Content uploaded by Henry P. Sims
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henry P. Sims on Sep 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
Volume 14 Number 3
February 2008 185-201
© 2008 Baker College
10.1177/1071791907311069
http://jlos.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
185
Are We On the Same Page?
Effects of Self-Awareness of Empowering
and Transformational Leadership
Amanuel G. Tekleab
Wayne State University
Henry P. Sims, Jr.
University of Maryland–College Park
Seokhwa Yun
Seoul National University
Paul E. Tesluk
University of Maryland–College Park
Jonathan Cox
Organizational Change Management Consultant, Houston, TX
This study examines the effects of leaders’ self-awareness of their own leadership on followers’ satisfaction, self-
leadership, and leader effectiveness. A leader’s self-awareness was conceptualized as the degree of similarity between
the leader’s self-description and his or her followers’ descriptions of leader behaviors. Transformational and empow-
ering leadership are measured from 48 leaders and 222 of their followers. Results from confirmatory factor analyses
provide support for two types of leadership: transformational and empowering. Results from polynomial regression
analyses indicate that self-awareness of transformational leadership is related to leader effectiveness and followers’
supervisory satisfaction. In contrast, self-awareness of empowering leadership is related to followers’ self-leadership.
These effects of leadership self-awareness extend beyond the direct effect of leadership on the outcome variables.
Keywords: leader effectiveness; transformational leadership; empowering leadership; polynomial regression; self-
awareness; follower satisfaction; follower self-leadership; emotional intelligence
It is wisdom to know others;
It is enlightenment to know one’s self.
Lao-Tzu
How well do we know ourselves? Does it matter?
Is self-awareness somehow connected with our
effectiveness as a leader? These are the fundamental
questions that inspired the research reported in this
article.
Self-awareness is related to the notion of self-
evaluation. If we know our self, then our self-evaluation
is likely to be more accurate. According to the literature
on self-evaluation, individuals may either overrate or
underrate their own performance when compared with
ratings from other sources (Harris & Schaubroeck,
1988; Mabe & West, 1982). But in addition, another
form of self-assessment is related to the way we view
ourselves as a leader. Are we accurate in describing
our own leadership? Is this accuracy related to our
effectiveness as a leader? Past research on leader-
ship has investigated discrepancies between self-
descriptions of leadership and descriptions provided
by others (e.g., Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995;
Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Felfe & Schyns, 2004;
Thornton, 1980). These discrepancies can be inter-
preted as a leader’s lack of self-awareness about his or
her own leadership.
Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Amanuel G. Tekleab,
Wayne State University, School of Business Administration, 312
Prentis Hall, Detroit, MI 48202; phone: (313) 577-9211; e-mail:
atekleab@wayne.edu.
In the research reported here, we investigated the
influence of leader self-awareness on outcomes such as
leader effectiveness, follower satisfaction, and follower
self-leadership. To some degree, we were inspired by
the notion of emotional intelligence, which suggests
that emotional self-awareness is an important part
of one’s life and work effectiveness (Bar-On, 2000;
Gross, 1998). According to this viewpoint, if one is
aware of one’s own emotions, then life and work expe-
riences are likely to be more effective and satisfying
(Cote & Miners, 2006; Jordan & Ashkanasy, 2006;
Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Extrapolating from this
viewpoint, we suggest that self-awareness about one’s
own leadership is likely to produce enhanced effec-
tiveness and satisfaction at work.
In general, research on leader self-awareness is rela-
tively rare in the leadership literature. Interesting excep-
tions are the works of Atwater and Yammarino (1992);
Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, and Fleenor (1998); Bass
and Yammarino (1991); Fleenor, McCauley, and Brutus
(1996), Felfe and Schyns (2004); Riggio and Cole
(1992); and Sosik and Megerian (1999). Overall, this
previous research found that a leader’s agreement with
followers (or self-awareness) about his or her own
transformational leadership was associated with leader
effectiveness. Yet self-awareness may be related to
other outcomes, including follower affective responses
and self-leadership. Atwater et al. (1998) stated, “self-
other agreement is most relevant to outcomes that
involve human perceptions [emphasis added] and less
relevant to more objective measures such as sales
volume or meeting productivity goals” (p. 595).
Therefore, in this study, we extend the investigation
of leader self-awareness by exploring the effect of
leader self-awareness on affective and behavioral
outcomes, such as satisfaction with supervisor and
self-leadership, in addition to the more usual outcome
of leader effectiveness.
Furthermore, we extend previous work by investi-
gating self-awareness of empowering leadership in
addition to transformational leadership. In recent
decades, we have certainly seen an increasing interest
among organizations to promote autonomy, especially
with self-managing teams. Parallel to this interest has
been the emergence of empowering leadership as a new
focus of leadership. This form of leadership concen-
trates on the notion of a leader who enhances fol-
lower self-leadership (e.g., Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, &
Drasgow, 2000; Cohen, Chang, & Ledford, 1997; Manz
& Sims, 1987; Salam, Cox, & Sims, 1997; Stewart
& Manz, 1995). Several recent studies (Ahearne,
Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Cohen et al., 1997; Ensley,
Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Houghton & Yoho, 2005;
Manz & Sims, 1987; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce,
Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006; Yun,
Faraj, & Sims, 2005) have recognized empowering
leadership as distinct from transformational leadership.
Although empowering leadership behavior has
received relatively less attention in the leadership liter-
ature when compared to transformational leadership,
results have consistently found linkages to follower
self-leadership and team performance. Therefore, an
important part of this research is our extension of prior
studies by examining leaders’ self-awareness of their
own empowering leadership. Our research not only
compared the results of self-awareness of transforma-
tional leadership with past studies but also investigated
whether the findings are similar for empowering lead-
ership. In summary, the main contribution of this study
is to extend prior research about self-awareness of
one’s own leadership by investigating (a) both empow-
ering leadership and transformational leadership and
(b) additional outcomes such as follower satisfaction
and self-leadership.
Hypotheses
Leadership
Over the years, the literature has developed many
perspectives and viewpoints of leadership. For an
extensive review, we refer the reader to the encyclo-
pedic work of Bass (1990) and the ongoing review
and synthesis of the leadership literature presented by
Yukl (2002, 2006). Here, we briefly review perspec-
tives represented by the labels of transformational
and empowering leadership.
Transformational leadership is defined as the
process of cultivating followers’ commitment to orga-
nizational objectives and shaping the culture in ways
consistent with the organizational strategy (Yukl,
2002). Transformational leadership is directed toward
inspiring followers to share and pursue the leader’s
vision (Yammarino & Bass, 1990) and motivating fol-
lowers to go beyond acting in their own self-interest of
exchanging effort and compliance for rewards (Hater
& Bass, 1988) and to work for the good of the group
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Transformational leader-
ship, then, helps concentrate followers’ efforts on long-
term goals (Howell & Avolio, 1993). To meet these
goals, transformational leaders focus on developing
vision and inspiring followers’ pursuit of the vision.
