In our Leadership Labs so far, we’ve been focusing on some of the most central measures of leader development, the ones that all (or almost nearly all) leader development programs should assess.
Moving forward, I want to broaden that discussion to explore the wider constellation of constructs that help us understand leader development, both in and beyond higher education. While not fundamental measures like leader identity or leader self-efficacy, there are still numerous constructs that help classify what kind of development is occurring, how durable that development is over time, and where developmental efforts are strong or weak.
Thus, here we’ll discuss a foundational, identity-based construct that, though not directly about leadership, shapes the degree to which leader development impacts participants’ identity: self-concept clarity.
Defining Self-Concept Clarity
Self-concept clarity (SCC) has been studied for over three decades in both the psychology and leadership fields. At its core, self-concept clarity refers to the degree to which a person’s self-image is clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable over time. In other words, SCC is a core dimension of self-awareness.
To put it another way, high SCC means that when someone is asked who they are, their answer will have certain characteristics. First, their answer will be relatively stable and coherent; thus, the different values, motives, and beliefs about themselves will fit together rather than contradict one another. Their answer will also be detailed and confident (hence the “clarity” in self-concept clarity), and that description will remain relatively consistent across time and situations. That doesn’t mean that the answer will be 100% the same. Our professional and personal selves can differ, after all. It also doesn’t mean that a person’s sense of self will not change over time. High SCC simply means that a person’s self-understanding won’t dramatically shift or contradict itself across situations.
Note that nothing here is inherently about leadership. SCC isn’t the same thing as leader identity, leader self-efficacy, or anything directly related to leading other people. So, why talk about it in a Leadership Lab piece? The answer is that, although SCC is not inherently a leadership construct, it has important implications for both leadership and leader development.
SCC, Leadership, and Leader Development
Googling “self-aware leaders” immediately produces countless articles and resources emphasizing how fundamental self-awareness is to effective leadership across domains, and how many people want their leaders to be self-aware. Because SCC reflects a deep, global form of self-awareness, it has important implications for leadership.
Leaders with a clear and stable sense of self (i.e., higher SCC) are generally better positioned to lead in a way that’s coherently driven by their convictions and values. This doesn’t mean that SCC guarantees authentic or ethical leaders. However, SCC can empower leaders to be more consistent in how they express their values, and, in turn, how those values guide leaders’ behavior even in ambiguous, complex, or demanding circumstances.
SCC is also particularly relevant for leader development, especially programs aimed at developing participants’ leader identities, because SCC helps clarify whether identity development is deep or shallow — and thus how likely it is to endure.
For example, a student might score highly on measures of leader identity and leader self-efficacy—meaning they see themselves as a leader and believe they can lead—but those beliefs may still be fragile and contextual, unable to endure much beyond the program itself. SCC allows us to differentiate between this kind of shallow change and the deeper, consolidated transformation that is the goal of many leader development programs.
Measuring Self-Concept Clarity
SCC is not a measure like leader identity or leader self-efficacy. However, SCC can be particularly valuable for identity-based developmental programs, as stated above. Thus, programs emphasizing reflection, narrative identity work, purpose discovery, or values exploration might all benefit from assessing SCC to determine if this identity work is having an impact on participants’ broader sense of self. This can be especially important in higher educational settings, as students’ self-concepts are more moldable.
However, when leader development is not primarily identity-driven—such as in programs focusing on skill training, behavioral practice, or performance improvement—SCC might be less essential, especially if survey space is limited. This doesn’t mean SCC is irrelevant in such cases. However, it may function more as a supplementary construct rather than a core indicator of growth.
In terms of actual measures, the most straightforward and widely-used measures is the Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCCS) from Campbell and colleagues (1996). This 12-item measure directly assesses how clear, consistent, and stable individuals’ self-beliefs are, and has been validated across a variety of populations, including in leader development programs, with individuals who score highly on it making more accurate decisions in leadership contexts, being better at distinguishing their own perspectives from others’ perspectives, showing stronger self-regulation and goal achievement behaviors, and being better communicating their visions as leaders.
Overall, SCC is not going to be the centerpiece of many leader development programs—even identity-based ones like those at the Doerr Institute. However, that does not mean SCC is unimportant. Indeed, SCC is a valuable part of the broader constellation of leader development measures. By capturing the degree to which individuals’ self-understanding is coherent and stable, SCC provides researchers and practitioners alike with a concrete means of assessing whether leader development is meaningfully integrated into participants’ identities. In doing so, it offers insight not just into whether development is occurring, but whether it is likely to endure over time and meaningfully shape both the developed individual and the people they lead.
For Further Readings:
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141
Lodi-Smith, J., & DeMarree, K. G. (2018). Self-Concept Clarity: Perspectives on Assessment, Research, and Applications. Springer.
Spain, S. M., & Kim, J. (2017). Leadership, Work Careers, and Self-Concept Clarity. In J. Lodi-Smith & K. G. DeMarree (Eds.), Self-Concept Clarity: Perspectives on Assessment, Research, and Applications (pp. 165–176). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71547-6_9
