, Vol. 56, Iss. 6,
pp 836-849.

Burke, P. J., and Reitzes, D. C., (1991). “An identity theory approach to commitment.” Social psychology
quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 239-251.

Burke, P. J., and Stets, J. E., (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Caldwell, C., (2012). Moral leadership: A transformative model for tomorrow’s leaders. New York:
Business Expert Press.

Cameron, K. S., (2003). Ethics, virtuousness, and constant change. In N. M. Tichy and A. R. McGill (Eds.)
The ethical challenge: How to lead with unyielding integrity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 185-
194.

Cameron, K. S., (2011). “Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership.” Journal of business ethics, Vol.
98, p. 25-35.

14
Cameron, K. S., and Spreitzer, G. M., (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chatterjee, D., (1998). Leading Consciously: A Pilgrimage Toward Self-Mastery. New York: Routledge.

Church, A. H., (1997). “Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations.”

Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 281-292.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . . And others don’t. New York:
HarperCollins.

Collins, J., and Porras, J. I., (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York:
Harper Business.

Covey, S. R., (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press.

Covey, S. R., (2012). The 3rd alternative: Solving life’s most difficult problems. New York: Free Press.

DePree, M., (2004). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.

Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: Meta-analysis findings and implications for
organizational research,” Journal of applied psychology, 87, pp. 611-628.

Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., and Bartel, C. A., (2014), “Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy,
ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice.” Academy of management journal, Vol. 57, Iss.
4, pp. 1014-1034.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I., (2009), Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach.
New York: Psychology Press.

Fitzgerald, S., and Schutte, N. S., (2010), “Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing self-
efficacy,” Journal of Management Development, Vol. 29, Iss. 5, pp. 495-505.

Franken, A., Edwards, C., and Lambert, R., (2009), “Executing strategic change: Understanding the
critical management elements that lead to success.” California management review, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.
49-73.

Gill, L., Ramsey, P., and Leberman, S., (2015), “A systems approach to developing emotional intelligence
using the self-awareness engine of growth model,” Systemic Practice & Action Research, Vol. 28, Iss. 6,
pp. 575-594.

Goleman, D., (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D., (2007). Social Intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., and McKee, A., (2002). The new leaders – Transforming the art of leadership
into the science of results. London, UK: Time-Warner.

Havard, A., (2014). Created for Greatness: The Power of Magnanimity. New York: Scepter Publications.

Hernandez, M., (2012). “Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship.” Academy of

management review, Vol. 37, Iss. 2, pp. 172-193.

15
Hosmer, L. T., (2010). The ethics of management (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Jayawardena, C., and Gregar, A., (2013). “Transformational leadership, occupational self-efficacy, and
career success of managers.” Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership, &
Governance, pp. 376-383.

Judge, T. A., and Bono, J. E., (2001). “Relationship of core self-evaluation traits – self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 80-92.

Kant, I. and Walker, N., (2009). Critique of Judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karp, T., (2012). “Developing oneself as a leader.” Journal of Management Development, Vol. 32, No. 1,
pp. 127-140.

Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z., (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things
happen in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lennick, D., and Kiel, F., (2008). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance and leadership
success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Lent, R. W., (2004). “Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and
psychosocial adjustment.” Journal of counseling psychology, Vol. 51, Iss. 4, pp. 482-509.

Lussier, R. N., (2013). Human relations in organizations: Applications and skill building (9th Ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Manz, C. C., (2015). Taking the self-leadership high road: Smooth surface or potholes ahead.” Academy
of management perspectives, Vol. 29, Iss. 1, pp. 132-151.

Maritz Research. (2010, April 14). Managing in an era of Mistrust: Maritz poll reveals employees lack
trust in their workplace. Online article available at http://www.maritz.com/Maritz-Poll/2010/Maritz-
Poll-Reveals-Employees-Lack-Trust-in-their-Workplace.

Mascolo, M. E., and Fischer, K. W., (1998) “The Development of Self-through the Coordination of
Component Systems” in Self-Awareness: Its Nature and Development (M. Ferrari and R. J. Sternberg,
eds.), New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 332-384.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D., (1995). “An integrative model of organizational trust.”
Academy of management review. Vol. 20, Iss. 3, pp. 709-734.

