1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek
Samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah
UDK: 35-057.17 Jernej Buzeti
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo jernej.buzeti@fu.uni-lj.si
Janez Stare
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo janez.stare@fu.uni-lj.si
IZVLEČEK
V procesu vodenja lahko predvsem pozitivna samopodoba vodje vpliva na kakovosten medosebni odnos z vodenimi oziroma na vedenje vodje in tudi vodenih. Rezultati izvedene raziskave samopodobe vodij v upravnih enotah kažejo, da sta izmed proučevanih področij samopodobe najnižje izraženi predvsem socialna in telesna samopodoba, najvišje pa je izražena splošna samopodoba. Ker je za vodje pomembno, da imajo dobro razvite predvsem socialne spretnosti oziroma spretnosti za delo z ljudmi, je rezultat raziskave o socialni samopodobi vodij v državni upravi (upravnih enotah) pomemben kazalnik podob vodij o njihovih predstavah na socialnem področju. Prispevek se osredotoča na samopodobo vodij upravnih enot in predstavlja rezultate opravljene raziskave s tega področja.
Ključne besede: vodja, socialna samopodoba, telesna samopodoba, samospoštovanje, upravna enota
JEL:Z00 1 Uvod
Pomenu vodenja ljudi in primernosti vodij se v slovenski državni upravi namenja vse več pozornosti tako na področju raziskovanja kot tudi pri praktičnem izvajanju. Ključni dejavnik vodenja je vodja, saj predstavlja osrednjo, središčno točko v odnosu do vodenih. Uspešno vodenje ljudi zahteva od vodij, da imajo ustrezne kompetence, ki pomembno vplivajo
Buzeti, J. & Stare, J. (201 0). Samopodoba v upravnih enotah. Uprava, VIII(4), str. 7-31 .
7
Jernej Buzeti, Janez Stare Samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah
na to, da bodo doseženi zastavljeni cilji. Raziskave potrjujejo, da osebnost vodje vpliva na uspešnost vodenja - in vodja si na podlagi svoje osebnosti izoblikuje tudi določeno predstavo o samem sebi. Torej predstavo o tem kaj si misli o sebi, svojih sposobnostih, lastnostih, o svojem telesu, možnostih v življenju, uspehih in neuspehih. V strokovni literaturi se za opis takšnih značilnosti uporablja izraz "samopodoba". V procesu vodenja ni vseeno, kakšen je vodja kot osebnost oziroma kakšna je njegova samopodoba, saj lahko določena predstava vodje o samem sebi vpliva na njegovo vedenje, ki se lahko prenese tudi na vodene oziroma njihovo vedenje.
2 Vodenje in vodja
V literaturi zasledimo, da obstajajo različne 1 definicije vodenja, ki vodenje opredeljujejo z različnih2 vidikov. V prispevku se vodenje razume kot vplivanje vodje na vodene z namenom, da si vodeni želijo (hočejo) opraviti nalogo, za katero so se dogovorili z vodjem. Podobno menita tudi Hellriegel in Slocum (1996, str. 445), saj razumeta vodenje kot vplivanje na zaposlene, da ti delujejo v smeri doseganja ciljev. Brajša (1983, str. 187) pa opredeljuje vodenje kot zapleten medosebni proces, saj gre pri vodenju za delo z ljudmi, ki so zapletena in zahtevna bitja.
Northouse (2007, str. 3) pojasnjuje, da je vodenje proces5, v katerem poteka niz aktivnosti, in kot menijo Hočevar (2003, str. 130-131) in drugi »v takšnem procesu enakovredno sodelujejo vodja, vodeni in okoliščine«. Vodeni lahko v organizaciji oziroma socialni situaciji s svojim vedenjem silijo vodjo, da izbere ustrezen stil vodenja - toda vodja bo stil vodenja prilagodil tudi na okoliščine oziroma situacijo, v kateri izvaja aktivnosti, in to s ciljem uspešno realizirati dogovorjeno oziroma zadano nalogo. Pri vodenju gre torej za proces, ki ga oblikujejo razmerja oziroma interakcije med vodjo, vodenimi in okoliščinami. Ključni dejavnik vodenja pa je vodja, ki »z zgledom in nasveti vodi sodelavce, da bi dosegel zastavljen organizacijski cilj« (Stare & Seljak, 2006, str. 89). Gibb (v: Nastran Ule, 1994, str. 237) opredeljuje, da je vodja:
1	Nekatere so predstavili Bass, Antonakis, Yukl, Avolio, Bennis, Gardner, Kotter, Kovač, Mayer, itd.
2	Vodenje se lahko obravnava z antropološkega, psihološkega, sociološkega, tehnološkega, ekonomskega, organizacijskega, kulturološkega in drugih vidikov.
3	Podobno menijo tudi Bass (1990), Mayer (2004), Možina (1994), itd.
8 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
•	dominantna osebo z močjo in vplivom, s katerim deluje na obnašanje in aktivnosti drugih;
•	"centralna oseba" za člane skupine, ego-ideal skupine;
•	oseba, ki ima največji vpliv na druge in katerega vpliv skupina prostovoljno sprejema.
Vodja opravlja pomembne naloge v procesu vodenja in ima v organizaciji oziroma skupini osrednjo vlogo. Njegova vloga je pomembna, saj on ne samo vpliva na ljudi, da dosežejo dogovorjene cilje, njegova vloga je tudi v tem, da je vzgled ljudem (tudi na področju morale oziroma etičnih standardov). Temu pritrjuje tudi Branden (2000, str. 61), ki pravi, da »premalo vodilnih razume in ceni stopnjo, do katere so vzor drugim. Ne prepoznajo, kako podrobno ljudje okrog njih včasih nezavedno opazujejo in prevzemajo njihove drobne gibe in kako se njihov vpliv odraža v celotni organizaciji«. To kar vodja naredi in pove je pogosto vidno v povratni reakciji v vedenju vodenih. To vedenje je pomembno in izkustveno ugotavljamo, da mora vodja takšno vedenje zaznavati in izboljševati. Na vedenje oziroma na uspešnost vodenja lahko vpliva s svojimi sposobnosti, znanjem in lastnostmi.4 Toda Stare (2005, str. 86) meni, da je zmožnosti, ki naj bi jih imel posamezni vodja za uspešno vodenje, težko opredeliti in to tudi zaradi vpliva vodenih in posamezne situacije.
Yukl (2002, str. 195) meni, da so med spretnostmi predvsem spretnosti za delo z ljudmi 5 bistvene za vplivanje na ljudi. Takšne spretnosti so znanja in sposobnosti za delo v skupini oziroma sposobnosti za vodenje določene skupine. Gre za spretnosti,6 ki jih ima oziroma bi jih moral imeti vodja za delo z ljudmi, saj mu pomagajo k bolj učinkovitemu delu s podrejenimi oziroma vodenimi in to z namenom, da se dosežejo organizacijski cilji. Vodja, ki ima zelo dobro razvite takšne spretnosti oziroma sposobnosti, se zaveda svojega razpoloženja, domnev in prepričanj drugih posameznikov (vodenih) in skupin. Ustvarja tudi pozitivno klimo oziroma vzdušje zaupanja, v katerem se zaposleni (vodeni)
4	Znanje, sposobnosti in lastnosti (osebnostne, socialne) se lahko razume tudi kot človeške zmožnosti.
5	Angl. "human skill"
6	Bass (1 990, str. 1 95) jih poimenuje tudi kot "socialne, družbene spretnosti" in meni, da s tem mislimo na sposobnosti, ki omogočajo razumevanje občutkov, razpoloženja in motivov vodenih ter sposobnosti dobre komunikacije in prepričevanja.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 9
počutijo udobno in varno. Takšne spretnosti so pomembne, saj gre tudi za motiviranje in razumevanje vodenih (po Katz, 1955, str. 34-35). Bass (1990, str. 110) pojasnjuje, da so raziskave pokazale, da so takšne spretnosti zelo pomembne in vplivajo na uspešnost in napredek vodje oziroma na uspešnost vodenja. To potrjuje tudi z raziskavo, ki jo je izvedel Boyatzis (1982), saj je pokazala, da se na podlagi spretnosti dela z ljudmi ločijo uspešni vodje od neuspešnih. Nastran Ule (1994, str. 237) pa pojasnjuje, da so spretnosti vodje povezane z nalogami, ki jih mora opraviti; pomembne naloge vodje so predvsem psihološke naloge, socialne naloge in strokovne naloge.
Na uspešnost vodenja ne vplivajo samo spretnosti in znanja vodij, ampak tudi lastnosti vodij, itd. Po pregledu literature ugotovimo, da vsak avtor s svojega vidika opredeljuje lastnosti, ki so značilne za uspešnega vodjo. V tabeli 1 so prikazani pogledi nekaterih avtorjev na lastnosti, ki bi jih morali imeti uspešni vodje.
Tabela 1 : Predstavitev ključnih lastnosti uspešnih vodij
Northouse (2007)	Kirkpatrick in Locke	Stogdill	Mayer
	(1991)	(1974)	(2004)
- inteligentnost	- prodornost	- uspešnost	- inteligentnost
- samozaupanje	- motiviranost	- vztrajnost	- osebnost v
- odločnost	- poštenost	- opazovanje	ožjem pomenu
- poštenost	- zaupnost	- samozaupanje	- ustvarjalnost
- družabnost	- kognitivnost	- odgovornost	- izraznost
	- strokovnost	- kooperativnost	- empatija
		- tolerantnost	- pozitivna
		- vplivnost	samopodoba
		- družabnost	- odločnost
			- etična načela
			- altruizem in
			filantropija
Vir: Northouse (2007, str. 1 8-19), Mayer (2004, str. 53-56)
Maxwell (2007, str. 10) predstavlja 21 pomembnih lastnosti, ki jih morajo imeti uspešni vodje, in sicer: značaj, karizma oz. očarljivost, predanost, komunikacijska sposobnost, pogum, razsodnost, moč osredotočenosti, velikodušnost, dajanje pobud, poslušanje, navdušenje, pozitiven pristop, reševanje težav, odnosi, odgovornost, prepričanost vase, samodisciplina, uslužnost, učljivost, vizija. Po primerjavah lastnosti lahko ugotovimo, da vsi avtorji poudarjajo lastnost "zaupanje vodje v samega sebe" oziroma "spoštovanje samega sebe", svojih sposobnosti. Po mnenju
10 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Maxwella (2007, str. 101) je vodja lahko tisti, ki osvoji "zakone vodenja", vendar pa postane vodja učinkovit šele zaradi svoje notranjosti. Torej je pomemben vodja kot osebnost, ki ima jasno zavedanje o sebi, o tem kaj želi doseči in verjame v samega sebe. Pomembno je tudi to, da ima vodja izoblikovano predstavo o sebi.
3 Samopodoba
Pogled vodje na samega sebe oziroma njegova samopodoba je v odnosu do vodenih pomembna predvsem zaradi tega, ker vpliva na njegovo vedenje in s tem posledično tudi na vedenje vodenih ter tudi na samozavest in samozaupanje vodje v okviru njegovih posameznih dimenzij samopodobe. Nastran Ule (1994, str. 238) pojasnjuje, da so strokovnjaki7 na podlagi raziskav ugotovili, da je za dobre vodje značilna izgrajena in realna samopodoba o sebi.
Samopodobo si posameznik ustvarja kot edinstvena osebnost, ki po mnenju Allporta (Samuel, 1981, str. 3) predstavlja dinamično organizacijo posameznih psihodinamičnih sistemov, ki določajo posameznikovo značilno vedenje in misli. In ker smo ljudje socialna bitja, saj vzpostavljamo odnose z drugimi ljudmi, vpliva na kakovost vzpostavitve ter ohranitev odnosa z drugimi tudi osebnost vsakega posameznika in s tem povezana njegova podoba o samem sebi. To potrjuje tudi Musek (2005, str. 1), saj meni, da »šele na podlagi ustreznega poznavanja osebnosti se lahko dobro znajdemo v medsebojnih odnosih in si jih urejamo tako, kot si želimo«.
Tudi v procesu vodenja prihaja do interakcije med vodjo in vodenimi, torej do odnosa med različnimi osebnostmi. In zato sta osebnost posameznika in njegova podoba o sebi pomembni v procesu vodenja. Stare in Seljak (2006, str. 189) pojasnjujeta, da »ugotavljanje potenciala za vodenje temelji prav na spoznanju osebnosti oziroma posameznih vidikov osebnosti«. Rogers (v: Kohont, 2005, str. 36) pa meni, da je vedenje posameznika kot edinstvene osebnosti odvisno od tega, kar si misli o sebi, kako se doživlja.