Furthermore, they stimulate changes or alignment of
systems in service of a new vision rather than working
186 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
within existing systems to sustain the status quo
(Howell & Avolio, 1993).
In comparison, empowering leadership involves
a different set of leader behaviors that are directed
more toward developing the self-influence capabilities,
including: self-control, self-regulation, self-manage-
ment, and self-leadership of followers (see Manz &
Sims, 1987, for the first appearance of empowering
leader behaviors). To achieve this goal, empowering
leaders delegate extensive responsibility to followers
and create an environment that enables followers to
satisfy needs for growth and autonomy by exercising
effective self-control and self-direction toward organi-
zational objectives (Cohen et al., 1997; Manz & Sims,
1987, 1991, 1995; Sims & Manz, 1996; Yun et al.,
2006; Yun et al., 2005). That is, they provide opportu-
nities for their followers to make decisions and carry
them out.
Empowering leadership is different from transfor-
mational leadership. In general, transformational lead-
ership is centered largely on the vision of the leader. In
contrast, empowering leadership is targeted at devel-
oping the self-leadership capabilities among followers.
Indeed, Pearce et al. (2003) have empirically supported
the distinction between empowering and transforma-
tional leadership behaviors. Furthermore, Arnold et al.
(2000), Cohen et al. (1997), and Pearce and Sims
(2002) provided support for empowering leadership
as encompassing a different set of leader behaviors
from those of transformational leadership. Recently,
Houghton and Yoho (2005) also recognized empower-
ing leadership as a separate type of leadership and
included it in their contingency model of leadership
and psychological empowerment. Following these
endeavors, we conceptualize and operationalize
empowering leadership as distinct from transforma-
tional leadership. Because there has been relatively
little research that has directly compared empowering
and transformation leadership, as a preliminary analy-
sis, we will first empirically examine this distinction;
thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational and empowering lead-
ership are two separate constructs.
Hypothesis 1b: Controlling for empowering leadership,
transformational leadership will explain additional
variance only on follower ratings of leader effec-
tiveness and follower supervisory satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1c: Controlling for transformational leader-
ship, empowering leadership will explain additional
variance on follower ratings of leader effectiveness,
follower supervisory satisfaction, and follower self-
leadership.
Self-Awareness and Leadership
Our main focus is on the accuracy of leaders’ views
of their own leadership. Considering the importance of
leadership to organizations and the extent to which a
leader’s influence may depend on the perceptions of
followers, an important question is the extent to which
leaders and their followers agree in their descriptions of
the leaders’ behaviors.. For example, perceptual dis-
agreement between leaders and followers may imply
leaders’ miscommunication or failure to respond to
the demands of followers, leading to unexpected out-
comes. In this research, we conceptualize leader self-
awareness as the degree of similarity between leaders’
descriptions of their own leadership when compared
to descriptions of leadership through the eyes of their
followers.
Moreover, we follow the terminology previously
used in the literature (Atwater et al., 1998; Atwater &
Yammarino, 1997; Fleenor et al., 1996; Sosik &
Megerian, 1999) to denote various types of disagree-
ment: underestimation, in agreement and good esti-
mation, in agreement but poor estimation, and
overestimation. Leaders whose self-ratings are below
followers’ ratings are referred to as underestimators.
Leaders whose self-ratings are high and similar to the
followers’ rating are referred to as in-agreement/good
estimators. Leaders whose self-ratings are low and
similar to their followers’ rating are referred to as in-
agreement/poor estimators. And leaders whose self-
ratings are greater than their followers’ ratings are
referred to as overestimators.
In the following section, we present the main argu-
ments and primary hypotheses in our study. We first
present the effect of leader self-awareness of their
leadership on leader effectiveness. Note that, for the
most part, these hypotheses that refer to transforma-
tional leadership are generally consistent with prior
research. However, hypotheses that refer to empow-
ering leadership are examined here for the first time.
Furthermore, we also extrapolate the arguments to
follower-related outcomes—satisfaction with super-
vision and self-leadership.
Self-Awareness and Leader Effectiveness
An abundance of studies and reviews, including
meta-analyses, have demonstrated that transformational
leadership directly predicts leader effectiveness (e.g.,
Felfe & Schyns, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000; Lowe,
Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Furthermore,
research on leadership has documented a relationship
between self-awareness of transformational leadership,
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 187
operationalized in terms of self-other agreement, and
leader performance. For example, Atwater and
Yammarino (1997) proposed that overestimators of
transformational leadership may dramatically misdiag-
nose their leadership strengths and weaknesses. As a
result, they may limit their own effectiveness by failing
to set self-improvement goals. In-agreement/poor esti-
mators of transformational leadership may accurately
diagnose their strengths and weakness as leaders but
may take relatively few actions to improve their perfor-
mance due to low self-efficacy regarding their leader-
ship capabilities. Conversely, in-agreement/good
estimators of transformational leadership may accu-
rately diagnose their strengths and weaknesses and
set realistic self-improvement goals, thus motivating
improvement and supporting effectiveness. Although
underestimators may misdiagnose their strengths and
weaknesses, they may pursue unchallenging and easy
improvement goals that may imply a low level of
effectiveness. In summary, the logic offered by
Atwater and Yammarino (1997) suggests that self-
awareness of transformational leadership is related to
leader effectiveness.
Indeed, the relationship between transformational
self-awareness and initial levels of leader performance
has received empirical support (Atwater et al., 1995;
Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Johnson & Ferstl, 1999).
For example, Atwater et al. (1995) found that underes-
timators had the highest performance, followed by
leaders who were in agreement with followers. Finally,
overestimators had the lowest performance as leaders.
Similarly, Bass and Yammarino (1991) reported that
leaders who overestimated their transformational lead-
ership performed more poorly than those who agreed
with followers or who were underestimators.
In a further study, and consistent with the logic
above, Atwater et al. (1998) reported that leaders’
effectiveness was greater for in-agreement/good than
in-agreement/poor transformational leaders. In addi-
tion, they reported that underestimators were more
effective than overestimators. It seems, therefore, that
accuracy in self-assessment of leadership is related to
leader effectiveness. Following Atwater et al. (1998),
we expect that in-agreement/good leaders will have
the highest level of effectiveness, followed by under-
estimators. Furthermore, we expect the lowest level
of effectiveness for overestimators due to a tendency
to ignore criticism and discount failure (cf. Atwater
et al., 1998; Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Taylor &
Brown, 1988).
As predicted by Atwater and Yammarino (1997) and
supported by Atwater et al. (1998), we expect the
effectiveness of in-agreement/poor transformational
leaders to be lower than underestimators because the
former take relatively fewer actions to improve their
leadership. On the other hand, we expect the effective-
ness of in-agreement/poor leaders to be higher than
overestimators to the extent that overestimators inflate
assessment of their strengths but deflate their weak-
nesses that hinder behavioral changes (Ashford, 1989).
In contrast, in-agreement/poor leaders may have more
realistic self-perceptions of their own leadership
behavior. This may motivate them to work toward self-
improvement. In-agreement/poor leaders may also be
perceived as modest, thus leading their followers to
evaluate the leaders’ effectiveness more favorably.
