18

Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics in Effective
Leadership Behaviors
Submitted to Regent University

School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership
Reid A. Kisling
April 2007
UMI Number: 3292253
Copyright 2008 by
Kisling, Reid A.
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 3292253

Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Character for Leadership
ii
iii
Abstract
While character is popularly considered a significant determinant of behavior,
current theories of leadership typically consider behavior alone in the evaluation of
effective leadership. One model of transformational leadership, visionary
leadership theory (VLT; Sashkin & Rosenbach, 1996; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2002),
incorporates the personal characteristics of the leader in addition to specific leader
behaviors in the consideration of effective leadership. Using the model of character
constructed by Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck (1993), this study evaluated
differences of character levels on effective visionary leadership behaviors for a
sample of students preparing for religious leadership. This study utilized The
Leadership Profile (TLP; Sashkin, Rosenbach, & Sashkin, 1997) and the
Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI; Cloninger, Przybeck, Svarkic, &
Wetzel, 1994) instruments. Study participants were segmented by levels of prior
ministry leadership experience and ministry leadership participation while in school
as well as by levels of the character traits self-directedness, cooperativeness, and
self-transcendence. Results demonstrated statistically significant findings for the
character trait levels of self-directedness (confident leadership by self-directedness
level2 = 20.37, p = .00; visionary leadership by self-directedness level2 =
17.29, p = .00) and cooperativeness (follower-centered leadership by
cooperativeness level2 = 7.97, p = .02; visionary leadership by cooperativeness
level2 = 18.40, p = .00) but not for levels of self-transcendence. Exploratory
regression analysis showed that self-directedness and self-transcendence scale
scores predict a significant amount of the variance in visionary leadership behavior
scores (R2 = .306, F = 21.61, p = .00). Regression analysis also showed that prior
ministry leadership experience level, when combined with self-directedness and
self-transcendence scale scores, predicts a significant amount of the variance in
visionary leadership behavior scores (R2 = .338, F = 16.53, p = .00). This study also
provides conceptual development of distinctions between character, values, ethics,
and morality as well as links between behavioral self-regulation and character.
iv
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my family. They are the real test of my leadership
development capabilities. All other things pale in comparison to my responsibility
to them and their own development as people, citizens, and Christians. May they
continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (2 Peter 3:18, New
International Version).
Acknowledgements
I want to thank the other members of my doctoral cohort at Regent
University. Who would have thought that we would have become lifelong friends
with so many different people from around the globe? I am especially grateful for
three menChristian, Bob, and Kelly. We endured significant hardship together
and learned firsthand what learned resourcefulness and resiliency are all about. I
want to thank Dr. Paul Carr for his belief in us as we have struggled with the
process of being emergent doctors.
I am grateful to Dr. Karin Klenke for the direction that she provided to me
in the process of selecting this topic. She showed me the way regarding literature
on character that provided a solid foundation for this study. I am grateful to her for
her insight and assistance as I refined my ideas.
I also want to express my sincere appreciation for my dissertation chair, Dr.
Gail Longbotham. She reinvigorated energy into this project as if it were her own,
striving to make it a significant and important work. I thank her for her investment
of time and encouragement. I also want to thank the other members of my
committee who listened to my many different musings about this project as it took
shape. Thank you for your gracious assistance.
I am extremely grateful to my family who endured less time with their
husband and Daddy so that this project could be completed. They have shown that
all things are possible as long as they are temporary. I hope this has helped shape
me into a better husband and father.
Finally, I want to thank my God and Father who, through the blood of His
Son on the cross and the power of His Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead, is
forging my character into a life that is pleasing to Him. May I lead in a manner to
which He receives the glory!