Pri opredelitvi pojma samopodoba ugotovimo, da se v slovenski literaturi uporablja številčnost izrazov, ki opredeljujejo pojem samopodobe (po Kobal, 2000, str. 17). Nekateri mu pravijo
7 Nastran Ule (1994, str. 238) navaja naslednje avtorje: Bird (1940), Mann (1959), Sorrentino in Boutillier (1975).
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 11
samoidentiteta (Musek, 1993a, str. 359), identiteta (Zupančič, 1993, str. 208), socialni jaz (glej Nastran Ule, 1994, str. 292-302), samopercepcija (Ferbežer, 2008, str. 25). V angleški literaturi pa self (James, 1890, Cooley, 1902), self-actualisation (Rogers, 1951, Maslow, 1954), self-image (Offer et al, 1988), self-concept (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982), self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), identity (Kroger, 1989) in drugo.
S konstruktom samopodobe se ukvarjajo številni8 strokovnjaki in ravno v tem lahko poiščemo vzrok za številčnost9 pojmov, ki opredeljuje samopodobo. Vsem pojmom pa naj bi bilo po mnenju Nastran Uletove (1994, str. 296) skupno, da gre pri tem konstruktu za množico odnosov, ki jih posameznik vzpostavlja do samega sebe70. Posameznik v ta razmerja vstopa postopoma, s pomočjo občutkov, predstav, vrednotenj in ocen samega sebe, svojih tipičnih socialnih naravnanosti, ki jih najprej preko prvotnega objekta, kasneje pa preko širšega družbenega okolja, razvija že od rojstva dalje. Gre za občutek lastne kontinuitete v prostoru in času ter dejstvo, da tudi drugi prepoznajo to kontinuiteto. S slovenskim pojmom "samopodoba" po mnenju Kobalove (2000, str. 24) razumemo vključenost dveh različnih konceptov, in sicer ameriškega self-concept in evropskega self-image. Self-concept opredeljuje zavestno, pojmovno, torej tudi logično in racionalno, self-image pa bolj poudarja nezavedno, nagonsko in emocionalno. Oboje pa je združba psihosocialne, telesne in vedenjske razsežnosti osebnosti - samopodoba. Podobno self-concept opredeli tudi Tohme (v: Kobal, 1994, str. 31), saj pojasnjuje, da gre pri tem za celoto potez, podob, značilnosti, okusov, vrednot, pričakovanj itd., ki jih posameznik bolj ali manj jasno zaznava pri samem sebi in jih v skladu z drugimi in v skladu s svojimi socialnimi vlogami ustrezno organizira in usklajuje.
Burns (1979) pojasnjuje, da je »samopodoba neka sestavljena podoba o tem, kaj mi mislimo o tem, kaj smo, kaj mislimo, da bi lahko bili, oziroma kaj bi lahko dosegli, in kaj mislimo, da drugi mislijo o nas, ter kaj bi radi bili, oziroma kakšni bi radi postali«. Burnett (1999, str. 2) in drugi opredeljujejo »samopodobo kot multidimenzionalna čustvena, ocenjevalna, primerjalna in kognitivna prepričanja, ki jih imajo ljudje o
8	Shavelson, Marsh, Offer, Rogers, Markus, Wurf, Fleming, Watkins, Kobal - Grum, Avsec itd.
9	To potrjujeta tudi Ahmed in Bruinsma (2006, str. 554).
10	Podobno opredeljujeta koncept tudi Akram in Akram Naseem (201 0, str. 78).
12 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
posebnih lastnostih - in glavna tri področja teh lastnosti so: telesno, socialno in akademsko področje«. Zimbardo in Gerrig (1996, str. 528) pa pojasnjujeta, da je samopodoba dinamična struktura, saj vsebuje mnogo komponent, kot so:
•	lastni spomini o samem sebi;
•	prepričanja oziroma zaupanja o svojih lastnostih, motivih, vrednotah in sposobnostih;
•	idealni "jaz" oziroma idealna samopodoba, ki bi jo zelo radi dosegli, pridobili in s tem možni "jazi" oziroma samopodoba, ki bi jo radi uvedli;
•	pozitivno in negativno vrednotenje samega sebe;
•	in prepričanja o tem, kaj drugi mislijo o nas.
Samopodoba je v dobršni meri proizvod procesa socialnega konstruiranja in socialnega zrcaljenja - izjave drugih o nas so kot zrcalo, v katerem vidimo samega sebe. Iz tega razloga tudi Adlešič (1999, str. 5) pojasnjuje, da »na razvoj samopodobe vplivajo različni socialnopsihološki procesi, kot so sprejemanje informacij od pomembnih drugih, socialno primerjanje z drugimi osebami, prevzemanje vlog, vrednot in stališč socialnega okolja, v katerem posameznik živi, in identifikacija z modelom«. Tudi Nastran Ule (2004, str. 296) meni, da »nam samopodobo potrdijo le drugi ljudje, to so tisti, ki so za nas kakorkoli pomembni ali zanimivi. Toda to morajo storiti brez pritiska ali manipulacij. Pozitivne samopodobe, ki jih dosežemo s podkupovanjem drugih, niso kaj dosti vredne, saj jih lahko hitro ogrozi kak bolj avtonomen in kritičen opazovalec«. Pomen okolja oziroma drugih ljudi za razvoj samopodobe opredeljuje tudi Musek (1993b, str. 348-349), saj meni, da se v našo samopodobo vtisnejo izjave drugih, recimo o tem, kako smo "pridni", "poredni", "živi", itd. Vsa ta sporočila se bolj ali manj "primejo" naše duševnosti in postanejo del predstave, ki jo gojimo o sebi.
Po pregledu literature ugotovimo, da avtorji 11 v svojih delih kot ključno za razvoj samopodobe poudarjajo predvsem obdobje otroštva in mladostništva. Adlešič (1999, str. 2) pa meni, da je razvoj samopodobe kontinuiran in značilen za vsako razvojno obdobje. To tudi pomeni, da kljub temu, da sta ključni obdobji za razvoj samopodobe otroštvo in mladostništvo, je obdobje odraslosti tisto obdobje, ko se vzpostavlja še
11 Kobal, Juriševič, Lewis, Adams, Hurlock, itd.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 13
več novih področij samopodobe, ki so tesno povezane z razvojem osebnosti v obdobju odraslosti. Kobal (2000, str. 89) pojasnjuje, da se samopodoba s starostjo posameznika razvija in kot kažejo raziskave se tudi spreminja in strukturira. Ne razvija se kot celota, temveč se s starostjo vzpostavljajo zelo različna področja, od telesne, socialne, akademske in emocionalne samopodobe, itd. To potrjuje tudi Shavelson (v: Adlešič,
1999,	str. 4), ko pojasnjuje, da se samopodoba oblikuje postopoma v človekovem razvoju - predvsem na prehodu iz otroštva v odraslost; s starostjo pa postaja vse pogostejša s plastmi. Od življenjskega sloga odraslega posameznika, njegovih obveznosti, interesov, socialnih vlog in vpetosti v medosebne odnose pa je odvisno, v kolikšni meri bo posameznik svojo samopodobo še določneje strukturiral oziroma razmejil na posameznih področjih (glej Kobal Grum, 2004, str. 99).
3.1 Samopodoba in samospoštovanje
Samospoštovanje je pomemben korelat samopodobe oziroma njen vrednotni vidik (po Potočnik, 2003, str. 6). Kobal Grum (2003, str. 20) pa celo meni, da je samospoštovanje najpomembnejši korelat samopodobe. Če samopodoba zajema predvsem nevtralne samoopise, potem se samospoštovanje nanaša na vrednostne samoopise, v katere so vpeti izrazito čustveni odnosi do samega sebe. Samospoštovanje je torej vrednostni odnos do samega sebe in zajema predvsem čustva, ki jih posameznik goji do sebe. Obstaja tudi pozitivna korelacija med samopodobo in samospoštovanjem - človek, ki ima visoko samopodobo (zlasti splošno) ima tudi visoko samospoštovanje. In obratno: oseba, ki o sebi nima visokega mnenja, se tudi ne ceni prav dosti (Kobal Grum, 2003, str. 21).
Samospoštovanje je kompleksen pojem, ki vključuje naravnanosti, prepričanja, dispozicije, želje, pričakovanja, čustva in dejanja, ki izražajo ali tvorijo občutek lastne vrednosti osebe. Vključuje tako prepoznavanje in razumevanje lastne vrednosti kot tudi željo in dispozicijo, da bi to vrednost zavarovala in ohranila (Marčič, 2006, str. 66). Rosenberg (v: Kobal,
2000,	str. 154) pojasnjuje samospoštovanje kot pozitivno ali negativno stališče do samega sebe. Pozitivno stališče ali visoko samospoštovanje pomeni, da se posameznik sprejema takšen, kakršen je, se ceni, je zadovoljen s sabo, se čuti vrednega spoštovanja. Oseba z nizkim samospoštovanjem oziroma negativnim stališčem do sebe, se ne ceni, se ne vidi kot vrednega, se mu lastne lastnosti ne zdijo vredne.
14 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Samospoštovanje pomeni odnos do samega sebe in zajema predvsem čustva, ki jih posameznik goji do sebe.
Rosenberg (1965) v eni izmed svojih raziskav tudi dokazuje, da se nizko samospoštovanje povezuje s simptomi, ki so značilni za tesnobo: tresenje rok, glavobol, povečan utrip srca, itd. (Rosenberg v: Avsec, 2010, str. 98). Znaki, ki so značilni za osebe, ki imajo slabo samopodobo oziroma nizko samospoštovanje, so ljubosumnost, slabo govorjenje o sebi, občutki krivde, nezmožnost dajanja komplimentov, neupoštevanje lastnih potreb, nezmožnost vprašati po tistem, kar bi radi, nezmožnost izražanja naklonjenosti drugim, kritičen odnos do drugih, primerjanje z drugimi, trajno poslabšanje zdravja (Račnik, 2008).
Kobal (2000, str. 165) pojasnjuje, da so številni raziskovalci ugotovili, da je zveza med samopodobo (samospoštovanjem) in anksioznostjo obratno sorazmerna - čim bolj ima posameznik izoblikovano pozitivno samopodobo in visoko samospoštovanje, tem nižja je njegova stopnja anksioznosti. In obratno: manj kot se oseba ceni in čuti vrednega, sposobnega in uspešnega, bolj je tesnobna.
3.2 Področni vidiki samopodobe
Strukturni modeli samopodobe različnih avtorjev72 prikazujejo, da je samopodoba psihološki konstrukt, ki je sestavljen iz različnih področij oziroma podpodročij. Po pregledu literature ugotovimo, da avtorji 73 samopodobo delijo na različna področja, in sicer splošna, socialna, telesna, emocionalna, religiozna, akademska, družinska samopodoba itd. S starostjo posameznika in z okoliščinami, v katerih deluje posameznik, pa se področja, ki sestavljajo samopodobo, spreminjajo oziroma so lahko različna7* od posameznika do posameznika. Izkustveno ugotovimo, da je samopodoba vsakega posameznika in s tem tudi samopodoba vsakega vodje sestavljena predvsem iz splošne, akademske, socialne, telesne in emocionalne (čustvene) samopodobe.75
12	Shavelson, Bolus, Offer, Tam, Watkins itd.
13	Npr. James (1980), Fleming in Elovson (1988), Kobal (2000), Hattie (2003) itd.
14	Hattie (2003, str. 7) v svojem prispevku navaja kar 18 podpodročij samo za akademsko samopodobo in pojasnjuje, da jih je lahko še mnogo več.