Although nearly all of the previously mentioned
work is in reference to transformational leadership,
we also expect the arguments to be similar for leaders’
self-awareness of their empowering leadership,
mainly because empowering leadership has also been
demonstrated to influence leaders’ effectiveness or
team effectiveness (e.g., Cohen et al., 1997; Pearce &
Sims, 2002). Unlike underestimators and in-agree-
ment/good empowering leaders, those who overesti-
mate their empowering leadership are less likely to
respond to feedback from their followers. However,
in-agreement/poor empowering leaders may not set
sufficiently high standards to improve their effective-
ness due to factors such as a lack of self-efficacy in
their own ability to effectively function as empower-
ing leaders. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2: Follower ratings of leader effectiveness
will be the highest for in-agreement/good leaders,
the second highest for underestimators, the third
highest for in-agreement/poor leaders, and the low-
est for overestimators of their (a) transformational
leadership and (b) empowering leadership.
Self-Awareness and Follower
Satisfaction With Supervision
Locke (1976) defined satisfaction as “a pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal
of one’s job or job experience” (p. 1300). One of the
main sources of one’s job experience is the interaction
with the leader. Empirical studies have indicated that
followers’ experiences with their leaders can enhance
satisfaction with supervision (e.g., Felfe & Schyns,
2004; Jaussi & Dionne, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000) as
well as job satisfaction in general (Walumbwa, Lawler,
Avolio, Wang, & Shi, 2005; Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler,
& Shi, 2004). For example, Judge and Bono (2000)
found support for the hypothesis that transformational
188 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
leadership is directly related to followers’ satisfaction
with the leader because followers tend to identify with
the leader. Also, Conger, Kanungo, and Menon (2000)
showed that transformational leadership was positively
correlated with supervisory satisfaction. Empowering
leadership has similarly been associated empirically
with followers’ satisfaction. For example, Cohen et al.
(1997) found followers’ quality of work life to be asso-
ciated with perceptions of empowering leadership.
Although these findings demonstrate links between
follower perceptions of leadership behavior and satis-
faction of followers, they do not address the extent to
which leader self-awareness affects follower satis-
faction with supervision. As documented in past
research, one rationale for how leader self-awareness
relates to follower satisfaction is through the leader’s
responsiveness to feedback from followers (cf.
Atwater et al., 1995; Atwater et al., 1998; Atwater &
Yammarino, 1992, 1997).
Atwater and Yammarino (1997) argued that in-
agreement/good leaders react positively to the feed-
back they receive from followers and respond with
realistic improvement goals and appropriate changes
in behavior. Responsiveness to the interests and sug-
gestions of followers may well increase followers’sat-
isfaction with their supervisors. Furthermore, they
proposed that in-agreement/good leaders may have
more positive job attitudes that promote positive affect
and high levels of supervisory satisfaction among
followers.
On the other hand, in-agreement/poor leaders may
not effectively respond to followers’ feedback even if
they agree with the feedback provided (Atwater &
Yammarino, 1997). As described earlier, these
leaders, compared to in-agreement/good leaders, may
be less willing or able to respond to followers’ input
because of low self-efficacy in their leadership roles.
Atwater and Yammarino (1997) also proposed that
in-agreement/poor estimators may have more nega-
tive job attitudes that could be reflected in reduced
follower satisfaction. Therefore, we expect followers
of in-agreement/poor leaders to experience lower levels
of supervisory satisfaction than those of in-agreement/
good leaders.
Similarly, overestimators may discount or ignore
suggestions provided by their followers, because of
inflated or otherwise inaccurate self-appraisals of their
own leadership behavior (Atwater & Yammarino,
1997). We expect that relative unresponsiveness to
feedback from followers by overestimators may lower
followers’ satisfaction with supervision. In addition,
Atwater and Yammarino (1997) have proposed that
overestimators have high expectations for recognition,
rewards, and so forth, which are seldom met because
they are unlikely to seek feedback and exert little effort
to improve their effectiveness. Hence, they may feel
dissatisfied with their job and may express very nega-
tive job-related attitudes. These attitudes may filter
down to followers who become dissatisfied with their
supervisors. Accordingly, we expect that follower sat-
isfaction with the supervision of overestimators will be
particularly low.
We expect higher levels of satisfaction with super-
vision for followers of underestimators relative to in-
agreement/poor leaders and overestimators because
underestimating of leadership strengths will promote
greater responsiveness to follower feedback (Atwater
& Yammarino, 1997). However, as described earlier,
underestimators may not respond as effectively as in-
agreement/good leaders because of their relatively
less accurate self-appraisals. We expect that similar
dynamics will operate both for transformational and
empowering leadership. Following the logic outlined
above, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3. Followers’ report of satisfaction with
supervision will be the highest for followers of in-
agreement/good leaders, second highest for those of
underestimators, third highest for in-agreement/poor
leaders, and the lowest for followers of overesti-
mators of their (a) transformational leadership and
(b) empowering leadership.
Self-Awareness and Follower
Self-Leadership
We argue that the above rationale can be extended
from follower affective responses to behavioral out-
comes as well. Self-leadership (also called self-man-
agement, self-control, or self-regulation) refers to the
degree of self-influence a follower exerts over his or
her own behavior (Manz & Sims, 1989). Empowering
leaders can promote follower self-leadership behavior
by providing opportunity and active encouragement of
self-leadership (Cohen et al., 1997; Houghton & Yoho,
2005; Manz & Sims, 1991, 1995; Sims & Manz,
1996). In particular, Manz and Sims (1991, 1995) and
Sims and Manz (1996) argue that empowering leaders
motivate their followers to lead themselves. Yun et al.
(2006) found that empowering leadership influenced
subsequent self-leadership for followers who were
high on need for autonomy.
We expect that the effects of leader self-awareness
on follower self-leadership are more salient or direct
in regard to empowering leadership as compared to
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 189
transformational leadership. Empowering leadership
is defined primarily in terms of how the leader behav-
iorally encourages followers to lead themselves.
Accordingly, and extending Atwater and Yammarino’s
(1997) propositions, a leader’s self-awareness about
his or her own empowering leadership is likely to
influence followers’ ability to lead themselves. For
example, when leaders underestimate their own
empowering leadership behavior, they are more likely
to be motivated to behave in ways that enhance fol-
lower self-leadership and to respond to follower sug-
gestions that opportunity for self-leadership be
provided. In contrast, if leaders overestimate their
empowering leader behavior, they may misdiagnose
their actual empowering influence and be less likely to
be responsive to followers’self-leadership aspirations.
Due to leader self-efficacy and accurate self-appraisal
outlined above, we expect that followers of in-agree-
ment/good empowering leaders will be more likely to
exhibit self-leadership than those of in-agreement/
poor leaders. Hence, we offer the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4a. Follower self-leadership will be the
highest for followers of in-agreement/good leaders,
second highest for underestimators, third highest
for in-agreement/poor leaders, and lowest for over-
estimators of empowering leader behavior.
