Leading with Integrity: The Role of Self-Regard and Social Responsibility

Why integrity depends on both “me” and “we”

Self-Regard is respecting oneself while accepting both strengths and limitations. Leaders with healthy self-regard don’t need to bluff competence or cling to fragile status; they can acknowledge uncertainty, invite dissent, and still hold a steady course. That quiet confidence is protective against impression-management spirals that corrode ethics.

Social Responsibility is the willingness to contribute to something larger than oneself—a team, an organization, a community. It’s the subscale most explicitly oriented toward the “we” of leadership: acting with social consciousness and concern for the broader good. When leaders feel accountable not only to KPIs but to people and the commons, ethical decision-making gains ballast.

This pairing matters. Self-regard without social responsibility risks becoming principled… but insular. Social responsibility without self-regard risks becoming self-sacrificing to the point of burnout or moral grandstanding. Integrity requires both a sturdy “self” and a durable sense of “us.”

What the research says (and why it’s actionable)

A growing body of evidence links emotional intelligence (EI) with leader outcomes that sit close to integrity—authentic leadership, prosocial behavior, and ethical decision-making. Meta-analytic work shows that leader EI predicts follower outcomes and adds explanatory power beyond personality and IQ, suggesting these are not just “nice to have” traits but uniquely shape how followers experience leadership.

Related syntheses show EI’s positive relationships with servant leadership and with organizational citizenship behaviors—those discretionary, prosocial acts that make cultures fairer and more resilient—practical proxies for “ethics at work.”

There’s also emerging work tying EI to ethical judgment and moral decision processes. While methods vary, the through-line is consistent: skills like self-awareness, empathy, and perspective-taking appear to support more balanced, ethically sensitive choices.

Finally, the EQ-i 2.0 Leadership calibration itself is grounded in comparative research with leaders; the instrument links subscales to four leadership dimensions—Authenticity, Coaching, Insight, and Innovation—with a leadership norm bar to benchmark against top performers. Integrity’s home is Authenticity; the building blocks beneath it include Self-Regard and Social Responsibility.

Five failure modes that quietly erode integrity (and how to correct them)

1. Overconfidence masquerading as conviction
   When Self-Regard is high but untempered by Reality Testing, leaders may overextend, defend weak positions, or bypass contrary data. Correction: pair self-regard with systematic reality checks and active solicitation of disconfirming evidence—especially before high-stakes calls.
2. People-pleasing dressed as care
   Social Responsibility without Independence can slide into performative consensus—ethical stances that track the loudest room. Correction: Use independence to hold course on values while keeping channels open for genuine input.
3. Transparency without empathy
   Leaders may “tell it straight” but miss how the message lands, weakening trust precisely when they try to build it. Correction: calibrate assertiveness and emotional expression with Empathy, listening for both content and emotion before stating your case.
4. Flexibility without principles
   Adaptability is a virtue until it feels like drift. Teams experience that as an ethical inconsistency. Correction: articulate the non-negotiables (values, guardrails) that frame what can and cannot bend.
5. Independence crossing into detachment
   When “I’ll own it” becomes “I don’t need your input,” blind spots expand. Correction: install feedback rituals that keep judgment tethered to diverse perspectives.

Build the muscles: two focused practices for the next 30 days

• Self-Regard × Reality Testing: After each major decision, write a three-line note: (a) what I believed; (b) what evidence contradicted it; (c) what I changed (or why I didn’t). This creates an audit trail that protects conviction from drifting into overconfidence.
• Social Responsibility × Independence: Before key meetings, list your core outcomes (non-negotiables) and flexible outcomes (where you’ll adapt to serve the broader good). Bring the list and, after the meeting, note how stakeholder input shaped the path.