15	Izpostavljenost posameznih področij, iz katerih je samopodoba sestavljena, je od posameznika do posameznika različna in tudi število področij je različno.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 15
Emocionalna samopodoba predstavlja določena občutenja in prepričanja posameznika o izražanju, spoznavanju ter obvladovanju svojih čustev. Posameznik na primer razmišlja in vidi samega sebe kot ne/mirnega, ne/sproščenega in čustveno ne/uravnovešenega itd. Razmišlja tudi o tem, ali je pretežno dobro ali slabo razpoložen, ali je močno vznemirjen in kako potem obvladuje svoja čustva (glej Kobal, 2000, str. 205-220). Socialna samopodoba obsega zaznave 16 , prepričanja in presoje posameznika o odnosih z vrstniki in drugimi pomembnimi bližnjimi osebami, kot so starši, sorojenci, partner in sodelavci. Gre za zaznave posameznika o lastnih sposobnostih sklepanja prijateljstev, o lastni priljubljenosti in o kakovosti odnosov z bližnjimi. Del samopodobe pa se nanaša na vpliv posameznika na širšo skupnost oziroma na doživljanje odnosa do zakonov in družbenih moralnih norm (glej Kobal, 2000, str. 171-200). Musek (1993a, str. 345) pripisuje velik pomen socialni samopodobi in pojasnjuje, da so del naše samopodobe pojmovanja in predstave, ki jih imamo o tem, kaj drugi mislijo o nas in o tem, kako naj samega sebe predstavimo in prikažemo pred drugimi, na socialnem prizorišču - socialni jaz. Hattie (2003, str. 18) pojasnjuje, da je socialna samopodoba za posameznika pomembna in veliko informacij o posamezniku izvira iz socialnih okoliščin. Vsak človek je namreč veliko v prisotnosti drugih in njegovo osebnost drugi tudi predstavijo drugim - na podlagi tega pa človek gradi in spoznava sam sebe v socialnih situacijah in si oblikuje določeno podobo o sebi.
Znak dobre socialne samopodobe vodij je, da zlahka sklepajo odnose z vodenimi in jih tudi ohranjajo na kakovostni ravni. Vodje imajo jasno izoblikovano podobo o sebi in niso občutljivi na neodobravanje drugih, niso obsedeni s tem, kako najbolj uspešno predstaviti sebe v socialnem okolju. Vodje z visoko izraženo oziroma pozitivno socialno samopodobo nimajo težav z anksioznostjo oziroma predvsem socialno anksioznostjo, ki pomeni, da ljudje doživljajo nenehen (nepojasnjen) strah pred družabnimi situacijami, v katerih bi jih lahko drugi ocenjevali ali obsojali. Takšen strah pa še naraste, če ugotovijo, da bi lahko pred omenjenimi ljudmi doživeli ponižanje. Vodje s socialno anksioznostjo so v odnosu z ljudmi neuspešni in pogosto občutijo tesnobo, napetost, vznemirjenost itd.
16 James (v: Hattie, 2003, str. 1 7) je socialni jaz opredelil kot "priznanja", ki smo jih dobili od svojih bližnjih (npr. družine, prijateljev).
16 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Po mnenju Schilderja (v: Fisher, 1990, str. 8) je »telesna samopodoba slika lastnega telesa posameznika, ki jo izoblikuje v svojih mislih«. Thompson (v: Kuhar, 2004, str. 84) in drugi pa pojasnjujejo, da »je telesna samopodoba terminološka oznaka za notranjo predstavo o lastnem zunanjem videzu. Ta notranji pogled oziroma mentalna slika pa je povezana z občutji in mislimi, ki v določenih situacijah vplivajo na vedenje. V nekaterih primerih so lahko občutja, ki izhajajo iz ocene videza, pozitivna, v drugih primerih pa so lahko tako negativna, da vodijo celo v depresijo«. »Pozitivna telesna samopodoba lahko zviša samospoštovanje in prispeva k uspešnim medosebnim ali poslovnim stikom, medtem ko lahko negativni pogled na lastno telo do take mere oslabi samozavest, da oseba ni pripravljena zapustiti varnega zavetja svojega doma« (Kuhar, 2004, str. 84-85). Grogonova (v: Kuhar, 2004, str. 86) meni, da gre pri telesni samopodobi za »človekove percepcije, mišljenje ali občutenja o njegovem ali njenem telesu. Percepcije se nanašajo na oceno velikosti telesa, mišljenje na vrednotenje telesne privlačnosti, občutja pa na čustva, povezana z obliko in velikostjo telesa«.
Na razvoj telesne samopodobe pomembno vplivajo medosebne izkušnje, npr. druženja, vrednotenje, tudi navidezno milo komentiranje videza. Osebe, ki so v otroštvu in mladosti deležne pogostih kritik in draženja zaradi videza, razvijejo bolj negativno telesno samopodobo, kajti telesna samopodoba se ne pozablja. Na negativno samopodobo vplivajo tudi specifični dogodki in situacije, ki sprožajo določena občutja in razmišljanje o videzu (Kuhar, 2004, str. 87). Kobal (2000, str. 65) pa pojasnjuje, da če je oblikovanje telesne samopodobe pri mladostniku moteno, se tudi splošna samopodoba in samospoštovanje ne moreta ustrezno razviti.
4 Raziskava o samopodobi vodij v upravnih enot
Namen raziskave, ki je predstavljena v prispevku, je bil poudariti pomen samopodobe vodij. Vodja namreč s svojim vedenjem vpliva na delovanje (vedenje) zaposlenih in s tem posledično na uspešnost in učinkovitost upravne enote. Glavni cilj raziskovanja oziroma proučevanja je bil ugotoviti, kakšna je samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah in katero področje samopodobe vodij je najnižje oziroma najvišje izraženo. Ciljna skupina, ki je torej sodelovala v raziskavi, so bili vodje, ki v organih državne uprave opravljajo razmeroma identične naloge in le-te opravljajo na območju celotne države. Takšnemu pogoju so ustrezali vodje
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 17
Jernej Buzeti, Janez Stare Samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah
v upravnih enotah in zato so bili v raziskovalni vzorec vključeni vodje iz upravnih enot v Sloveniji.
Raziskava je bila izvedena v 57 upravnih enotah (za nesodelovanje v raziskavi so se odločili samo v eni upravni enoti) in v njej je sodelovalo 136 vodij, med katerimi je bilo manj kot 5 % tistih, ki so strokovno tehnično osebje (javni uslužbenci) in so vodje organizacijskih enot. Največ, in sicer dobrih 66 % je bilo takih, ki so uradniki oziroma vodje organizacijskih enot z do 30 zaposlenimi. V raziskavi je sodelovala tudi polovica vseh načelnikov upravnih enot v Sloveniji oziroma dobrih 21 % vseh anketiranih vodij. V raziskavi je bilo ocenjevanih 8 % vodij organizacijskih enot z več kot 30 zaposlenimi.
Vprašalnik77, ki je bil izoblikovan v sklopu raziskave, opredeljuje 45 vprašanj in meri štiri vidike samopodobe, in sicer splošno, socialno, telesno in emocionalno samopodobo. Idejne zasnove za oblikovanje vprašanj sta predstavljala Lestvica samospoštovanja 78 avtorice Tanje Lamovec in tudi Vprašalnik SDQIII79 (vprašanja, s katerimi ugotavljamo splošno samopodobo). Visoko število točk oziroma visoka aritmetična sredina na vsaki posamezni dimenziji samopodobe kaže na to, da je samopodoba na tistem področja močno izražena.
4.1 Rezultati raziskave
Z raziskavo smo želeli ugotoviti, kako so izražena posamezna področja samopodobe pri vodjih, in sicer splošna, emocionalna, socialna in telesna samopodoba. Raziskava je pokazala, da sta področji socialne in telesne samopodobe v primerjavi s splošno in emocionalno samopodobo nižje izraženi. Preverjanje s T-testom je pokazalo, da statistično značilnih razlik ni zaznati samo med področjem socialne in telesne samopodobe. Med vsemi drugimi pari proučevanih področij samopodobe je mogoče zaznati statistično značilne razlike.
17	Poimenovan je kot Vprašalnik Lestvica samopodobe.
18	Lestvica samospoštovanja je krajše poimenovana kot LS.
19	Self Description Questionnaire III (Marsh, 1 992)
18 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Grafikon 1: Področja samopodobe vodij v upravnih enotah (povprečna ocena)
■ splošna ■ socialna ■ telesna ■ emocionalna
Vir: lastni
Rezultati raziskave (cf. grafikon 1) kažejo, da sta telesna in socialna samopodoba najnižje izraženi področji samopodobe, ki so bile merjene v raziskavi, saj je povprečna ocena vodij za obe področji 3,76. Takšen rezultat kaže na zmerno izraženost socialne in telesne samopodobe proučevanih vodij v upravnih enotah.
Grafikon 2: Primerjava treh trditev v sklopu splošne samopodobe
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj	povsem drži
povsem drži
■ sprejemam samega/o sebe moja občutja do same/ga sebe so pozitivna cenim sam/a sebe
Vir: lastni
Med spremenljivkami (prikazane v grafikonu 2) v sklopu splošne samopodobe se statistično značilna razlika zazna med parom dveh
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 19
spremenljivk, in sicer "sprejemam samega/o sebe" in "cenim sam/a sebe". Med drugimi pari spremenljivk ni zaznati statistično značilnih razlik. Rezultati pri paru kjer so statistično značilne razlike zaznane, kažejo, da slabih 67 % proučevanih vodij, ki sprejemajo same sebe, hkrati tudi meni, da cenijo sebe. 1 1 % vodij, ki sprejemajo samega sebe pa hkrati meni, da se še kar cenijo, ampak ne povsem. Dobrih 67 % vodij pa hkrati meni, da sprejemajo same sebe in imajo tudi pozitivna občutenja do sebe.
V sklopu spremenljivk emocionalne samopodobe sta najvišje ocenjeni spremenljivki "ne razmišljam o tem, da nisem nič vreden/na" (4,38) in "nimam težav z depresivnostjo" (4,32). Najnižje sta ocenjeni spremenljivki "mislim, da nisem pretirano občutljiv/a na neodobravanje drugih" s povprečno oceno 3,57 in "sem zadovoljen/a sam s sabo" s povprečno oceno 3,69. Preverjanje s T-testom kaže, da je med najvišje ocenjeno spremenljivko in najnižje ocenjeno spremenljivko mogoče zaznati statistično značilne razlike (cf. grafikon 3).
Grafikon 3: Primerjava dveh spremenljivk v sklopu emocionalne samopodobe
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj	povsem drži
povsem drži
Mislim, da nisem pretirano občutljiv/a na neodobravanje drugih. ■ Ne razmišljam o tem, da nisem nič vreden/na.
Vir: lastni
Rezultati, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 3, kažejo, da samo dobrih 55 % proučevanih vodij meni, da niso občutljivi na neodobravanje drugih. Več kot 1 1 % vodij pa je občutljivih na neodobravanje drugih. Določena občutljivost vodij na neodobravanje drugih je potrebna, saj na tak način vodje tudi začutijo in pokažejo svoja čustva. Toda bolj kot njihova občutljivost na neodobravanje drugih je pomembna empatija oziroma
20 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
sposobnost "vživljanja" v vodene oziroma zaznavanja čustev in potreb vodenih. Določeno (ne)občutljivost vodij na (ne)odobravanje drugih se lahko razume tudi na način, da želijo vodje ugajati drugim in ker jih nekateri drugi ne odobravajo, se pri vodjih pojavljajo določena občutenja in nekateri so na takšna občutenja občutljivi bolj kot drugi. Analiza rezultatov tudi kaže, da dobrih 87 % ocenjevanih vodij ne razmišlja o tem, da niso nič vredni. Dobrih 4 % vodij pa razmišlja o tem, da niso nič vredni. 52 % vodij hkrati meni, da ne razmišlja o tem, da niso nič vredni, in tudi misli, da niso pretirano občutljivi na neodobravanje drugih. Dobrih 9 % tistih vodij, ki ne razmišlja o tem, da niso nič vredni, pa misli, da so pretirano občutljivi na neodobravanje drugih.
V okviru emocionalne samopodobe so bile na podlagi T-testa zaznane statistično značilne razlike tudi med spremenljivkama, ki se nanašata na depresivnost in napetost ter zaskrbljenost (cf. grafikon 4).
Grafikon 4: Primerjava dveh spremenljivk v sklopu emocionalne samopodobe
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj	povsem drži
povsem drži
■ nimam težav z depresivnostjo ■ nisem napet/a in zaskrbljen/a
Vir: lastni
Rezultati, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 4, kažejo, da dobrih 86 % vodij meni, da nima težav z depresivnostjo. Pričakovali bi, da bodo enaki odstotki tudi pri trditvi nisem napet in zaskrbljen, ki je vsebinsko tesno povezana z depresivnostjo - toda kot kažejo rezultati, samo 64 % vodij meni, da niso napeti in zaskrbljeni. Dobrih 61 % vodij, ki meni, da niso napeti in zaskrbljeni, hkrati tudi meni, da nima težav z depresivnostjo. Slabih 3 % ocenjenih vodij, ki hkrati meni, da nima težav z depresivnostjo, pa sebe ocenjuje kot napete in zaskrbljene. Dobra 2 % ocenjevanih vodij
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 21
Jernej Buzeti, Janez Stare Samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah
pa je takšnih, ki meni, da imajo težave z depresivnostjo in so hkrati napeti in zaskrbljeni.