As mentioned above, the effect on self-leadership
behavior outcome is likely to be influenced by leader
self-awareness about empowering leadership, but not
about transformational leadership because of the dif-
ferential focus of the two types of leadership. Although
empowering leadership is directed toward enhancing
follower independent action or self-leadership among
followers, transformational leadership focuses more
on motivating follower conformity to the inspiring
vision of the leader. This differential focus led Sims
and Manz (1996) to suggest that empowering leader-
ship may more directly influence follower self-leader-
ship than transformational leadership. Thus, we offer
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4b. There will be a relationship between
leader self-awareness and followers’self-leadership
only for empowering leadership (but not for trans-
formational leadership).
In summary, we first predict similar effects of both
transformational and empowering leadership self-
awareness on leader effectiveness and follower supervi-
sory satisfaction. In contrast, we do not expect a similar
pattern between empowering and transformational self-
awareness in relation to follower self-leadership.
Method
Sample and Procedures
Participants included 48 leaders and 222 of their
followers employed by a Mid-Atlantic defense com-
pany. For the most part, participants were technical
production engineers and managers. Leaders were
typically middle managers, while followers were
first-line supervisors. The average follower was 40.3
years old, had worked for 14.7 years in the organiza-
tion, and had completed a bachelor’s degree. Most
(61.5%) had reported to their current leaders for 1 to
5 years. Seventy-nine percent of the followers were
male. There were between 2 and 11 followers for
each respondent leader, with a mean of 4.6. Detailed
demographic data were not available for the leaders,
except that all leaders were male and their age was
slightly higher than the followers.
A survey was used to collect data from both leaders
and followers. Leaders were asked to describe their
own transformational and empowering leadership.
Followers were identified through human resource
records as those who report directly to the subject
leaders. Leaders and followers completed parallel sur-
veys, except that leader surveys were self-referential,
whereas follower surveys were worded to prompt
upward description of the focal leader. Followers were
also asked to report on their satisfaction with super-
vision, their own self-leadership behavior, and their
leaders’ effectiveness. Questionnaires completed
by leaders and followers were sent directly to the
researchers. Unless mentioned otherwise, items were
measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 =definitely
not true to 5 =definitely true).
Measures
Transformational Leadership. Seven items, adapted
from the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire (Manz &
Sims, 1987) and inspired by the work of Avolio, Bass,
and Jung (1999), were used to describe transforma-
tional leadership from the perspective of the leader
(self-description) and followers (upward description).
These items emphasized the interpretation of organiza-
tional vision from a middle management position, will-
ingness to undertake change, and idealism. Items in the
transformational leadership scale had a reliability coef-
ficient of .85 in the survey administered to leaders and
.89 in the follower survey. An example item states,
“He/she provides a clear vision of where we are going.”
Empowering Leadership. Seven items, adapted
from Leadership Strategies Questionnaire (Manz &
190 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Sims, 1987), were used to describe empowering lead-
ership from leader and follower perspectives. The
reliability coefficients of the items were .92 in the
supervisor survey and .92 in the follower survey. An
example item is “He/she encourages me to find solu-
tions to my problems at work without seeking his/her
direct input.”
Leader Effectiveness. Leader effectiveness was
measured with four items originally used by Manz
and Sims (1987). They reported a reliability coeffi-
cient of .92 in their study. An example is, “He/she is
very effective.” The items had a reliability coefficient
of .96 in the present study.
Satisfaction With Supervision. Satisfaction with
supervision was measured with two items derived from
a shortened form of Hackman and Oldham’s (1980)
Job Diagnostic Survey. The two items are “I am satis-
fied with the degree of respect and fair treatment
I receive from my supervisor” and “I am satisfied with
the overall quality of the supervision I receive in my
work.” Respondents were asked to describe their satis-
faction or dissatisfaction using a 5-point Likert-type
scale (1 =very dissatisfied to 5 =very satisfied), pro-
ducing a reliability coefficient of .84.
Follower Self-Leadership. Follower self-leadership
was measured with four items reflecting teamwork
(Cox, 1993). Teamwork here refers to the extent to
which a follower provides support to other team
members and coordinates activities with other team
members without direct intervention from the leader.
Teamwork was chosen to represent self-leadership
because teams, especially self-managed teams, are the
principal way that self-leadership is implemented in
U.S. organizations (Manz & Sims, 1987). Four items
with a reliability coefficient of .93 were used to capture
follower self-leadership in teamwork. An example is “I
coordinate my efforts with other managers/supervisors
who report to my supervisor.”
Data Analysis
We used multiple procedures to test the hypotheses
in the study. First, we ran confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) using structural equation modeling (EQS) to
examine the factor structure of the scales used in the
study. Due to the lack of sufficient sample size to per-
form CFA with all items used in the study, we reduced
the leadership items to three (for transformational lead-
ership) and two (for empowering leadership) by com-
bining two or more items. To test Hypothesis 1a, a
separate CFA of the leadership items was conducted
using EQS to assess the fit indices and change in chi-
square as suggested by Loehlin (1992). Specifically,
we compared two factors (i.e., transformational and
empowering leadership factors) to a single factor (i.e.,
leadership factor). Furthermore, we ran hierarchical
regression analyses, whereby we regressed each
dependent (or outcome) variable on (a) transfor-
mational leadership by controlling for empowering
leadership and on (b) empowering leadership by con-
trolling for transformational leadership, to test
Hypotheses 1b and 1c, respectively. Finally, we tested
for any evidence of group-level effect on the outcome
variables using hierarchical regression, one-way analy-
sis of variance, and ordinary least-square regression
analyses. Overall, these analyses did not indicate a
group-level effect. Therefore, all further analyses were
done at the individual level (n=222). As suggested by
Edwards (1994), we used polynomial regression analy-
ses to test Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4. The results from
these analyses were used to draw figures representing
the relationships.
Results
CFA of Measures
The results from the CFA of the measures used in
the study indicated that the items loaded onto the
expected constructs. The fit indices of the CFA were
as follows: comparative fit index (CFI) =.965; stan-
dardized root mean square residual (SRMR) =.078;
and Akaike information criteria (AIC) =21.611.
Tests of Hypotheses
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,
correlations, and reliabilities of the variables.
As described in the Method section, we ran CFA
using EQS to assess the fit of the two-factor model
(i.e., transformational and empowering leadership
factors) to the data. Results indicated that this model
fit the data well (CFI =.962; SRMR =.088; AIC =
24.554). We also compared the two-factor model with
a single-factor (i.e., leadership) model. However, as
evidenced by the chi-square change statistics (i.e.,
∆χ2=66.220 with one degree of freedom, p<.001),
the single-factor model had worse fit statistics than the
two-factor model. In general, these results provided
support for Hypothesis 1a, and the factor loadings
clearly showed different behaviors for empowering
versus transformational leadership.
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 191
As hypothesized, transformational leadership
explained additional variance on leader effectiveness
and follower supervisory satisfaction (see Table 3).
