65). Because we have almost close scores on self-awareness, we were all transparent and comfortable in expressing our feelings, our moods, and temper. We did not have a unrealistic expectation from the leader that he is a superman and infallible. Because of this, we can challenge anyone’s idea which is helpfulduring brainstorming.
The article, What Makes a Leader? (2004), elegantly states “Someone who is highly self-aware knows where he is headed and why” (Goleman, p. 85). Since all of the team members have results that are close to one another, the team was ver clear in its direction. Everyone cooperated well even in trying times. Since we were attuned to one another’s limitations, we provided support to members who were upset or frustrated. We believe that this trait – Self-Awareness would be a good cornerstone in the future when we become mentors in organizations. Being Self-Aware also gave a sense of direction to group members because we continually focused on the goal.
Another helpful result that had positive impact was Social Awareness. Except for the case of Maria who was only a few points higher than the rest, similarities in Social Awareness quotient indicates that anyone in the group is sensitive to other group members. Leaders must have a high Social Awareness so they can adjust to their working environment. Members look up to their leaders, and when members sense that their leaders are not interested in their issues, they get demotivated. Indeed, Offermann was downright valid in his article When Followers Become Toxic (2004), when he said “The leader who automatically rejects his followers’ opinions can be as unwise as one who unthinkingly goes along with them” (p. 57). The impact of this to the team is that we realized that all of us are potential leaders.
One category that made a difference was that of Relationship Management. We all had differents scores as reported in