Rezultati spremenljivk socialne samopodobe kažejo, da socialna samopodoba vodij ni visoko izražena oziroma je zmerno izražena, kar zbuja skrb. Preverjanje s T-testi kaže, da obstajajo med nekaterimi spremenljivkami statistično značilne razlike. Statistično značilna razlika obstaja med spremenljivkama "ne skrbi me, če se z drugimi ljudmi ne razumem prav dobro" in "ne skrbi me misel na to, ali me pri delu drugi ocenjujejo kot uspešnega/o ali neuspešnega/o" (cf. grafikon 5).
Grafikon 5: Primerjava dveh spremenljivk socialne samopodobe
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj	povsem drži
povsem drži
Ne skrbi me misel na to, ali me pri delu drugi ocenjujejo ko uspešnega/o ali neuspešnega/o.
■ Ne skrbi me, če se z drugimi ljudmi ne razumem prav dobro. Vir: lastni
Rezultati v grafikonu 5 kažejo, da dobrih 54 % ocenjevanih vodij meni, da jih ne skrbi misel na to, ali jih pri delu drugi ocenjujejo kot uspešnega/o ali neuspešnega/o. Slabih 24 % vodij pa skrbi, če jih drugi pri delu ocenjujejo kot uspešne oziroma neuspešne. Analiza rezultatov tudi kaže, da samo 36 % vodij, ki meni, da jih ne skrbi misel na to, ali jih drugi pri delu ocenjujejo kot uspešnega ali neuspešnega, hkrati tudi meni, da jih ne skrbi, če se z drugimi ne razumejo prav dobro. 21 % ocenjevanih vodij pa hkrati meni, da jih skrbi misel na to, ali jih drugi pri delu ocenjujejo kot (ne)uspešne, in da jih tudi skrbi, če se z drugimi ljudmi ne razumejo prav dobro.
22 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Grafikon 6: Primerjava dveh spremenljivk socialne samopodobe
50,0 40,0 % 30,0 20,0 10,0
41,9
,0
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj povsem drži
povsem drži
Ne vznemirja me, če imajo nekateri ljudje, ki jih poznam, neugodno mnenje o meni.
Kadar naredim kakšno nerodnost ali napako, ki me osmeši, to takoj prebolim.
Vir: lastni
Rezultati, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 6, kažejo, da 60 % proučevanih vodij meni, da če naredijo kakšno nerodnost ali napako, ki jih osmeši, to takoj prebolijo. Slabih 9 % vodij pa meni, da napake ali nerodnosti, ki jih osmeši, ne prebolijo takoj. Analiza rezultatov je tudi pokazala, da 25 % proučevanih vodij, ki takoj prebolijo napako ali nerodnost, ki jih osmeši, hkrati tudi meni, da jih ne vznemirja, če imajo nekateri ljudje, ki jih poznajo, neugodno mnenje o njih. Slabih 6 % vodij pa hkrati meni, da jih vznemirja, če imajo ljudje o njih neugodno mnenje in tudi ne morejo takoj preboleti napake, ki jih osmeši. Preverjanje s T-testom med spremenljivkama, ki sta prikazani grafikonu 6, je pokazalo, da so med spremenljivkama zaznane statistično značilne razlike.
Tudi področje telesne samopodobe je za vodje pomembno, saj se nanaša na notranje predstave vodij o njihovem o zunanjem videzu. Rezultati posameznih spremenljivk za področje telesne samopodobe kažejo, da je samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah zmerno izražena in da je med spremenljivkami v okviru telesne samopodobe zaznati nekaj statistično značilnih razlik. V sklopu spremenljivk telesne samopodobe preverba s T-testom kaže, da so bile zaznane statistično značilne razlike med nekaterimi pari spremenljivk, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 7.
Rezultati, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 7, kažejo, da 74 % ocenjevanih vodij meni, da so bolj privlačni kot večina ljudi. Dobrih 44 % vodij pa meni, da imajo občutek, da sploh niso telesno bolj privlačni od večine prijateljev in kolegov. Takšni rezultati so zanimivi in to še posebej, ker so
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 23
prijatelji in kolegi tisti, ki najbolj vplivajo na posameznika, oziroma po katerih se posameznik zgleduje in najbolj občuteno doživlja njihove komentarje. In če so prijatelji in kolegi v veliki večini bolj telesno privlačni od vodij, vpliva to na njihove občutke oziroma zaznavanja telesnega videza ter posledično vpliva na slabši pogled na svoje telo (je razvidno v zmerno izraženi telesni samopodobi). Slabih 3 % vodij pa sanjari20, da bi bili bolj privlačni.
Grafikon 7: Primerjava treh spremenljivk telesne samopodobe
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj	povsem drži
povsem drži
■ Ne sanjarim, da bi bil/a bolj privlačen/na.
Imam občutek, da sem telesno bolj privlačen/a od večine mojih
prijateljev/ic in kolegov/ic.
Sem vsaj toliko privlačen/na, kot večina ljudi.
Vir: lastni
Rezultati, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 8, pa kažejo, da 64 % proučevanih vodij trdi, da so zadovoljni s svojim telesnim videzom. 8,1 % vodij v upravnih enotah pa nima najboljšega pogleda na svoj telesni videz - to posledično pomeni, da lahko takšen pogled slabo vpliva na njihovo vedenje do vodenih oziroma na medosebne odnose.
Rezultati, ki so prikazani v grafikonu 8, tudi kažejo, da dobrih 77 % proučevanih vodij meni, da ne sanjarijo o tem, da bi bili bolj privlačni. Precej manj vodij v primerjavi z tistimi, ki ne sanjarijo, da bi bili bolj privlačni, pa skrbi kaj si drugi mislijo o njih. Samo dobrih 44 % proučevanih vodij meni, da jih ne skrbi kaj drugi mislijo o njih. Takšen rezultat je smiselno primerjati tudi s podobnimi rezultati spremenljivk, ki so
20 Samo 2 % vodij hkrati meni, da sanjarijo, da bi bili bolj privlačni in imajo kar precej močan občutek, da niso telesno bolj privlačni od svojih prijateljev/ic in kolegov/ic.
24 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
prikazane v sklopu socialne samopodobe. V primerjavi se ugotovi, da odstotek ne preseneča, saj tudi dobrih 38 % vodij ne vznemirja, če imajo nekateri ljudje, ki jih poznajo, neugodno mnenje o njih in 39 % vodij tudi meni, da jih ne skrbi, če se z drugimi ljudmi ne razumejo prav dobro.
Grafikon 8: Primerjava treh trditev telesne samopodobe
sploh ne drži le redko drži še kar drži	skoraj	povsem drži
povsem drži
■ Zadovoljen/na sem s svojim telesnim izgledom.
Ne sanjarim, da bi bil/a bolj privlačen/na.
Ne skrbi me, kaj drugi ljudje mislijo o meni.
Vir: lastni
4.2 Razprava
Rezultati opravljene raziskave o samopodobi vodij na upravnih enotah kažejo, da sta najnižje izraženi področji socialne in telesne samopodobe. Za vodje je pomembno, da imajo visoko izraženo samopodobo na socialnem področju, saj je to področje samopodobe povezano s tem, kakšno predstavo oziroma prepričanja ima posameznik o sebi na področju odnosov z ljudmi (npr. vodenimi). Gre za predstave oziroma zaznave vodij o njihovi priljubljenosti in njihovih lastnih sposobnostih sklepanja dobrih odnosov z vodenimi, njihovega motiviranja, sposobnosti prepričevanja vodenih in vključevanja v socialno okolje. Če je samopodoba na t.i. socialnem področju nizko izražena oziroma slaba - pomeni to, da imajo vodje slab pogled na sebe na področju odnosov oziroma začnejo dvomiti v same sebe v razmerju do drugih. Ker niso tako priljubljeni v družbi, kot si želijo biti oziroma ker mogoče vodeni bolj zaznavajo druge kot pa njih, jih to v odnosu do vodenih ovira in pri njih se pojavlja občutek negotovosti, ali bodo res zmogli vzpostaviti primeren odnos z vodenimi, tako da jih bodo vodeni
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 25
sprejeli in jim zaupali. Gre tudi za predstave vodij o tem, kakšno mnenje imajo vodeni o njih in kako naj sebe prikažejo na socialnem prizorišču.
Rezultati raziskave za področje socialne samopodobe za proučevane vodje kažejo, da je socialna samopodoba zmerno izražena. Nekatere spremenljivke kažejo skrb zbujajoče rezultate in to v povezavi s tem, da se od vodij pričakuje, da so sposobni sklepati dobre odnose z vodenimi in jih vodeni spoštujejo oziroma v njih vidijo vzornike, ki so jim zgled s svojimi sposobnostmi in načelnostjo. Na podlagi rezultata se lahko sklepa, da je vedenje vodij do vodenih omejeno in vpliva na odnos do vodenih, ker če vodje dvomijo v svoje sposobnosti vzpostavljanja odnosa z vodenimi -bodo imeli vodje manj uspešnega odnosa z vodenimi (prisoten je lahko tudi strah ali bom uspešen) in pri vodenih se bo pojavil občutek dvoma v avtoriteto oziroma sposobnost, resnost vodij. Rezultati socialne samopodobe tudi nakazujejo, da se pri veliki večini vodij ne pojavlja t.i. generalizirana anksioznost, ki pomeni motnjo s tesnobnostjo, zaskrbljenostjo in napetostjo, povezano s strahom pred nesrečami ali z neustrezno zaskrbljenostjo zaradi zdravja, družine ali službe. Pri tistih nekaj odstotkih (7,4 %) vodij, ki pa menijo, da so napeti in zaskrbljeni, in tistih, ki menijo, da imajo težave z depresivnostjo (3,7 %), pa se lahko sklepa, da se ubadajo z generalizirano anksioznostjo. Na podlagi vseh rezultatov v sklopu socialne samopodobe se predvideva, da velika večina vodij ne trpi zaradi socialne anksioznosti, oziroma ne doživljajo nenehnega in neracionalnega strahu pred družabnimi (socialnimi) situacijami, v katerih bi jih drugi ljudje lahko ocenjevali ali obsojali, oziroma se ne bojijo lastnega neuspeha zaradi kakšne lastne napake.
Podobno kot socialna samopodoba je tudi telesna samopodoba najnižje izražena med samopodobami, ki so bile merjene v raziskavi. Telesna samopodoba je za vodje pomembna in to predvsem v smislu, da si ustvarijo pozitiven pogled na svoj zunanji (telesni) videz in da množične sugestije medijev o idealnem telesu ne zaznavajo na negativen način oziroma na način, ki bi imel za posledico slabo lastno samopodobo, saj lahko le ta slabo vpliva na njihovo vedenje in odnos z vodenimi. Na uspešno vzpostavljanje odnosa z vodenimi oziroma z drugimi ljudmi lahko pomembno vpliva predvsem pozitivna telesna samopodoba, saj lahko zviša samospoštovanje in prispeva k uspešnosti odnosov. Negativen pogled na lastno telo lahko zniža samozavest in to tako, da si posameznik ne upa v družbo ljudi. Torej je za vodje še posebej zaželena pozitivna telesna samopodoba, saj vpliva na samospoštovanje in prispeva k dobrim
26 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
medosebnim odnosom. Rezultati opravljene raziskave kažejo, da so točkovne ocene nekaterih spremenljivk telesne samopodobe nizke. Tako na primer 44 % vodij meni, da imajo občutek, da telesno niso bolj privlačni od svojih prijateljev in kolegov. To lahko pomeni, da v kolikor so vodje veliko v družbi svojih prijateljev in kolegov, ki so telesno bolj privlačni od njih, se lahko pojavijo določene posledice pri vodjih. To pa predvsem v obliki nekega ljubosumja vodij in v obliki občutka manjvrednosti oziroma neprivlačnosti. Kljub temu, da so vodje privlačni, ampak ker je moč vpliva prijateljev in kolegov v primerjavi z drugimi ljudmi tako močna, je mogoče, da se pojavijo negativni pogledi na svoj zunanji (telesni) videz. Vsi ti občutki, ki se lahko pojavijo pri vodjih, so predvsem povezani z željo, da ne bi slabo izstopali iz kroga svojih prijateljev in kolegov. Zato mogoče tudi sanjarijo, da bi bili bolj privlačni.