Note that the effect of transformational leadership on
follower self-leadership disappeared when empower-
ing leadership was entered in the second step. In addi-
tion, transformational leadership did not explain
additional variance in follower self-leadership after
controlling for empowering leadership, supporting
Hypothesis 1b. Similarly, empowering leadership
explained additional variance on leader effectiveness,
follower supervisory satisfaction, and follower self-
leadership, providing support for Hypothesis 1c.
Hypothesis 2a predicted a relationship between
leaders’ self-awareness of transformational leadership
and leader effectiveness. The results of polynomial
regression analyses are presented in Table 4. For
leader effectiveness as an outcome variable, results
indicate that Model 1 was significant (R2=.57, F=
145.67, p<.001), which means that there was a main
effect of transformational leadership on leader effec-
tiveness. Furthermore, Model 2 was significant (R2=
.59, F =61.48, p<.001) and explained additional
variance (∆R2=.02, ∆F=2.85, p<.05), implying that
leaders’ self-awareness of their transformational lead-
ership was related to effectiveness. To test Hypothesis
2a, we drew a surface representing this relationship
(see Figure 1). Following Edwards’s (1994) proce-
dure, a2(which is b3+b4+b5) did not differ from
0 along the F=Sline (a2 =–.02, t=.14, p>.05), where
Frepresents the followers’ ratings and Scorresponds
to the leaders’ self ratings; therefore, the hypothesis
that the curve was flat along the F=Swas not
rejected. In addition, the line along F=Sincreases
192 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlationsa
Variables MSD 1234567
1. Transformational leadership (leader) 3.66 0.65 (.85)
2. Transformational leadership (follower) 3.08 0.78 .16*(.89)
3. Empowering leadership (leader) 4.08 0.66 .58*** –.01 (.92)
4. Empowering leadership (follower) 3.65 0.72 .07 .63*** .03 (.92)
5. Follower rating of leader effectiveness 3.48 0.90 .00 .75*** –.07 .65*** (.92)
6. Satisfaction with supervision 3.69 1.03 –.04 .65*** –.12 .60*** .77*** (.84)
7. Self-leadership 3.68 0.59 .05 .20** –.02 .30*** .13 .21** (.93)
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are reliability coefficients.
a. nranges from 214 to 222.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Leadership Scalesa
Empowering Transformational
Items Leadership Leadership
He/she urges me to search for solutions to my problems on the job without his/her supervision. .93
He/she advises me to solve problems when they pop up without always getting his/her stamp
of approval. .88
He/she urges me to assume responsibilities on my own. .80
He/she encourages me to find solutions to my problems at work without seeking his/her direct input. .78
He/she urges me to work as a team with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her. .68
He/she encourages me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her. .60
He/she advises me to coordinate my efforts with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her. .54
He/she provides a clear vision of where we are going. .91
He/she provides a clear vision of who and what we are. .91
Because of him/her, I have a clear vision of our organization. .87
He/she is not afraid to “break the mold” to find different ways of doing things. .60
He/she is driven by higher purposes or ideals. .59
He/she isn’t afraid to “buck the system” if he/she thinks it is necessary. .53
He/she is a nontraditional type who “shakes up the system” when necessary. .44
from the near corner (point S=–2, F=–2) to the far
corner of the figure (point S=2, F=2), implying that
in-agreement/good estimators were rated as more
effective than in-agreement/poor estimators.
Examining the surface along the F=–Sline indi-
cates that it was concave (a2=-.43, t=–2.73, p<.01),
rejecting the hypothesis that the surface was flat along
the F=–Sline, which means that the level of self-
awareness had different effects on leader effective-
ness. Movement to the right or left from the F=Sline
indicates a decline in leader effectiveness. However,
this decline was greater when moving more to the
right than to the left. This indicates that when leaders
and followers disagree, ratings of leader effectiveness
decline and the degree of decline for overestimators is
greater than for underestimators. In general, the figure
indicates that in-agreement/good leaders were rated
as the most effective, followed by underestimators.
In-agreement/poor leaders were rated as less effective,
but they were rated higher than overestimators. These
results support Hypothesis 2a.
Hypothesis 2b predicted a similar relationship with
respect to empowering leadership between leader
self-awareness and follower ratings of leader effec-
tiveness. Results from the regression analysis indicate
that Model 1 explained significant variance (R2=.42,
F=78.79, p<.001), whereas Model 2 failed to
provide incremental variance (∆R2=.01, F= 1.69,
p>.05). These findings imply that empowering lead-
ership has a direct effect on leader effectiveness;
however, the level of agreement on empowering lead-
ership is not related to leader effectiveness. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2b was not supported.
Hypothesis 3a predicted a relationship between
leaders’ self-awareness of transformational leadership
and followers’ satisfaction with supervision. Models 1
and 2 for the outcome variable of satisfaction with
supervision were significant (R2=.44, F=86.85, p<
.001, and R2=.48, F=39.69, p<.001, respectively),
and Model 2 explained significant additional variance
(∆R2=.04, ∆F=5.04, p<.01; see Table 4). Therefore,
we analyzed the nature of the surface (see Figure 2).
Consistent with the congruence literature, a2 was not sig-
nificant (a2=–.26, t=–1.77, p>.05) along the F=Sline,
thus failing to reject the hypothesis that the line was flat
along the F=Sline. However, the line increases from the
near corner (S=–2, F=–2) to the far corner (S=2, F=
2), implying that follower reporting to in-agreement/
good leaders had higher satisfaction with supervision
than those who report to in-agreement/poor leaders.
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 193
Table 3
Incremental Effects of Transformational and Empowering Leadership on Outcome Variablesa
Outcome Variables
Leader Effectiveness Supervisory Satisfaction Follower Self-Leadership
Predictors Model 1 Beta Model 2 Beta Model 1 Beta Model 2 Beta Model 1 Beta Model 2 Beta
A. The role of transformational leadership
Step 1
Empowering leadership .82*** .37*** .91*** .48*** .25*** .24***
Step 2
Transformational leadership .66*** .63*** .01
R2.42 .61 .36 .48 .09 .09
F154.43*** 166.71*** 122.56*** 101.52*** 21.53** 10.74***
∆R2.19 .12 .00
∆F105.00*** 51.96*** 0.01
B. The role of empowering leadership
Step 1
Transformational leadership .87*** .66*** .91*** .63*** .15*** .01
Step 2
Empowering leadership .37*** .47*** .24***
R2.56 .61 .42 .48 .04 .09
F273.99*** 166.71*** 161.11*** 101.52*** 8.99** 10.74***
∆R2.05 .06 .05
∆F26.83*** 24.58*** 12.03***
a. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.