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Religious Contexts for Leadership...................................................................... 3
Leadership Theories ............................................................................................ 4
Transformational Leadership ...................................................................... 4
Visionary Leadership Theory ...................................................................... 5
Character ............................................................................................................. 5
Purpose Statement ............................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms............................................................................................. 8
Significance of Study .......................................................................................... 9
Theoretical Significance .............................................................................. 9
Practical Significance ................................................................................ 10
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................... 10
Summary ........................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................. 12
Transformational Leadership ............................................................................ 12
Comparison to Transactional Leadership ................................................. 13
Comparison to Charismatic Leadership .................................................... 15
Summary .................................................................................................... 17
VLT ................................................................................................................... 18
Measures .................................................................................................... 20
Summary .................................................................................................... 20
The Leaders Character, Values, Ethics, and Morality ..................................... 21
Character ................................................................................................... 21
Values ........................................................................................................ 22
Ethics ......................................................................................................... 24
vii
Morality ..................................................................................................... 24
Distinctions Between Characteristics ........................................................ 25
Implications for This Study ........................................................................ 28
Character ........................................................................................................... 28
Self-Directedness .............................................................................................. 29
Self-Regulation .......................................................................................... 30
Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................... 31
Empirical Research ................................................................................... 32
Summary .................................................................................................... 32
Cooperativeness ................................................................................................ 33
Power Motive ............................................................................................. 34
Summary .................................................................................................... 36
Self-Transcendence ........................................................................................... 37
Spirituality ................................................................................................. 37
Summary .................................................................................................... 39
Religious Contexts for Leadership.................................................................... 39
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 41
Chapter 3 Method.................................................................................................. 43
Sample............................................................................................................... 43
Measures ........................................................................................................... 44
Demographic Survey ................................................................................. 44
TCI ............................................................................................................. 44
Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP ....................................................................... 46
Social Desirability Scale............................................................................ 46
Procedure .......................................................................................................... 47
Summary ........................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 4 Results .................................................................................................. 48
Demographics ................................................................................................... 49
Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................... 51
viii
Analyses of Variance ........................................................................................ 53

Multiple Regression Analysis ........................................................................... 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 60
Chapter 5 Discussion ............................................................................................ 62
Research Results ............................................................................................... 62
Visionary Leadership ................................................................................. 62
The Leaders Character, Values, Ethics and Morality .............................. 63
Character and its Components .................................................................. 65
Leadership for Religious Contexts............................................................. 69
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 72
Implications....................................................................................................... 73
Leadership Development ........................................................................... 73
Leader Character Traits ............................................................................ 73
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................ 74
References ................................................................................................................ 76
Appendix A Survey Instrument ............................................................................ 95
Appendix B Human Subject Research Approval .................................................. 99
Appendix C Approval to Use Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP Instrument .............. 102
Appendix D Approval to Distribute Survey Instrument ..................................... 103
Appendix E Survey Instructions ......................................................................... 104
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Literature review map............................................................................... 14
Figure 2: The role of character in leadership. .......................................................... 18
Figure 3: Model of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). ......................................... 25
Figure 4: A behavioral model of character, values, ethics, and morality................. 26
Figure 5: The proposed relationship between variables........................................... 42
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Survey Participants ............................................. 49
Table 2: Coefficient Alphas for Survey Scales, N = 101 ......................................... 51
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics, N = 101 ................................................................... 51
Table 4: TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) Character Subscales and
Descriptive Statistics, N = 101 ......................................................................... 52
Table 5: Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP Scales and Descriptive Statistics, N = 101.... 53
Table 6: Levenes Test for Equality of Variances ................................................... 54
Table 7: Chi-Squared Results for Hypotheses, = .05 ............................................ 55
Table 8: Regression Model Character Traits ........................................................ 57
Table 9: Regression Coefficients Character Traits, Dependent Variable Visionary
Leadership ........................................................................................................ 58
Table 10: Regression Model Character Traits and Previous Leadership
Experience ........................................................................................................ 59
Table 11: Regression Coefficients Character Traits and Previous Leadership
Experience, Dependent Variable Visionary Leadership .................................. 60
Chapter 1 Introduction
Leadership is an inherently moral endeavor because it involves a
relationship of influence and power between a leader and followers. All leadership
is ideologically driven or motivated by a certain philosophical perspective, which
upon analysis and judgment may or may not prove to be morally acceptable in the
colloquial sense (Gini, 1998a, p. 366). The general populace, as well as leadership
scholars, have increasingly recognized the importance a leaders character plays in
his or her leadership activities and effectiveness (Barlow, Jordan, & Hendrix,
2003). This interest is also evident in the somewhat recent dialogue surrounding the
impeachment hearings of former President Bill Clinton. The importance of a
leaders character appears in the discussions surrounding the sex scandals in the
Roman Catholic Church, in which priests are given responsibilities they are unable
to complete because they lack the necessary emotional, social, and spiritual
maturity and competence (Ferder & Heagle, 2002). Good character is important for
leaders in the public or private sector, although some leaders in business are still
considered successful as long as they positively impact the bottom line, even if
their morals or ethics leave something to be desired (Barnett, 2003; Ciulla, 1998a).