5 Zaključek
Pomemben vidik vodje, ki vpliva na njegovo vedenje in posledično na vedenje vodenih, je tudi vidik osebnosti vodje oziroma iz tega izhajajoč vidik dojemanje, sprejemanja vodje samega sebe. Pozitiven odnos vodje do sebe pomeni, da je zadovoljen s sabo in svojim življenjem. Torej, da vodja lahko razume druge, mora najprej razumeti sebe. Vsak vodja si izoblikuje tudi določeno predstavo o sebi, o tem kakšen je in kakšen bi želel biti. V strokovni literaturi se je za takšno opredeljevanje izoblikoval pojem samopodoba. Pri samopodobi gre torej za določene odnose oziroma predstave, ki jih oblikuje posameznik do samega sebe in to na ravni zavestnega in nezavednega, pri čemer nezavedno prekriva plašč obrambnih mehanizmov, ki omogočajo "jazu" (zavestnemu vidiku), da nadzoruje "ono" (nezavednemu) in s tem preprečuje vdor nezaželenih nagonskih impulzov. Toda pri samopodobi ne gre samo za običajne predstave posameznika o samem sebi, ampak gre za zelo zapletene notranje procese, ki so povezani z idealnim oziroma s tem, kako naj posameznik sebe predstavi na socialnem prizorišču pred pomembnimi drugimi ljudmi.
V procesu vodenja je pomembna predvsem pozitivna samopodoba vodje. Vodja s pozitivno ali negativno samopodobo vpliva na vedenje vodenih in s tem posledično na zadovoljstvo vodenih in uspešnost vodenja. Tisti vodja, ki nima pozitivnega mnenja oziroma pogleda na samega sebe, ima določene lastnosti, ki jih vodeni občutijo, in če vodja z negativno oziroma nizko samopodobo ne zaupa vase, sebe ne spoštuje,
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 27
Jernej Buzeti, Janez Stare Samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah
se ne ceni, je zaprt vase, se boji stikov z ljudmi, se boji soočenja z ljudmi - ne more učinkovito vplivati na vodene, saj vodeni to občutijo. Konstrukt samopodobe je predmet številnih raziskav med različnimi skupinami ljudmi. Povezanosti vsebin samopodobe z vsebinami vodenja so pomembne v odnosu do ljudi oziroma še posebej pri ključnem dejavniku v procesu vodenja, in sicer pri vodji.
Rezultati raziskave o samopodobi vodij v upravnih enotah kažejo izraženost splošne, emocionalne, socialne in telesne samopodobe in nakazujejo potrebo po nadaljnjem raziskovanju, saj so bila z raziskavo preverjana samo nekatera področja. Vsekakor bi bilo smiselno nadaljnja raziskovanja samopodobe vodij povezati z uspešnostjo vodenja oziroma s tem, kako izraženost samopodobe vpliva na uspešnost vodenja.
Mag. Jernej Buzeti je zaposlen kot raziskovalec na Fakulteti za upravo Univerze v Ljubljani, kjer je leta 2010 uspešno zaključil magistrski študij. Predmet raziskovanja, s katerim se ukvarja, je povezan s področjem ravnanja s človeškimi viri oziroma organizacijo javnega sektorja. Sodeluje tudi pri pripravi in izvedbi vaj.
Dr. Janez Stare je zaposlen kot docent za področje organizacije javnega sektorja na Fakulteti za upravo Univerze v Ljubljani. Leta 1999 je zaključil podiplomski magistrski študij na kadrovsko-izobraževalni smeri na Fakulteti za organizacijske vede Univerze v Mariboru. Leta 2005je s temo Povezanost osebnostnega potenciala za vodenje z uspešnostjo vodenja v organih državne uprave ubranil doktorsko disertacijo na Fakulteti za upravo Univerze v Ljubljani. Njegova raziskovalna področja so organizacija javnega sektorja, ravnanje s človeškimi viri in vodenje. Od leta 2008 je prode kan za študijske zadeve na Fakulteti za upravo Univerze v Ljubljani.
28 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Literatura in viri
•	Adlešič, I. (1999). Samopodoba osnovnošolskih otrok. Psihološka obzorja. Letnik 8, št. 2-3, str. 201-205.
•	Ahmed, W. & Bruinsma, M. (2006). A Structural Model of Self-concept, Autonomous Motivation and Academic Perfomance in Cross-cultural Perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. Letnik 4, št. 10, str. 551-576.
•	Akram, I. & Akram Naseem, M. (201 0). Self Concept and Social Adjustment among Physically Handicapped Persons. European Journal of Social Sciences. Letnik 15, št. 1, str. 7-85.
•	Avsec, A. (2010). Samopodoba. V: Avsec, A. (Ur.): Psihodiagnostika osebnosti. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo.
•	Bass, B. M. (1990): Handbook of Leadership - theory, research, and managerial applications (third edition). New York: The Free Press.
•	Brajša, P. (1983). Vodenje kotmedosebniproces. Ljubljana: DDU Univerzum.
•	Branden, N. (2000). Samozavestno vodenje. Ljubljana: Inštitut za razvijanje osebne kakovosti.
•	Burnett, P. C., Craven, R. G. & Marsh, H. W. (1 999). Enhancing students' self-concepts and related constructs: A critical longitudinal analysis capitalising on and combining promising enhancement techniques for educational settings. Pridobljeno s: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27108/V271 08.pdf.
•	Burns, R. B. (1979). The self concept: Theory, measurement, development and behavior. London: Longman.
•	Ferbežer, I. (2008). Samopodoba mlajših nadarjenih otrok. V: Ferbežer, Ivan, Težak, S., Korez, I. (Ur): Samopodoba mlajših nadarjenih otrok. Ljubljana.
•	Fisher, S. (1990). The evolution of psychological concepts about the body. V: Cash, Thomas F. (Ur.): Body images: development, deviance and change. New York: Goilford.
•	Hattie, J. (2003). The status and direction of self-concept research: The importance of importance. Pridobljeno 30. 7. 2003 s:
http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/hattie/ docs/status-of-self-concept-research-waiheke-(2003).pdf.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 29
Jernej Buzeti, Janez Stare Samopodoba vodij v upravnih enotah
•	Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. W.(1996). Management Cincinnati: Southwestern.
•	Hočevar, M., Jaklič, M. & Zagoršek, H. (2003). Ustvarjanje uspešnega podjetja - akcijski pristop k strateškemu razmišljanju, vodenju in nadziranju. Zbirka Manager. Ljubljana: GV Založba, založniško podjetje, d.o.o.
•	Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard business review. Letnik 33, št. 1, str. 33-42.
•	Kobal, D. (2000). Temeljni vidiki samopodobe. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
•	Kobal, D. (1994). Samopodoba - zavestna ali tudi nezavedna razsežnost osebnosti?. Psihološka obzorja - Horizons of psychology. Letnik 3, št. 3-4, str. 25-35.
•	Kobal Grum, D. (2003). Bivanje samopodobe. Ljubljana: I2 družba za založništvo, izobraževanje in raziskovanje d.o.o.
•	Kobal Grum, D. (2004). Pomen samopodobe bibliotekarja v komunikacijskem procesu. Pridobljeno 22. 9. 2004 s: http://revija-knjizn ica .zbds-zveza.si/Izvod i/K0403/kobal. pdf.
•	Kohont, K. (2005). Čustvena inteligenca pri vodenju v neprofitnih organizacijah. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za socialno delo.
•	Kuhar, M. (2004). V imenu lepote - družbena konstrukcija telesne samopodobe. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
•	Marčič, R. (2006). Razlike med spoloma v samopodobi, samospoštovanju in nekaterih zdravju škodljivih vedenjih. Anthropos. Letnik 38, št. 3-4,
str. 63-76.
•	Mayer, J. (2004). Etična načela vodenja. V: Kovač, J., Mayer, J. & Jesenko, M. (Ur.): Stili in značilnosti uspešnega vodenja. Kranj: Moderna organizacija.
•	Maxwell, J. C. (2007). 2! nepogrešljivih lastnosti vodje: postanite človek, ki mu bodo drugi hoteli slediti. Ljubljana: Lisac&Lisac d.o.o.
•	Musek, J. (1993a). Znanstvena podoba osebnosti. Ljubljana: Educy d.o.o.
•	Musek, J. (1993b). Osebnost pod drobnogledom. Maribor: Obzorja.
•	Musek, J. (2005). Psihološke dimenzije osebnosti. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo.
•	Nastran Ule, M. (1994). Temelji socialne psihologije. Zbirka Alfa. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicistično središče.
30 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
•	Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theroy and practice. London: Sage Publications.
•	Račnik, M. (2008). Samopodoba in prepričanje. Pridobljeno 1. 12. 2008 s: http://www.vodja.net/index.php?blog= 1 &p= 1 87&more= 1 &c= 1 &tb= 1 &p b=1.
•	Samuel, W. (1981). Personality, searching for the sources of human behavior New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
•	Stare, J. (2005). Povezanost osebnostnega potenciala za vodenje z uspešnostjo vodenja v organih državne uprave. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo.
•	Stare, J. & Seljak, J. (2006). Vodenje ljudi v upravi: povezanost osebnostnega potenciala za vodenje z uspešnostjo vodenja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za upravo.
•	Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. New York: Prentice - Hall International.
•	Zimbardo, P. G. & Gerrig, R. J. (1996). Psychology and Life, Fourteenth Edition. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
•	Zupančič, M. (1993). Razvojne naloge mladostnika in institucionalno izobraževanje. Psihološka obzorja. Letnik 2, št. 3-4, str. 207-213.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 31
1.01 Original scientific article
Self-Concept of Leaders in Administrative Units
UDK: 35-057.17 Jernej Buzeti
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration jernej.buzeti@fu.uni-lj.si
Janez Stare
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration janez.stare@fu.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT
Within the leadership process, the positive self-concept of a leader can have an impact on quality reciprocal relations with subordinates and on the conduct of the leader and the subordinates. The results of the research into the self-concept of administrative unit leaders indicate that the most poorly expressed areas of self-concept were the social and physical self-concept, while the highest was the general self-concept. Since it is important for leaders to have well developed skills, especially social skills and skills for working with people, the result of the research into the social self-concept of leaders in central government bodies (administrative units) is an important indicator of leaders' concepts of their own social image. The paper focuses on the self-concept of administrative unit leaders and presents results of research carried out in that field.
Key words: leader, social self-concept, physical self-concept, self-respect, administrative unit
JEL: Z00
1 Introduction
Increasing attention is being paid to the importance of leading people and the adequacy of leadership both in the field of research as well as in practical implementation. The key factor in leadership is the leader, as the leader is the central point in relation to the people being led. Successful leadership of people requires leaders to have appropriate skills or
Buzeti, J. & Stare, J. (201 0). Self-Concept of Leaders in Administrative Units. Uprava, VIII(4), pp. 33-57.
33
competences, which have a significant impact on whether set objectives will be realised. Research confirms that leader personality has an effect on leadership effectiveness - and also that leaders form their self-image on the basis of their personality. This means their self-image or how they imagine themselves, their abilities, traits, their body, chances in life, successes and failures. The professional literature uses the term "self-concept" to describe such traits. The leadership process is influenced by leaders' personality and their self-concept, since the self-image of leaders affects how they act, which is transferred to subordinates and their conduct.
2 Leadership and leaders
The literature indicates that there are various' definitions of leadership that approach leadership from differing2 points of view. In this paper, leadership is understood as the influence of leaders on the people they lead with the aim of ensuring that those people would like (want) to carry out the tasks agreed with the leaders. Hellriegel & Slocum (1996, pp. 445) offer a similar view, as they see leadership as influencing employees to act towards the realisation of objectives. Brajša (1983, p. 187) defines leadership as a complex, interpersonal process, since it involves working with people who are complex and demanding beings.
Northouse (2007, p. 3) clarifies that the leadership is a process5 in which a series of activities occur, as stated by Hočevar (2003, pp. 130131) and others »in a process in which leaders, the people led, and circumstances contribute equally«. The subordinates within an organisation or a social situation force the leaders to select an appropriate style of leadership - but leaders adapt their leadership style to the circumstances or situation in which activities take place in order to successfully realise an agreed or set task. Leadership is therefore a process that is defined by relations or interactions between the leader, subordinates and circumstances. The key factor in leadership is therefore a leader who, »setting an example and giving advice and instructions, ensures co-workers achieve a set organisational objective« (Stare & Seljak,
1	Such as Bass, Antonakis, Yukl, Avolio, Bennis, Gardner, Kotter, Kovač, Mayer, etc.
2	Leadership can be addressed in terms of anthropology, psychology, sociology, technology, economics, or organisational, cultural or other studies
3	Similar views are offered by Bass (1 990), Mayer (2004), Možina (1 994), etc.
34 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
2006, p. 89). Gibb (in: Nastran Ule, 1994, p. 237) states that a leader is:
•	a dominant person with power and influence, with which he or she affects the behaviour and activity of others
•	the "central person" for members of a group, an ego-ideal group
•	the person who has most influence on others, and whose influence the group accepts voluntarily.