**p<.01. ***p<.001.
As shown in Figure 2, the surface is flat on the F =
−Sline, too (a2=−.311, t=–1.473, p>.05), failing to
reject the hypothesis that the surface was flat along this
line. However, further examination of the line indicates
curvilinearity with respect to the F-axis, as evidenced
by a large coefficient on F2(t=−3.78) and coeffi-
cients that approach 0 on S2and SF. The negative sign
of a2also indicates that the curve was concave. This
implies that follower satisfaction with supervision is
similarly higher for those who report to underestima-
tors and in-agreement/good estimators than for those
who report to overestimators and in-agreement/
poor leaders. These results provided partial support to
Hypothesis 3a.
Hypothesis 3b predicted similar patterns of satis-
faction with supervision for followers who report to
empowering leaders. Model 1 of the regression analy-
sis indicated that empowering leadership explained
194 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Figure 1
The relationship between leader self-awareness about transformational
leadership and follower assessment of leader effectiveness.
significant variance on supervisory satisfaction (R2= .375,
F=65.49, p<.001); however, Model 2 did not explain
additional variance (∆R2=.005, ∆F=1.69, p>.05).
This implies that empowering leadership has a direct
effect on follower satisfaction with supervision but
leader self-awareness has no effect on follower satis-
faction with supervision; hence, Hypothesis 3b was
not supported.
Hypothesis 4a predicted a relationship between
leaders’ self-awareness of empowering leadership
and followers’ self-leadership. Models 1 and 2
explained significant variance in followers’ self-lead-
ership (R2=.09, F=10.44, p<.001, and R2=.13,
F=6.44, p<.001, respectively). In addition, Model
2 explained additional variance in self-leadership
(∆R2=.04; ∆F=3.53, p<.05; see Table 4). These
findings imply that both empowering leadership and
leaders’ self-awareness of their empowering leader-
ship were related to followers’ self-leadership. The
surface was convex, as it is evidenced by a positive
and significant value of a2along the F =−Sline
(a2= .34, t=2.61, p<.01; see Figure 3). This implies
that followers of underestimators displayed higher
self-leadership than those of in-agreement/good or
in-agreement/poor leaders. In addition, follower self-
leadership was higher for followers of underestimators
than of overestimators, as evidenced by higher values
of self-leadership at the far left of the F=Saxis than
at the far right of the axis. However, the hypothesis
that the line was a curve along the F=Sline was
rejected as evidenced by the nonsignificant value
of a2(a2=−.04, t=−.36). Along the same line
(F=S), the line increased from the near corner (S=−2,
F=−2) to the far corner (S=2, F=2), which implies
that followers’ self-leadership was higher for follow-
ers of in-agreement/good leaders than for those of in-
agreement/poor leaders. In general, followers of
underestimators displayed the most self-leadership
behavior, followed by those of in-agreement/good
leaders. Self-leadership was the lowest among fol-
lowers of in-agreement/poor leaders. Hypothesis 4a
was partially supported.
Hypothesis 4b predicted that follower self-leader-
ship would be similar at all levels of agreement with
respect to leader transformational leadership. Although
the overall equation in Model 1 explained significant
variance (R2=.04, F=4.62, p<.05), neither self-
rating nor follower rating of leader transformational
leadership was related to follower self-leadership.
Furthermore, leaders’ self-awareness about their
transformational leadership was not related to fol-
lower self-leadership (∆R2=.01; ∆F=0.86, p>.05;
see Table 4). Therefore, these results provided support
for Hypothesis 4b.
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 195
Figure 2
The relationship between leader self-awareness
about transformational leadership
and follower satisfaction with supervision.
Figure 3
The relationship between leader
self-awareness about empowering leadership
and follower self-leadership.
In summary, we found that (a) transformational lead-
ership and leader self-awareness of transformational
leadership were related to both subordinates’ ratings of
leader effectiveness and satisfaction with their supervi-
sion; (b) neither transformational leadership nor leader
self-awareness of transformational leadership was
related to subordinate self-leadership; (c) empowering
leadership and leader self-awareness of empowering
leadership were related to subordinate self-leadership;
and (d) empowering leadership, but not leader self-
awareness in empowering leadership, was related to
leader effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction with
supervision (see Table 5). Overall, the effects of self-
awareness of transformational leadership were different
from those of self-awareness of empowering leader-
ship. In addition, results of self-awareness were distinct
and separate from the direct effects of leadership.
Discussion
This study was designed to extend our current under-
standing of the effects of leaders’ self-awareness of
their own leadership on various outcomes of interest. In
addition to dependent variables such as leader effec-
tiveness and satisfaction with supervisor, we investi-
gated the influence of self-awareness on follower
self-leadership. Moreover, nearly all of the previous
work in this line of research concentrated on self-
awareness of transformational leadership. In this
research, we have extended the issue to include self-
awareness of empowering leadership.
To operationalize leader self-awareness, leaders
were categorized as underestimators, in-agreement/
good estimators, in-agreement/poor estimators, and
overestimators, based on agreement with followers in
describing their own transformational and empowering
leadership. We expected that followers would experi-
ence different responses, depending on the degree of
leaders’ self-awareness.
In terms of transformational self-awareness, our
results are generally consistent with previous research
such as Atwater and Yammarino (1992) and Sosik and
Megerian (1999). For example, although the self-
descriptions of leadership were generally more favor-
able than followers’ descriptions, we did find variance
and diversity in leader self-awareness. That is, some
leaders indeed underestimate, others agree, and others
196 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Table 4
Regressions of Outcome Variables on Self-Ratings and Follower Ratingsa
Leader Effectiveness Supervisory Satisfaction Self-Leadership
Variable Model 1 Beta Model 2 Beta Model 1 Beta Model 2 Beta Model 1 Beta Model 2 Beta
Transformational leadership
Self-rating −.17** −.12 −.24** −.19*−.02 −.02
Follower rating .89*** .72*** .93*** .89*** .15 .17
Self ×Self −.09 −.03 .06
Self ×Follower .22*.02 −.02
Follower ×Follower −.12*−.25*** .07
R2.57 .59 .44 .48 .04 .05
F145.67*** 61.48*** 86.85*** 39.69*** 4.62*2.36*
∆R2.02 .04 .01
∆F2.85* 5.04** 0.86
Empowering Leadership
Self-rating −.13 −.08 −.23** −.10 −.03 .07
Follower rating .83*** .78 .91*** 1.10*** .25*** .42
Self ×Self −.11 −.03 .03
Self ×Follower .03 −.16 −.19
Follower ×Follower .06 −.02 .12**
R2.42 .44 .375 .380 .09 .13
F78.79*** 32.83*** 65.49*** 26.34*** 10.44*** 6.44***
∆R2.01 .005 .04
∆F1.69 0.53 3.53*
a. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
overestimate their own transformational and empowering
leadership. And more important and again consistent
with previous research, we also found that underesti-
mators and in-agreement/good transformational leaders
were, in general, identified as most effective by
followers.
