A longitudinal, mixed method evaluation of self-awareness training in the workplace

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate whether self-awareness, which is associated with general well-being and positive life outcomes, is also of specific benefit in the workplace. The authors tested the relationship between self-awareness and job-related well-being, and evaluated two different interventions designed to improve dispositional self-awareness at work. Design/methodology/approach – Full-time employees took part in these training interventions and completed questionnaires using a switching-replications design. Questionnaires measured dispositional self-attentiveness (reflection and rumination) and job well-being (satisfaction, enthusiasm and contentment) at three time points over a period of six weeks. Statistical analyses were complemented with qualitative analysis of reported impacts. Findings – Self-awareness was positively associated with job-related well-being and was improved by training. Employees reported gaining a greater appreciation of diversity, improved communication with colleagues and increased confidence. Research limitations/implications – Sample size limited the extent to which the relatively weak relationships between the concepts could be identified. Practical implications – Self-awareness is demonstrated to be of value at work, associated with higher well-being and improvements in several positive occupational outcomes. The self-awareness training is more likely to result in active work-based improvements than in reflective changes. Originality/value – Dispositional self-awareness is shown to be subject to change through training. The study demonstrates the value of self-awareness at work and identifies a range of related work outcomes.

Well-being through learning: a systematic review of learning interventions in the workplace and their impact on well-being

“…However, in the case of some of the interventions, changes in well-being were treated as a measure of the effectiveness of a learning intervention. Of the 41 studies, 12 did not seek to measure learning outcomes that were distinct from well-being, simply measuring the effectiveness of the learning intervention by its impact on well-being outcomes ( Vitzthum, Klapp, & Groneberg, 2015;Romanowska et al, 2011;Shonin, Van Gordon, Dunn, Singh, & Griffiths, 2014;Sutton, Williams, & Allinson, 2015;Taniguchi, Hirokawa, Tsuchiya, & Kawakami, 2007;Varekamp, Verbeek, de Boer, & Van Dijk, 2011;Williams, Brenner, Helms, & Williams, 2009;Zijlmans, Embregts, Gerits, Bosman, & Derksen, 2015). The rest of the studies measured both learning and well-being outcomes, although there was often a good deal of overlap between the two.…”

Measuring the effects of self-awareness: Construction of the Self-Awareness Outcomes Questionnaire

“…As this was a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to identify whether trait reflection is the cause of greater experience of reflective self-development or whether reflective self-development results in an increase in trait reflection. However, previous work has indicated that engagement in self-awareness training can indeed have some impact on trait reflection (Sutton, Williams, & Allinson, 2015) and it seems likely that reflection and development interact closely: increased reflection results in increased self-development, which in turn promotes higher levels of trait reflection in the long term.…”

“…Sutton et al (2015) report on a longitudinal study of the effects of workshops designed to enhance self-awareness and identify four main themes and twelve contingent themes in the outcomes that participants report. Two of these twelve contingent themes were excluded from this study as not relevant: ‘no changes’ was excluded as the SAOQ is designed to measure only reported effects of self-awareness and ‘future development’ because the theme involved hopes or plans about future development which was not yet in evidence.…”

Beyond the Single Organization: Inside Insights From Gaining Access for Large Multiorganization Survey HRD Research

“…All multiple organization studies report the number of respondents and, where practicable, the size of the population from which they are selected or the associated response rate, very little commentary being provided. Lists compiled by the researcher are used for three multiple organization studies (Table ), being developed from: “multiple publicly available business directories” (Au & Ahmed, , p. 354), professional development bodies serving a specific sector (Fontana et al, ) and researchers’ contacts and word of mouth (Sutton, Williams, & Allinson, ). As before, associated issues are very rarely discussed, at best receiving a brief comment; for example, “Although the response rate is low, there is no reason to believe that the sample is unrepresentative of the overall population” (Fontana et al, , p. 38).…”