An attempt to show Construct Validity Evidences of the second component of the Self-Awareness.
Aula Saraceno del Dipartimento di Management
RESEARCH PROPOSAL. An attempt to show Construct Validity Evidences of the second component
of the Self-Awareness. An application to SOA through Polynomial Regression and Response Surface
Scott Taylor, Management Dpt. Babson College. Boston;
Joan Manuel Batista-Foguet, Dpt. of People Management & Organization. ESADE BS, University Ramon Llull.
Many authors have pointed out self-awareness (SA) as a fundamental competence to effective
leader behavior (Brown, 1991; London, 1995; Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Hall, 2004; Avolio,
2005; Taylor, 2010). Multisource Assessment (MSA) is probably the most common approach
designed to obtain evaluations from multiple perspectives and from multiple contexts (usually
professional). Its numerical nature conveys the impression of objectivity and fairness (Toegel &
Nowadays the most common strategy for assessing SA is known as Self–Other agreement (SOA)
(Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010; Sturm, Taylor, Atwater & Braddy, 2014; Braddy
Gooty, Fleenor & Yammarino, 2014). This approach actually leads to assess the impact of SOA on
performance or other relevant outcomes. To this end, polynomial regression (PR) and Response
surface analysis (RSA, See Edwards, 1994; Edwards & Parry, 1993; Shanock et al., 2010) are the
most appropriate data analysis approaches.
However, SA is usually operationalized through the Objective self-awareness (OSA) theory
(Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Silvia & Duval, 2001) which is an individual-level theory of SA which
does not consider one’s interactions with others. Indeed, the self-other gap as a way to measure and
define SA is inappropriate because it is disconnected from what is generally accepted in both SA and
self-concept theories. Notice that, self-ratings assess the whole self-concept while other-ratings
generally focus on assessing the behaviors actually demonstrated. Thus, making conclusions from the
self-others gap involves comparing two different processes.
Since leaders must be aware of their influence on others in order to be effective, Taylor (2010)
and Taylor, Wang, & Zhan (2012) proposed expanding the theory of leader SA based on self–other
rating agreement with a second component of leader SA, which is, the anticipation of how one is seen
by others. This involves being able to understand others’ perceptions of oneslelf in order to maximize
the effectiveness of one’s interactions with others.
Dipartimento di Management