A leader defines important tasks in the leadership process and has a central role in an organisation or group. The leader's role is important, since leaders not only influence people in their achievement of objectives, but also act as an example to people (even in the field of morale and ethical standards). This is confirmed by Branden (2000, p. 61), who states that »too few leaders understand and appreciate the level to which they are an example to others. They do not recognise in how much detail the people around them sometimes unconsciously observe and take on their slight movements and how much their influence is expressed throughout the entire organisation.« What leaders do and say can often be detected in feedback in the conduct of the subordinates. This conduct is important and through experience we find that leaders must recognise and improve this kind of conduct. Leaders can affect conduct and leadership effectiveness via their abilities, knowledge and traits/ Yet Stare (2005, p. 86) considers the abilities that an individual leader needs for successful leadership are difficult to unequivocally define, due in part to the influence of subordinates and individual situations.
Yukl (2002, p. 195) considers that human skills 5 are vital to influencing people. These skills constitute knowledge and abilities needed to work in a group or the abilities needed to lead a specific group. They include skills^ held (or that should be held) by a leader in order to work with people, since they enable a leader to work more effectively with subordinates or the people they lead, all with the aim of achieving organisational objectives. Leaders with well-developed skills or abilities
4	Knowledge, skills and traits (personal, social) can be seen as comprising human potential.
5	In contrast to technical and conceptual skill.
6	Bass (1990, p. 195) defines them as "social skills" and considers that they refer to abilities that enable people to understand the feelings, mood and motives of subordinates and the abilities of good communication and persuasion.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 35
are aware of their own attitude and the doubts and convictions of other (subordinate) individuals and groups. They create a positive climate or atmosphere of trust in which employees (subordinates) feel comfortable and secure. These skills are important because they include motivating and understanding subordinates (according to Katz, 1955, pp. 34-35). Bass (1990, p. 110) states that research has indicated that such skills are extremely important and affect the performance and progress of leaders and leadership effectiveness. This is also confirmed by research carried out by Boyatzis (1982), which indicates that successful leaders are distinguished from unsuccessful leaders on the basis of human skills. Nastran Ule (1994, p. 237) clarifies that leaders' skills are linked to the tasks they must carry out and that important tasks are primarily psychological, social and professional.
Leadership performance is not only affected by leaders' skills and knowledge, but also by the leaders' traits. A review of the literature indicates that each individual author defines the traits typical of a successful leader from their own point of view. Table 1 sets out the views of a number of authors on the traits that a successful author should have.
Table 1 : Key traits of successful leaders
Northouse (2007)	Kirkpatrick in Locke	Stogdill	Mayer
	(1991)	(1974)	(2004)
- intelligence	- drive	- achievement	- intelligence
- initiative	- motivation	- persistence	- personality in a
- decisiveness	- integrity	- insight	narrow sense
- integrity	- confidence	- initiative	- creativity
- sociability	- cognitive ability	- responsibility	- expressiveness
	- task knowledge	- cooperativeness	- empathy
		- tolerance	- positive self-
		- influence	concept
		- sociability	- decisiveness
			- ethical principles
			- altruism and
			philanthropy
Source: Northouse (2007, pp. 18-19), Mayer (2004, pp. 53-56)
Maxwell (2007, p. 10) identifies 21 important traits that successful leaders should have: character, charisma, commitment, communication, competence, courage, discernment, focus, generosity, initiative, listening, passion, positive attitude, problem-solving, relationships, responsibility, security, self-discipline, servanthood, teachability, and vision. Comparing
36 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
traits indicates that all authors emphasize the trait of leaders' self-confidence or respect for themselves and their abilities. According to Maxwell (2007, p. 101) a leader is someone who masters the "laws of leadership", but leaders only become effective because of what is within them. Leaders are therefore important as people with a clear understanding of themselves and what they want to achieve and with self-belief. It is also important for leaders to have formulated an image of themselves.
3 Self-concept
The self-image of leaders or their self-concept in relation to subordinates is primarily important because it influences the leaders' conduct and consequently also influences the conduct of subordinates and the self-awareness and self-confidence of leaders within the framework of individual dimensions of their self-concept. Nastran Ule (1994, p. 238) clarifies that experts7 have found through research that good leaders have a well-constructed and realistic self-concept.
An individual creates a self-concept as a unique personality, which in Allport's opinion (Samuel, 1981, p. 3) represents the dynamic organisation of individual psychodynamic systems that define an individual's typical conduct and thoughts. And since people are social beings, since they establish relations with other people, the personality of each individual and the related self-concept influence the quality of establishing and maintaining relations with others. This is affirmed by Musek (2005, str. 1), who states that »only on the basis of an appropriate recognition of personality can we function well in mutual relations and order them as we want.«
The leadership process also includes interaction between the leader and subordinates, i.e. relations between various personalities. Therefore an individual's personality and self-concept are important to the leadership process. Stare & Seljak (2006, p. 189) clarify that »determining leadership potential is based on knowing personality or individual aspects of personality.« Rogers (in: Kohont, 2005, p. 36) states that an individual's conduct as a unique personality depends on what the individual thinks of his or herself and his or her experiences of self.
7 Nastran Ule (1994, p. 238) cites the following authors: Bird (1940), Mann (1959), Sorrentino and Boutillier (1975).
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 37
There are numerous expressions used to define the idea of self-concept in the Slovenian literature (according to Kobal, 2000, p. 1 7). Some use the term samoidentiteta (self-identity) (Musek, 1 993a, p. 359), identiteta (identity) (Zupančič, 1993, p. 208), socialni jaz (social ego) (see Nastran Ule, 1994, pp. 292-302), samopercepcija (self-perception) (Ferbežer, 2008, p. 25). In the literature in English one finds self (James, 1890, Cooley, 1902), self-actualisation (Rogers, 1951, Maslow, 1954), self-image (Offer et al, 1988), self-concept (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982), self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), identity (Kroger, 1989) and others.
The self-concept construct is addressed by numerous^ experts, and that is the reason for the plethora9 of terms used to define self-concept. What all these terms share according to Nastran Ule (1994, p. 296) is that the construct involves the many attitudes that individuals have towards themselves 10. Individuals gradually enter these relationships via their feelings, impressions, assessments and evaluations of themselves, their typical social tendencies, which they develop from birth onward, first through a primal object, and later via the broader social environment. This is their sense of their own continuity in space and time and the fact that others also recognise that continuity. According to Kobal (2000, p. 24) the Slovenian term samopodoba is understood as combining two different concepts, the American self-concept and European self-image. Self -concept is defined as the conscious, conceptual and, therefore the logical and rational, while self-image emphasises the unconscious, instinctive and emotional. Both are a combination of the psychosocial, physical and behavioural dimensions of personality - self-concept. Tohme defines self-concept in a similar manner (Kobal, 1994, p. 31), as he clarifies that it entails a set of actions, images, characteristics, tastes, values, expectations and so on, which individuals are aware of to various degrees of clarity within themselves and appropriately organise and coordinate in relation to others and their own social roles.
Burns (1979) states that the »self-concept is an assembled image of what we think of what we are, what we think we could be or what
8	Shavelson, Marsh, Offer, Rogers, Markus, Wurf, Fleming, Watkins, Kobal Grum, Avsec etc.
9	This is also confirmed by Ahmed and Bruinsma (2006, p. 554).
10	The concept is described in a similar manner by Akram & Akram Naseem (2010, p. 78).
38 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
we could achieve, and what we think others think of us, and what we would like to be or what we would like to become«. Burnett (1 999, p. 2) and others state that »self-concepts are the multidimensional descriptive, evaluative, comparative, cognitive beliefs that people have about specific characteristics. The three major characteristic areas are physical, social and academic.« Zimbardo & Gerrig (1 996, p. 528) state that self-concept is a dynamic structure as it contains many components such as:
•	people's own memories of themselves
•	convictions or confidence in own traits, motives, values and abilities
•	ideal "ego" or ideal self-concept, which they would like to achieve or acquire, and a potential "ego" or self-concept that they would like to act upon
•	positive and negative evaluations of themselves
•	and convictions about what others think of them.
To a considerable extent, self-concept is the product of social construction and social reflection - statements others make about us are like a mirror, in which we see ourselves. For this reason, Adlesic (1999, p. 5) states that »at the self-concept level, various socio-psychological processes have an impact such as receiving information from significant others, social comparison with others, assuming the roles, values and stances of the social environment in which the individual lives, and identification with a model.« Nastran Ule (2004, p. 296) also considers that »our self-concept is only confirmed by other people that we find interesting or important in some way. But they must do this without pressure or manipulation. Positive self-concepts that people gain by "bribing" others do not have sufficient value, since they can often be threatened by more autonomous and critical observers.« The importance of the environment or other people on the development of the self-concept is also defined by Musek (1993b, pp. 348-349), as he states that statements by others, such as how "good", "naughty" or "lively" we are, are imprinted into our self-concept. All these messages more or less "grip" our psyche and become part of the impression we cultivate about ourselves.
After reviewing the literature, we found that authors" largely pointed to childhood or adolescence as the key to the development of
11 For example Kobal, Jurisevic, Lewis, Adams and Hurlock.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 39
self-concept. Ad lešič (1999, p. 2) considers that self-concept development is continuous and typical of every period of development. This also means that despite the fact that childhood and adolescence are key periods for the development of the self-concept, adulthood is a period in which many new areas of self-concept are established, which are closely linked to the development of personality during adulthood. Kobal (2000, p. 89) states that self-concept develops with age, and as research shows, also changes and structures itself. It does not develop as a whole, but with age very different areas form, from physical and social to academic and emotional self-concepts and more. This is also affirmed by Shavelson (in: Adlešič, 1999, p. 4), who states that a self-concept forms gradually during human development - mainly on the transfer from childhood to adulthood; with age it becomes increasingly layered. The extent to which individuals structure or delimit their self-concept in individual areas depends on their adult lifestyle, their obligations, interests, social roles and engagement in reciprocal relations (see Kobal Grum, 2004, p. 99).
3.1 Self-concept and self-respect
Self-respect is an important correlate of self-concept representing its value aspects (according to Potočnik, 2003, p. 6). Kobal Grum (2003, p. 20) even considers that self-respect is the most important correlate of self-concept. If self-concept covers primarily neutral self-descriptions, then self-respect relates to value-based self-description, including extremely emotional attitudes to oneself. Self-respect is therefore a value-based attitude to oneself, and primarily covers the emotions people feel for themselves. There is also a positive correlation between self-concept and self-respect - a person who has a very positive self-concept (particularly in general), also has high self-respect. And the opposite applies; people who do not have a high opinion of themselves, do not value themselves much (Kobal Grum, 2003, p. 21).
Self-respect is a complex concept that includes attitudes, convictions, disposition, desires, expectations, emotions and acts that express or generate a feeling of personal value. It includes recognising and understanding personal value as well as the desire and disposition to protect and maintain that value (Marčič, 2006, p. 66). Rosenberg (Kobal, 2000, p. 154) describes self-respect as a positive or negative attitude to oneself. A positive attitude or high self-respect means that
40 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
individuals accept themselves as they are, value themselves, are satisfied with themselves, and feel worthy of respect. People with low self-respect or a negative attitude to themselves do not value themselves, do not seem themselves as worthy and do not value their own traits. Self-respect is an attitude to oneself, and primarily covers the emotions people feel for themselves.
Rosenberg (1965) in one research work also proves that low self-respect is linked to symptoms typical of anxiety: trembling hands, headache, increased heart-rate, etc. (Rosenberg in: Avsec, 2010, p. 98). Signs typical of people with a poor self-concept or low self-respect are jealousy, speaking negatively about themselves, feelings of guilt, inability to offer compliments, not taking account of own need, inability to ask for what they want, inability to express affection to others, a critical attitude to others, comparison with others, ongoing deterioration in health (Racnik, 2008).