Results from confirmatory factor analyses, hierar-
chical regression, and polynomial regression analyses
demonstrated distinct differences in the way trans-
formational and empowering leadership related to
follower outcomes. Note that the two leadership
behaviors, although sharing some communality, are
different, yet both have incremental direct effects on
various outcome variables (see Table 3). These results
demonstrate differential predictive reliability of the
leadership measures. In addition, polynomial regres-
sion shows that transformational self-awareness was
positively related to follower satisfaction with super-
vision and leader effectiveness, whereas empowering
self-awareness was not. In turn, self-awareness in
empowering leadership was related to follower self-
leadership, whereas transformational self-awareness
was not. We believe that the explanation for these
findings lie in the conceptual definitions of the two
types of leadership. Transformational leadership is
defined more in terms of formulation and implemen-
tation of leader vision and inspiration of followers
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990), which is a type of over-
arching organizational goal or mission. In contrast,
the fundamental conceptualization of empowering
leadership has been directly linked to follower self-
leadership (Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Manz & Sims,
1991 1995; Sims & Manz, 1996). That is, empowering
leadership is a more narrowly focused leadership that
is intended to directly enhance follower self-leadership
and, indirectly, long-term follower performance. Thus,
the self-awareness of transformational and empower-
ing leadership might be expected to follow a different
pattern of relationship with various outcomes due to
the different foci of the two forms of leadership.
A secondary finding, following the work of Atwater
and Yammarino (1997) and Atwater et al. (1998), con-
cerns separating in-agreement leaders into in-agreement/
good and in-agreement/poor groups. This distinction
showed that in-agreement/good leadership was gener-
ally associated with higher levels of individual outcomes
than in-agreement/poor leadership. This implies that
self-awareness per se is not necessarily optimal in regard
to follower responses. Atwater and Yammarino (1997)
and Atwater et al. (1998) have also presented convincing
arguments about the importance of this finer distinction
of self-awareness for research and managerial purposes.
In particular, this classification has training implications,
which are discussed next.
Managerial Implications
The most important managerial implication of this
research derives from the overall finding that self-
awareness of one’s own leadership was related to var-
ious affective and behavioral outcomes, including
follower ratings of leader effectiveness, follower satis-
faction with supervision, and follower self-leadership.
These results support the potential efficacy of leader-
ship development interventions that are specifically
intended to enhance leader self-awareness. For
example, the results support the potential benefits
of classical survey feedback on leadership (Thach,
2002). That is, if an organization periodically con-
ducts surveys about the behavior of leaders and offers
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 197
Table 5
Overall Pattern of Significant Relationships Between Leadership,
Leader Self-awareness, and Outcomes
Outcome Variables
Leader Effectiveness Subordinate Supervisory Satisfaction Subordinate Self-Leadership
Leadership
Transformational leadership YesaYes No b
Empowering leadership Yes Yes Yes
Leader self-awareness of
Transformational leadership Yes YescNo
Empowering leadership No No Yes
a. The predictor was significantly related to the outcome variable.
b. The predictor was not significantly related to the outcome variable.
c. Indicates new contribution to the literature.
timely, candid individual feedback in a constructive
manner (Atwater, Waldman, & Brett, 2002), then our
results suggest that enhanced self-awareness might
produce benefits. In fact, our results suggest future
field experimentation to assess the effectiveness of
survey feedback about leadership in enhancing self-
awareness.
A more contemporary evolution of survey feed-
back is the 360ofeedback, where ratings or descrip-
tions are taken from followers, peers, and superiors of
focal leaders. This approach more fully acknowl-
edges the value of different perspectives and offers
the potential of greater triangulation among data
sources. The leadership–outcome relationships docu-
mented in this research suggest that measures of spe-
cific leadership behavior should be considered as
potentially important components of the 360ofeed-
back for developmental purposes. Another contempo-
rary development approach is the use of executive
coaching, which typically entails one-on-one tutoring
about leadership. Coaching typically includes the
development of specific information about an execu-
tive’s leadership and guided personal experimenta-
tion on how leadership can be made more effective.
An important component of this is a focus on leader-
ship self-awareness. As Brett and Atwater (2001)
reported, overraters are more likely to consider the
discrepant feedback from various sources as negative
feedback and hence less likely to use such feedback
for developmental purposes. Therefore, it is essential
that coaches providing such feedback also consider
managers’ personality because research shows that
personality interferes with the perception of feed-
back. Specifically, Smither, London, and Richmond
(2005) noted that coaches and psychologists provid-
ing training to leaders “may benefit from understand-
ing [a leader’s] personality profile and using it as an
indicator of the [leader’s] likely perceptivity to feed-
back [and coaching]” (p. 203). They also suggested
that devoting more attention and effort on leaders
who are low in the big-5 personality dimensions
(e.g., concientiousness, emotional stability, openness
to experience, agreeableness, and/or extraversion)
helps them benefit from the feedback from various
sources, even if such feedback is not consistent with
the managers’ initial expectations or views. Thus, the
coaches may focus on training leaders to use the feed-
back on their self-awareness to better manage and
influence their subordinates’ attitudinal and behav-
ioral outcomes.
Of course, leaders can also independently seek feed-
back and engage in self-development through deliber-
ate self-monitoring coupled with behaviorally oriented
conversations about leadership. An organization may
need to develop a system that can support leaders’
effort to seek feedback from their followers, peers, and
superiors. It may also provide a training program to
help leaders develop their feedback seeking and com-
munication skills and how to use feedback received
from other sources. Finally, our results demonstrate
that leader self-awareness per se does not substitute for
effective leadership. That is, leadership does have a
main effect! In particular, the results of polynomial
regression suggest that both leadership behavior and
leader self-awareness can influence outcomes.
Issues and Limitations
This study should be considered in view of certain
issues and limitations. First, the study compared
leaders’ self-assessment of their leadership to their
followers’ assessment to explain outcome variables
but did not address the assessment of other sources
(e.g., peers and superiors of the leaders). Therefore,
we suggest future studies include assessments from
other sources not only about leader transformational
leadership but also about empowering leadership.
Second, the outcome variables were gathered only
from the followers, raising the possibility of common-
method bias influencing the findings. We do not dis-
pute that gathering outcome variables from other
sources would strengthen the conclusions to be drawn
from the results. However, for most of the outcome
variables in this study, followers were the most appro-
priate source. In addition, the findings are consistent
with results from previous studies (e.g., Atwater et al.,
1998; Sosik & Megerian, 1999), which should mini-
mize concerns about assessing leader effectiveness
from the follower perspective. Finally, this study
focuses on only two types of leadership, and it shows
that self-awareness of each of these two leadership
styles has similar effects, but on different outcome
variables. Future research may extend our study to
other forms of leadership such as transactional leader-
ship and directive leadership.
Contributions of This Research
The line of research about leader self-awareness is
relatively well developed. Yet this study extends our
prior understanding of the effects of leadership self-
awareness in several ways. First, although the results
of prior studies have generally been supported (e.g.,
Atwater et al., 1998), our research does indicate that
the results that apply to self-awareness about transfor-
mational leadership might not be generalizable to self-
awareness about empowering or, perhaps, other types
198 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
of leadership. Second, the study extends our under-
standing of the effects of leadership self-awareness on
follower self-leadership. Finally, the study highlighted
differential effects of self-awareness about trans-
formational and empowering leadership in that the
former is more related to leader effectiveness and fol-
lower satisfaction with supervision, and the latter is
more related to followers’ self-leadership. Last but not
least, the results do call to mind the sage advice of one
of the first self-help writers:
Observe all men; thy self most!
