Self-awareness has two important components.
- The first is possessing an accurate view of your own skills and abilities, along with your shortcomings and weaknesses.
- The second is understanding how colleagues perceive your behavior. It enables you to know how you impact them and what you contribute to the success or struggles of the group.
The phrase “know thyself” was an ancient Greek maxim inscribed on the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. At first hearing it sounds logical, reasonable and virtuous. But apparently even in ancient times, a certain kind of self-awareness was deemed more important. In the Suda, a 10th-century encyclopedia of Greek knowledge, the proverb was applied primarily to those whose boasting far exceeded their skills.
My colleague Joe Folkman and I recently published research in Harvard Business Review that shows that having a highly accurate view of your skills (meaning one that aligns exactly with the perceptions of others) is not all that helpful to a leader’s success.
As providers of 360-degree feedback to hundreds of organizations through the world, we are often asked, “Do managers see themselves accurately?” We’ve all heard leaders say something to the effect of, “Of course I know my strengths and my weaknesses.” However, our 360-degree feedback data describing 69,000 managers as seen through the eyes of 750,000 respondents, suggests this is basically not true. Leaders generally don’t know their strengths or their weaknesses well.
For the benchmark, we start by using the average score from all respondents (boss, peers and subordinates, but excluding the self-score). We can then calculate the difference between any individual or respondent group score and the benchmark. If you describe this process to any group and ask them to predict which of the scores will be farthest apart from the aggregate benchmark scores, every group predicts the self-score will be the furthest away. They’re correct.
So if managers don’t see themselves accurately, the next question is: “Do managers tend to over-rate or under-rate themselves?” If my self-perceptions are not accurate, does it matter whether I under-rate or over-rate myself? The answer is a resounding, “Yes.”
For some time we’ve had the impression that the highest performing managers tend to under-rate their abilities, while managers performing least well have a tendency to rate their skillsets too high. Both errors appear to make an impact on how a leader is perceived, but in opposite directions.
The graph below plots the degree to which leaders over-rate and under-rate themselves. Then we divided the overall spread of results into deciles and plotted that against an overall leadership effectiveness score, which summarizes an aggregate score on their 360-degree feedback results. In each case, the number below the vertical bars shows the difference from the self-score for that decile of leader in comparison to how others rated them.
Surprisingly, the most effective leaders don’t have the highest level of self-awareness. Indeed, the more they under-rated themselves, the more effective they were perceived to be as leaders. We assume this is caused by a combination of humility, high personal standards and a continual striving to be better.
But, on the other hand, why is having an illusion of personal superiority so damaging? Does it convey an attitude of arrogance? Or is it because that mindset eliminates the motivation for self-development? We suspect the reasons are many, are subtle, and may be intertwined.
This research suggests our emphasis needs to shift away from merely giving people general self-awareness. Helping those who over-rate themselves to come to grips with that seems especially valuable. An aura of humility is far superior in the results it produces.
Are there any negative consequences for leaders who underestimate their performance?
While it doesn’t appear in our data, we believe that sometimes there is. We suspect that many of these leaders needlessly expend a great deal of emotional energy in proving themselves to others.
Below is a different way of depicting the data we have presented in this blog. Here’s what it shows:
- Those who over-rate themselves have far more weaknesses
- Those who over-rate themselves have more fatal-flaws. (Something that’s in the bottom decile when compared to others.
- Those who over-rate themselves have no “strengths” (defined as a behavior at the 90th percentile.
- Those who under-rate themselves are more apt to have profound strengths.
- Under-raters have virtually no “fatal flaws.”
- Under-raters possess some weaknesses but these appear to be overshadowed by their strengths.
So how are you feeling about your abilities now?
To learn what makes 360 assessment tools effective, download a white paper, 11 Components of a Best in Class 360 Assessment.