Natsoulas, T., (1998). “Consciousness and Self-Awareness” in Self-Awareness: Its Nature and
Development (M. Ferrari and R. J. Sternberg, eds.), New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 12-33.

Paglis, L. L. (2010), “Leadership self-efficacy: research findings and practical implications,” Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 29, Iss. 9, pp. 771-782.

Paine, L. S., (2002). Values shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to
achieve superior performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pajares, F., (2002). “Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning.” Theory into practice,
Vol. 41, Iss. 2, pp. 116-125.

16
Pava, M. L., (2003). Leading with meaning: Using covenantal leadership to build a better organization.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., and Frey, D., (2012). “Authentic leadership: An empirical
test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms.” Journal of business ethics, Vol. 107,
pp. 331-348.

Pfeffer, J., (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. I., (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into
action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Razek, N. A., and Coyner, S. C., (2014). “Impact of self-efficacy on Saudi students’ college performance.”
Academy of educational leadership journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 85-96.

Richards, D., (2004). The art of winning commitment: 10 ways leaders can engage minds, hearts, and
spirits. New York: ANACOM.

Ross, S., (2014). “A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership development and
action-steps to promote personal leadership development.” Journal of Management Development,
Volume 33, No. 4, pp. 299-323.

Rousseau, D. M., (2006). “Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”?” Academy of
management review, Vol. 31, Iss. 2, pp. 256-266.

Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., and Brown, K. G., (2007). “The very separate worlds of academic and
practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based
management.” Academy of management journal, Vol. 50, Iss. 5, pp 987-1008.

Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E., (2000). “Select on intelligence” in E. A. Locke (Ed.) Handbook of
principles of organizational behavior, Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 3-14.

Schein, E. H., (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shao, R., Aquino, K., and Freeman, D., (2008). “Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity
research and its implications for business ethics.” Business ethics quarterly, Vol. 18, Iss. 4, pp. 513-540.

Showry, M., and Manasa, K. V. L., (2014), IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, pp. 15-26.

Smith, I. H., and Woodworth, W. P., (2012). “Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: A
social identity and self-efficacy approach.” Academy of management learning & education, Vol. 11, Iss.
3, pp. 390-407.

Stein, J. and Bock, J., (2004). Fiddler on the Roof: Based on Sholom Aleichem’s Stories. New York:
Limelight Editions.

Stets, J. E., and Burke, P. J., (2014). “Self-esteem and identities.” Sociological perspectives, Vol. 67, Iss. 4,
pp. 409-433.

17
 Sturm, R. E., Taylor, S. N., Atwater, L. E., and Braddy, P. W., (2014), “Leader self-awareness: An
examination and implications of Women’s under-prediction,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.
35, Iss. 5, pp. 657-677.

Suri, V., and Varanasi, M. P., (2011). “Relationship between self-awareness and transformational
leadership: A study in IT industry.” IUP journal of organizational behavior, Vol. X, No. 1, pp. 7-17.

Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., and Brown, M., (2000). “Moral person and moral manager: How executives
develop a reputation for ethical leadership.” California Management Review, Vol. 42, Iss. 4, pp. 128-
142.

Tsuchiya, T., (1996). “Self-awareness of unlimited potential and its development: The underlying
philosophy of the management/staff development programme in Yaohan International Group.” Journal
of Management Development and found online at
http://bi.galegroup.com/global/article/GALE|A18900009.

Viorst, J., (1998). Necessary losses: The loves, illusions, dependencies, and impossible expectations that
all of us have to give up in order to grow. New York: Fireside.

Wang, S, and Hsu, I-C., (2014). “The effect of role ambiguity on task performance through self-efficacy-A
contingency perspective.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 61, Iss. 4, pp. 681-689.

Williamson, M., (1992). A return to love. New York: Harper Collins.

Wojciszke, B., and Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A., (2007). “Power influences self-esteem.” Social cognition,
Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 472-494.

18

View publication stats