Kobal (2000, p. 165) states that numerous researchers have found that the link between self-concept (self-respect) and anxiety are inversely proportional - the more an individual has a positively formulated self-concept and high self-respect, the lower the level of anxiety. And conversely, the less a person values his or herself and feels valued, able and successful, the greater the anxiety.
3.2 Areas of self-concept
The structural models of self-concept of various authors72 indicate that self-concept is a psychological construct composed of differing areas or sub-areas. After reviewing the literature, we found that authors75 divide self-concept into areas such as general, social, physical, emotional, religious, academic, family self-concept, etc. The areas that comprise the self-concept differ with the individual's age and circumstances in which the individual operates or may differ74 from individual to individual. Through experience one can ascertain that the self-concept of each individual and hence the self-concept of each leader is comprised
12	Shavelson, Bolus, Offer, Tam, Watkins etc.
13	E.g. James (1980), Fleming and Elovson (1988), Kobal (2000), Hattie (2003) etc.
14	Hattie (2003, p. 7) lists 18 sub-areas for academic self-concept alone and states that there may be many more.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 41
primarily of general, academic, social, physical and emotional self-concept.15
Emotional self-concept represents people's sense and conviction of the expression, understanding and control of their emotions. The individuals, for example, conceive of and see themselves as peaceful or not, relaxed or not and emotionally balanced or imbalanced. They also have a view on whether they are generally in a good or bad mood, whether they are deeply agitated and how they control their emotions (see Kobal, 2000, pp. 205-220). Social self-concept includes the perceptions,115 convictions and judgement individuals hold about relations with peers and other important "others", such as parents, siblings, partner and colleagues. These are their perceptions of their own friendship-making abilities and popularity and the quality of their relations with others. Part of the self-concept relates to individuals' influence on the broader community or their experience of their attitude to the law and social moral norms (Kobal, 2000, pp. 171-200). Musek (1993a, p. 345) ascribes considerable importance to the social self-concept and explains that part of the self-concept comes from the understanding and image people have of what others think of them and how they present and portray themselves to others socially - the social ego. Hattie (2003, p. 18) states that the social self-concept is important for individuals and that a great deal of information about each individual comes from social circumstances. Most people are frequently in the presence of others and their personality is also presented by others to third parties - on the basis of which the person builds and recognises him or herself in social situations and forms a self-image.
The sign of a good social self-concept in a leader is that they can easily form and maintain quality relations with subordinates. Leaders have a clearly formulated image of themselves and are not sensitive to the disproval of others, are not obsessed with how best to present themselves to the social environment. Leaders with a highly expressed or positive social self-concept do not have problems with anxiety or above all social anxiety, which means that people experience continual (unexplained) fear
15	The display of individual sub-areas comprising the self-concept differrs from individual to individual, as the number of areas may differ.
16	James (in: Hattie, 2003, p. 1 7) defined the social ego as a form of "acknowledgement" that we gain from those close to us (e.g. family, friends).
42 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
of social situations in which others could assess or judge them. Fear of that kind increases, if they feel that they could be humiliated in front of such people. Leaders with social anxiety are unsuccessful in relations with people and frequently feel anxiety, tension and upset.
In Schilder's opinion (Fisher, 1990, p. 8) »physical self-concept [is] an individual's body image, created in their own thoughts.« Thompson (in: Kuhar, 2004, p. 84) and others have stated that »physical self-concept is a terminological symbol for a person's internal image of their own external appearance. This internal image or mental picture is linked to feelings and thoughts that affect conduct in certain situations. In some cases the feelings coming from the assessment of appearance are positive, in other cases they may be negative, which can even lead to depression.« »A positive physical self-concept can even increase self-respect and contribute to more successful reciprocal or business contacts, while a negative image of one's own body reduces self-confidence to such an extent that a person is not willing to leave the safe haven of their home« (Kuhar, 2004, pp. 84-85). Grogon (Kuhar, 2004, p. 86) considers that the physical self-concept involves »human perceptions, thoughts or feelings about their body. Perceptions relate to assessment of body size, evaluating physical attractiveness and feelings about the emotions linked to body shape and size.«
Mutual experiences, e.g. socialising, evaluating, even minor comments on appearance have a significant impact on the development of the physical self-concept. People subjected to frequent criticisms and teasing during childhood and youth due to their appearance develop a more negative physical self-concept, because one does not forget one's physical self-concept. Specific events and situations that lead to specific feelings and thoughts about appearance can also lead to a negative self-concept (Kuhar, 2004, p. 87). Kobal (2000, p. 65) explains that if the formation of physical self-concept during adolescence is disturbed, then the general self-concept and self-respect cannot develop appropriately.
4 Research on the self-concept of administrative unit leaders
The purpose of the research presented in the paper was to emphasise the importance of leaders' self-concept. Leaders are people whose conduct affects the functioning (conduct) of employees and therefore the efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative unit. The main objective
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 43
of the research or study was to determine the self-concept of administrative unit leaders and the areas of self-concept in which they scored relatively highest and lowest. The target group participating in the research were leaders performing similar tasks in central government bodies and performing them around the entire country. These conditions were met by administrative unit leaders and therefore leaders from Slovenian administrative units were included in the research sample.
The research was carried out across 57 administrative units (only one administrative unit decided not to participate) and 136 leaders took part in the research, of which fewer than 5% were both expert technical staff (civil servants) and heads of organisational units. The highest proportion, over 66%, were officials or organisational unit heads with up to 30 employees. Half of all the administrative unit heads in Slovenia took part in the research or 21% of all surveyed leaders. Organisational unit heads with over 30 employees represent 8% of leaders assessed in the research.
The Questionnaire17 created as part of the research included 45 questions and measured four aspects of self-concept: general, social, physical and emotional self-concept. The concept for designed the question came from the Self-Respect Scale18 by Tanja Lamovec and the SDQIII19 questionnaire (questions used to define general self-concept). A high number of points or high average for each individual dimension of self-concept indicates that the self-concept is strongly expressed in this area.
4.1 Research results
The research was intended to determine how individual areas of self-concept are expressed by leaders, and namely: general, emotional, social and physical self-concept. The research indicated that the social and physical self-concept areas scored relatively lower than general and emotional self-concept. The use of a /-test indicated that the only pair of self-concept areas that did not have a statistically significant difference was social and physical self-concept. Statistically significant differences were found for all other pairs of self-concept areas.
1 7 Called the Self-Concept Scale Questionnaire.
18	Abbreviated SRS.
19	Self Description Questionnaire III (Marsh, 1 992)
44 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
Graph 1: Self-concept areas for administrative unit leaders (average score)
■ general ■ social ■ physical ■ emotional
Source: own data
The research results (cf. Graph 1) indicate that the physical and social self-concept were the lowest scoring areas measured by the research, as the average leader score for both areas was 3.76. This result indicates a moderate expression of social and physical self-concept in the administrative unit leaders studied.
Graph 2: Comparison of three statements as part of general self-concept
completely only rarely more or less almost completely not true	true	true	completely	true
true
■ I accept myself My feelings towards myself are positive ■ I value myself Source: own data
Among the general self-concept variables (cf. Graph 2), a statistically significant difference was found between two variables: "I accept myself" and "I value myself". No statistically significant difference was found between the remaining pairs of variables. The results for the pair with a statistically significant difference indicate that just under 67% of leaders studied stating they accept themselves, also stated that they value
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 45
themselves, while 11% of leaders who accepted themselves considered at the same time that although they value themselves somewhat, they do not do so completely. Over 67% of leaders considered that they both accept themselves and also have positive feelings towards themselves.
Among the emotional self-concept variables, the highest scoring were "I don't think that I'm worthless" (4.38) and "I have no problems with depression" (4.32). The lowest scoring variables were "I think that I'm not excessively sensitive to the disapproval of others" with an average score of 3.57 and "I'm satisfied with myself" with an average score of 3.69. The /-test indicates that a statistically significant difference is found between the highest scoring variable and the lowest (cf. Graph 3).
Graph 3: Comparison of two emotional self-concept variables
58,1
60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 ,0
completely only rarely more or less almost completely not true	true	true	completely	true
true
■	I don't think I'm over sensitive to the disapproval of others
■	I don't think about whether I am worthless
Source: own data
The results given in Graph 3 indicate that only just over 55% of leaders consider that they are not sensitive to the disapproval of others. Over 11% of leaders are sensitive to the disapproval of others. A certain amount of leader sensitivity to the disapproval of others is necessary, since in that way leaders also sense and display their own emotions. However, what is more important than sensitivity to the disapproval of others is empathy or the ability to "put themselves in the shoes of" subordinates or recognise their emotions and needs. A certain level of sensitivity (or lack thereof) to the approval (or disapproval) of others can also be understood in this manner: leaders want to please others and since some others do not approve of them this will elicit certain feelings in leaders, and some
46 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
are more sensitive to these feelings than others. An analysis of results also indicates that over 87% of leaders do not think about whether they are worthless. However, over 4% of leaders do think about whether they are worthless. Meanwhile, 52% of leaders consider that they do not think about whether they are worthless, and also think they are not oversensitive to the disapproval of others. Over 9% of leaders, who do not think about whether they are worthless, do think they are oversensitive to the disapproval of others.
The /-test indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the emotional self-concept variables that relate to depression and to tension and worry (cf. Graph 4).
Graph 4: Comparison of two emotional self-concept variables
Source: own data
The results given in Graph 4 indicate that over 86% of leaders consider that they do not have problems with depression. One would expect that the percentage would be about the same for the statement "I am not tense and worried", the content of which is closely linked to depression, however, as the results indicate, only 64% of leaders consider that they are not tense and worried. Over 61% of leaders who said they were not tense and worried also said they had no problems with depression. Under 3% of leaders who stated that they had no problems with depression assessed themselves as tense and worried. Over 2% of assessed leaders considered they had problems with depression and that they were also tense and worried.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 47
The results for the social self-concept variables indicate that the social self-concept of leaders is not highly expressed or scores moderately, which is cause for concern. The /-test indicated that statistically significant differences exist between some variables. A statistically significant difference exists between the variables "I'm not worried if I don't get on very well with other people" and "I'm not worried by the thought of people at work judging me as successful or unsuccessful" (cf. Graph 5).
Graph 5: Comparison of two social self-concept variables
completely only rarely more or less almost completely not true	true	true	completely	true
true
I'm not worried by the idea that other people at work judge whether I am successful or unsuccessful
■ I'm not worried if I don't get on very well with other people Source: own data
The results in Graph 5 indicate that over 54% of assessed leaders stated that they are not worried by the thought of people at work judging them as successful or unsuccessful. Just under 24% of leaders are worried by the thought that people at work judge them as successful or unsuccessful. The analysis of results also indicates that just 36% said that were not worried whether people at work judged them as successful or unsuccessful while also stating that they were not worried if they do not get on very well with other people. Twenty-one per cent of leaders said that they were worried by the both thought that people at work judged them as successful or unsuccessful, and if they did not get on very well with other people.
The results given in Graph 6 indicate that 60% of studied leaders agreed that if they make a mistake or do something clumsy that makes them look foolish, they get over it immediately. Just under 9% of leaders said they do not immediately get over making themselves look foolish. Analysing the results also indicated that 25% of studied leaders who
48 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
immediately get over a mistake that makes them look foolish also agreed that they are not upset if some people they know have a negative opinion of them. Just under 6% of leaders said they were upset if people they knew had a negative opinion of them and that they did not immediately get over a mistake that made them look foolish. The /-test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the two variables given in Graph 6.
Graph 6: Comparison of two social self-concept variables
completely only rarely more or less almost completely not true	true	true	completely	true
true
I'm not upset if some people I know have a negative opinion about me.
When I do something clumsy or make a mistake that makes me look foolish, I get over it immediately.
Source: own data
Physical self-concept is also important for leaders, as it relates to their internal impression of their external appearance. The results of individual variables for physical self-concept indicate that the physical self-concept of administrative unit leaders is moderately expressed and that some statistically significant differences exist between physical self-concept variables. The use of the t-test on physical self-concept variables indicates that statistically significant differences are found between some pairs of the variables given in Graph 7.
The results given in Graph 7 indicate that over 74% of leaders consider that they are more attractive than most people. Just over 44% said they felt they were not physically more attractive than most of their friends and colleagues. These results are interesting, particularly since friends and colleagues are the people who most affect an individual or whom an individual takes as a model, and to whose comments they are most sensitive. And if friends and colleagues are largely more physically
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 49
attractive that the leaders, this affects their feelings or perceptions of physical attractiveness and hence effects a negative view of their body (is reflected in a moderately expressed physical self-concept). Just under 3% of leaders wish2*7 they were more attractive.