Benjamin Franklin
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not
to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the
influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer
satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 945-955.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The
empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and
validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.
Ashford S. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations: A literature
review and integrative model. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 11, 33-174.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W.
(1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel
Psychology, 51, 577-598.
Atwater, L. E., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence
of upward feedback on self and follower rating of leadership.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 35-59.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., & Brett, J. F. (2002).
Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Human
Resource Management, 41, 193-208.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agree-
ment on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of lead-
ership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology,
45, 141-164.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agree-
ment: A review and model. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 121-174.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999) Re-examining the
components of transformational and transactional leadership
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights
from the Emotional Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J. D.
A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence
(pp. 363-388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership
(3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and
others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding
successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 40, 437-454.
Brett, J., & Atwater, L. (2001). 360 degree feedback: Accuracy,
reactions and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 930-942.
Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1997). A hierar-
chical construct of self-management leadership and its rela-
tionship to quality of work life and perceived work group
effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 50, 275-308.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic
leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,21(7), 747-767.
Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cog-
nitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly,51, 1-28.
Cox, J. (1993). The effects of superleadership training on leader
behavior, follower self-leadership behavior, and follower citi-
zenship. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational
behavior research: Critique and proposed alternative. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,58, 683-689.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The
importance of vertical and shared leadership within new ven-
ture top management teams: Implications for the performance
of startups. The Leadership Quarterly,17, 217-231.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2004). Is similarity in leadership related
to organizational outcomes? The case of transformational
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
10(4), 92-102.
Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rat-
ing agreement and leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 7,
487-506.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An
integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 297-299.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work design. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harris, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-
supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel
Psychology,41, 43-62.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and fol-
lowers’ perceptions of transformation and transactional lead-
ership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and
support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-busi-
ness-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
891-902.
Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency
model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When
should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 11(4), 65-83.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2004). Unconventional leader
behavior, subordinate satisfaction, effort and perception of
leader effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies,10(3), 15-26.
Johnson, J. W., & Ferstl, K. L. (1999). The effects of interrater
and self-other agreement on performance improvement fol-
lowing upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 52, 271-303.
Jordan, P. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence,
emotional self-awareness, and team effectiveness. In V. U.
Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 199
intelligence and performance at work: Current research evi-
dence with individuals and groups (pp. 145-163). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality
and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 751-765.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to
factor, path, and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of abil-
ity: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
67, 280-296.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead
themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1989). Superleadership: Leading
others to lead themselves. New York: Prentice Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1991). SuperLeadership: Beyond
the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 18-35.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1995). Businesses without bosses:
How self-managing teams are building high-performing com-
panies. New York: John Wiley.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared lead-
ership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management
teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional,
transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172-197.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E.,
Smith, K. A., et al. (2003). Transactors, transformers and
beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typol-
ogy of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22,
273-307.
Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social
work and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs.
shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. E. Riggio &
S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit orga-
nizations (pp. 180-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riggio, R. E., & Cole, E. J. (1992). Agreement between subordinate
and superior ratings of supervisory performance and effects on
self and subordinate satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology,65, 151-158.
Salam, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1997). In the eye of the
beholder: How leadership relates to 360°performance ratings.
Group and Organization Management, 22, 185-209.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Manz, C. C. (1996) Companies of heroes:
Unleashing the power of self-leadership. New York: John
Wiley.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Richmond, K. R. (2005). The rela-
tionship between leaders’ personality and their reactions to
and use of multisource feedback. Group & Organization
Management, 30, 181-210.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emo-
tional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other
agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group
& Organization Management, 24, 367-390.
Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-
managing work teams: A typology and integrative model.
Human Relations,48(7),747-770.
Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Thach, E. C. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360-
degree feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23, 205-214.
Thornton, G. C. (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisals
of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 263-271.
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., & Shi, K.
(2005). Transformational leadership and work-related atti-
tudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy
across culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11(3),2-16.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The
role of collective efficacy in the relations between transforma-
tional leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515-530.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of
transformational leadership and its effects among naval offi-
cers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark
(Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange,
NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations, (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Yun, S., Cox J., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2006). The forgotten follower:
A contingency model of leadership and follower self-leader-
ship. Journal of Managerial Psychology,21, 374-388.
Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2005). Contingent leadership
and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 1288-1296.
Amanuel G. Tekleab is an assistant professor of management at
the School of Business Administration, Wayne State University.
He received his PhD from the R.H. Smith School of Business,
University of Maryland, College Park. His research areas are in
employment relationships, teams, leadership, compensations, and
training and development. His work has appeared in management
journals such as Academy of Management Journal,Strategic
Management Journal,Organizational Research Methods,Human
Resource Management,and Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Henry P. Sims, Jr., is a professor of management and organiza-
tion at the R. H. Smith School of Business, University of
Maryland. He earned his PhD from the College of Business,
Michigan State University. His areas of research are leadership
and teams. He has published seven books and over 130 articles in
such journals as Journal of Applied Psychology,Academy of
Management Journal, and Administrative Science Quarterly.
Seokhwa Yun is an assistant professor at the College of Business
Administration at Seoul National University. He received his PhD in
management from the R.H. Smith School of Business, University of
Maryland, College Park. His special areas of research include lead-
ership, top management team, employees’ extra-role behaviors,
impression management, expatriation issues, and knowledge man-
agement. His work has appeared in journals such as Academy of
Management Journal,Journal of Applied Psychology,Journal of
200 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Applied Behavioral Science, and International Journal of Human
Resource Management.
Paul E. Tesluk received his PhD from Penn State University. He is
an associate professor at the R. H. Smith School of Business at the
University of Maryland, College Park. His research focuses
on team effectiveness, leadership development, and innovation
processes in organizations. His work has appeared in journals such
as Journal of Applied Psychology,Academy of Management Journal,
Personnel Psychology, and Organization Science, among others.
Jonathan Cox is a management and organization consultant in pri-
vate practice in Houston, Texas. He received his PhD in industrial
and organizational psychology from the University of Maryland.
He has been a program manager at Dell, Inc., a manager with the
Change Leadership practice of Deloitte Consulting L.C., and an
associate with the Center for the Study of Work Teams at the
University of North Texas. His expertise includes organization
change management and project management supporting large-
scale organization change such as technology implementation and
re-engineering. He has worked with a range of private-sector and
public-sector clients representing oil and gas, utilities, chemicals,
telecommunications, insurance, manufacturing, and aerospace and
defense. His work has appeared in Journal of Applied Psychology,
Group and Organization Management,Advances in the Inter-
disciplinary Study of Work Teams (JAI Press), and in other outlets.
Tekleab et al. / Effects of Leaders’ Self-Awareness 201