Graph 7: Comparison of three physical self-concept variables
completely not only rarely true more or less almost	completely
true	true	completely	true
true
■	I don't wish that I were more attractive.
■	I have the feelings that I'm physically more attractive than most of my friends and colleagues.
■	I'm at least as attractive as most people.
Source: own data
The results given in Graph 8 indicate that over 64% of studied leaders consider that they are satisfied with their physical appearance, while 8.1% of administrative unit leaders did not have the best possible view of their physical appearance, which means that this view could have a negative impact on their conduct towards subordinates or on reciprocal relations.
The results given in Graph 8 indicate that over 77% of studied leaders said that they do not wish they were more attractive. Considerably fewer leaders (than those who do not wish they were more attractive) stated that they worried what others think of them. Only just over 44% of the studied leaders agreed that they are not worried what others think of them. It is logical to compare this result with the similar results achieved for the social self-concept variables. The comparative percentages are not surprising, since 38% of leaders are not upset if some people they know
20 Only 2% of leaders agreed that they wish they were more attractive and that they had a strong sense that they are not physically more attractive than their friends and colleagues.
50 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
have a negative opinion of them, and 39% of leaders also stated that they are not worried if they do not get on very well with other people.
Graph 8: Comparison of three physical self-concept statements
completely not only rarely true more or less almost	completely
true	true	completely	true
true
■ I don't wish that I were more attractive.
I have the feelings that I'm physically more attractive than most of my friends and colleagues.
I I'm at least as attractive as most people.
Source: own data
4.2 Discussion
The results of the research into the self-concept of administrative unit leaders indicate that the social and physical self-concept are the most poorly expressed (scored least). It is important for leaders to have a high score on the social self-concept scale, since this area of self-concept is linked to the image or convictions that individuals have about themselves in relations with other people (e.g. subordinates). This involves the leaders' impressions or perceptions of their popularity and their personal ability to form friendships with subordinates, their motivation and persuasion of subordinates and ability to engage with the social environment. If social self-concept is low or poor, this means that the leaders have a poor impression of themselves in relationships or begin to doubt themselves in relations to others. Since they are not as popular in society as they would like to be or perhaps subordinates rate others more highly than them, their attitude to their subordinates is harmed and they begin to question whether they are really capable of establishing relations with subordinates that are adequate for ensuring that subordinates accept and trust them. It also entails the leaders' impression of their subordinates'
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 51
opinions of them, and how they should present themselves in social contexts.
The research results on the social self-concept of the leaders studied indicate a moderate score on the social self-concept scale. Some variables indicate results that are a cause for concern, given that leaders are expected to be capable of forming good relations with subordinates, to be respected by their subordinates and be seen as examples by them because of their skills and principles. Based on this result, one can conclude that leaders' conduct towards subordinates is limited and affects attitudes to subordinates, since if leaders doubt their own ability to establish relations with subordinates, their relations will be less successful (constant fear of whether they will be successful), while subordinates will have doubts about the leader's authority, ability and seriousness. The social self-concept results also indicate that most leaders are not subject to generalised anxiety, which consists of anxiety, worry and tension linked to the fear of accidents or unrealistic worries about health, family or work. One can conclude that those leaders (7.4%) who state that they are tense and worried and those who consider that they have problems with depression (3.7%) are dealing with generalised anxiety. The overall results for social self-concept indicate that the majority of leaders do not suffer from social anxiety or do not experience continual and irrational fear of social situations, in which other people could evaluate or judge them or they are not afraid of personal failure due to their mistakes.
Physical self-concept was the most poorly expressed area of self-concept measured by the research, together with social self-concept. Physical self-concept is important for leaders, primarily in the sense that they gain a positive view of their external (physical) appearance and that they do not perceive mass media suggestions about the ideal body negatively, or in a way that could lead to a poor self-concept, since that could have a negative impact on their conduct and relations with subordinates. A positive physical self-concept can have an important impact on the formation of relations with subordinates or other people, since it can increase self-respect and contribute to successful relations. Having a negative view of one's body can lower self-confidence to the extent that people become uncomfortable with other people. A positive self-concept is desirable for leaders, since it affects self-respect and contributes to good mutual relations. The results of the research are low points scores for some physical self-concept variables. For example,
52 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
44% of leaders said they felt they were not physically more attractive than most of their friends and colleagues. This could mean that if leaders are generally in the company of friends and colleagues that are more attractive than them, this may have consequences for them. It can lead to jealousy and feelings of less worth or unattractiveness. Despite the fact that a leader may be attractive, it is possible the influence of friends and colleagues could be so strong compared to that of others, that the leader develops negative views of his or her external (physical) appearance. All these feelings that leaders may experience are primarily linked to a desire not to stand out in a negative manner from one's circle of friends and colleagues. This is perhaps the reason they even wish to be more attractive.
5 Conclusion
An important aspect of leaders, influencing their conduct and hence the conduct of their subordinates is their personality and - arising from that - their understanding and acceptance of themselves. If leaders have a positive attitude to themselves, it means they are satisfied with themselves and their life. If leaders are to understand others, they must first understand themselves. All leaders form a particular image of themselves, who they are and what they want to be. The term self-concept has been coined in the academic literature to fit this definition. Self-concept therefore means a set of attitudes or perceptions of self that individuals form at the conscious and unconscious level, where the unconscious is covered by a layer of defence mechanisms that allow the "ego" (the conscious) to monitor the "id" (the unconscious) and creates a barrier against undesirable drives. Yet the self-concept is not just an individual's typical perception of self, but a set of complex internal processes linked to an ideal and how individuals should present themselves socially before important other people.
It is important to have a largely positive self-concept within the leadership process. By either a positive or negative self-concept, leaders affect the conduct of their subordinates and hence subordinates' satisfaction and leadership performance. Leaders who do not have a positive opinion or image of themselves have certain traits that subordinates feel. If leaders have a negative or low self-concept and do not trust, respect or value themselves, they are closed within themselves and fear contact or confrontation with people, then they will not be able
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 53
to effectively influence subordinates. The self-concept construct has been the subject of a great deal of research work among varied groups. The related content of the self-concept construct and leadership is important in human relations and particularly in a key factor in the leadership process - the leader.
The results of this research into the self-concept of administrative unit leaders indicate their level of expression of general, emotional, social and physical self-concept and also suggest the need for further research, since only a number of areas have so far been researched. Nevertheless, it is logical that further research into self-concept should address leadership performance, and how it is influenced by self-concept.
Jernej Buzeti, MSc. is currently employed as a researcher at the Faculty of Administration at the University of Ljubljana. He has successfully completed a master's degree in 2010. Subject of his research is connected with a human resource management in public sector He also participates in the preparation and execution of exercises.
Janez Stare, Ph. D. is Assistant Professor for organizing public sector at the Faculty of Administration University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He has master's degree in Human Resource Management (1999) from the Faculty of organisational science University of Maribor and doctoral degree from leadership in public administration (2005) at the Faculty of Administration University of Ljubljana. Hi's research interest is predominantly focused on contemporary issues in organizing public sector, human resource management and leadership. Since 2008 he is Vice Dean for Students Affairs at Faculty of Administration University of Ljubljana.
54 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
References
•	Adlešič, I. (1999). Samopodoba osnovnošolskih otrok. Psihološka obzorja. Vol. 8, No. 2-3, pp. 201-205.
•	Ahmed, W. & Bruinsma, M. (2006). A Structural Model of Self-concept, Autonomous Motivation and Academic Perfomance in Cross-cultural Perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. Vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 551-576.
•	Akram, I. & Akram Naseem, M. (201 0). Self Concept and Social Adjustment among Physically Handicapped Persons. European Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 7-85.
•	Avsec, A. (2010). Samopodoba. In: Avsec, A. (Ed.): Psihodiagnostika osebnosti. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo.
•	Bass, B. M. (1990): Handbook of Leadership - theory, research, and managerial applications (third edition). New York: The Free Press.
•	Brajša, P. (1983). Vodenje kotmedosebniproces. Ljubljana: DDU Univerzum.
•	Branden, N. (2000). Samozavestno vodenje. Ljubljana: Inštitut za razvijanje osebne kakovosti.
•	Burnett, P. C., Craven, R. G. & Marsh, H. W. (1 999). Enhancing students' self-concepts and related constructs: A critical longitudinal analysis capitalising on and combining promising enhancement techniques for educational settings. Retrieved from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27108/V271 08.pdf.
•	Burns, R. B. (1979). The self concept: Theory, measurement, development and behavior. London: Longman.
•	Ferbežer, I. (2008). Samopodoba mlajših nadarjenih otrok. In: Ferbežer, Ivan, Težak, S. & Korez, I. (Eds.): Samopodoba mlajših nadarjenih otrok. Ljubljana.
•	Fisher, S. (1990). The evolution of psychological concepts about the body. In: Cash, Thomas F. (Ed.): Body images: development, deviance and change. New York: Goilford.
•	Hattie, J. (2003). The status and direction of self-concept research: The importance of importance. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/hattie/ docs/status-of-self-concept-research-waiheke-(2003).pdf.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 55
•	Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. W.(1996). Management. Cincinnati: Southwestern.
•	Hočevar, M., Jaklič, M. & Zagoršek, H. (2003). Ustvarjanje uspešnega podjetja - akcijski pristop k strateškemu razmišljanju, vodenju in nadziranju. Zbirka Manager. Ljubljana: GV Založba, založniško podjetje, d.o.o.
•	Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard business review. Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 33-42.
•	Kobal, D. (2000). Temeljni vidikisamopodobe. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
•	Kobal, D. (1994). Samopodoba - zavestna ali tudi nezavedna razsežnost osebnosti?. Psihološka obzorja - Horizons of psychology. Vol. 3, No. 3-4, pp. 25-35.
•	Kobal Grum, D. (2003). Bivanje samopodobe. Ljubljana: I2 družba za založništvo, izobraževanje in raziskovanje d.o.o.
•	Kobal Grum, D. (2004). Pomen samopodobe bibliotekarja v komunikacijskem procesu. Retrieved from: http://revija-knjiznica.zbds-zveza.si/Izvod i/K0403/kobal. pdf.
•	Kohont, K. (2005). Čustvena inteligenca pri vodenju v neprofitnih organizacijah. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za socialno delo.
•	Kuhar, M. (2004). V imenu lepote - družbena konstrukcija telesne samopodobe. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
•	Marčič, R. (2006). Razlike med spoloma v samopodobi, samospoštovanju in nekaterih zdravju škodljivih vedenjih. Anthropos. Vol. 38, No. 3-4,
pp. 63-76.
•	Mayer, J. (2004). Etična načela vodenja. In: Kovač, J., Mayer, J. & Jesenko, M. (Eds.): Stili in značilnosti uspešnega vodenja. Kranj: Moderna organizacija.
•	Maxwell, J. C. (2007). 21 nepogrešljivih lastnosti vodje: postanite človek, ki mu bodo drugi hoteli slediti. Ljubljana: Lisac&Lisac d.o.o.
•	Musek, J. (1993a). Znanstvena podoba osebnosti. Ljubljana: Educy d.o.o.
•	Musek, J. (1993b). Osebnost pod drobnogledom. Maribor: Obzorja.
•	Musek, J. (2005). Psihološke dimenzije osebnosti. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo.
•	Nastran Ule, M. (1994). Temelji socialne psihologije. Zbirka Alfa. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicistično središče.
56 Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010
•	Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theroy and practice. London: Sage Publications.
•	Račnik, M. (2008). Samopodoba in prepričanje. Retrieved from: http://www.vodja.net/index.php?blog= 1 &p= 1 87&more= 1 &c= 1 &tb= 1 &p b=1.
•	Samuel, W. (1981). Personality, searching for the sources of human behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
•	Stare, Janez (2005). Povezanost osebnostnega potenciala za vodenje z uspešnostjo vodenja v organih državne uprave. Ph. D.. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za upravo.
•	Stare, J. & Seljak, J. (2006). Vodenje ljudi v upravi: povezanost osebnostnega potenciala za vodenje z uspešnostjo vodenja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za upravo.
•	Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. New York: Prentice - Hall International.
•	Zimbardo, P. G. & Gerrig, R. J. (1996). Psychology and Life, Fourteenth Edition. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
•	Zupančič, M. (1993). Razvojne naloge mladostnika in institucionalno izobraževanje. Psihološka obzorja. Vol. 2, No. 3-4, pp. 207-213.
Uprava, letnik VIII, 4/2010 57