Although followers are often enamored with bad or toxic leaders
(Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005) and history is replete with leaders who
accomplished their goals but who did so through unethical and immoral means,
toxic leaders ultimately leave their constituents in their wake. One only needs to
peruse the headlines of todays newspapers to see such leadership in action.
Nonetheless, leadership requires more than simply getting followers to do what the
leader wants done. Good leadership requires more than technical effectiveness. It
requires accomplishing outcomes that are morally good (Burns, 1978, 2003; Ciulla,
1998b). It involves the transformation of individuals; organizations; and,
ultimately, societies. This kind of leadership has been referred to as
transformational leadership by Bass (1985), and it proceeds from the underlying
character of the leader.
Even though some have stated that a leaders private life has no impact on
leadership effectiveness in the public sphere, followers seem to inherently
understand that a leaders moral character directly influences good leadership. This
focus is apparent when considering the characteristics of the most admired
leadershonesty, forward-looking, inspiring, and competent (Kouzes & Posner,
1993). Both character and skills are heralded as important to good leadership.
Others would support the necessity of ethical actions on the part of organizational
leaders. When leaders compromise their ethical standards they do harm, often
irreparable, in terms of the immediate physical and moral suffering to others within
and outside the organization (Kanungo & Mendona, 1996, p. 33).
Unfortunately, even with this evidence to the contrary, there is often an
apparent bifurcation of the outcomes (or behaviors) associated with good
leadership and the character of the leader. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) highlighted
the need to consider more than just leader behavior, suggesting that some leaders
who practice transformational leadership behaviors do so inauthentically. The
authors called such leaders pseudotransformational (p. 184). Carey (1992) also
raised this issue as he considered the self-transcendence of transformational
leaders. The reality is that, in many cases, the actions of both transformational and
pseudotransformational leaders look the same; only the motivation differs. At issue
are those leaders who possess the charisma to influence followers. However, this
charismatic influence may lack moral or ethical motives. In many such inauthentic
cases, it is the hubris of the leader that is satisfied, rather than the moral
development of followers. The goal is more than simply the elimination of
intentionally inauthentic leadership because some leaders, though altruistic, are
blinded to their own immoral deficiencies (Price, 2003). Faulty character has
significant implications for organizational ineffectiveness. Employees and
managers with faulty character are unable to adequately use their talents and skills
at critical times in large part because of difficulty managing their feelings, drive,
and impulses (Leonard, 1997, p. 241). The key, then, is to identify the character
that motivates authentic transformational leadership, capitalize on it, and develop it
in those who are current leaders as well as those who are preparing for future
leadership positions.
Religious Contexts for Leadership
The perspective that the leaders character and skill leads to appropriate
leadership behaviors and, therefore, desired leadership outcomes is critical to the
leadership development processes for religious organizations. Unfortunately, those
in formal religious leadership often do not exhibit the character qualities (i.e.,
possessing a loving heart, modeling servanthood, and having godly wisdom) that
one might expect of such leaders (Barna Group, 2003), qualities that are alleged to
be upheld by transformational and servant leaders in other contexts (Dvir &
Shamir, 2003; Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 1999). In
addition, many Protestant church leaders do not subscribe to a biblical worldview,
and even fewer of the members of their congregations profess such beliefs (Barna
Group, 2004). Those beliefs that are commonly held and are being taught by these
leaders are not being internalized by followers or by the leaders themselves.
Obviously, there is a significant disconnect between professed beliefs and actions.
Unfortunately, many institutions of theological education assume that
curricular coverage of theological content and ministry practice is adequate to train
leaders for Christian ministry and that the formation of character, while crucial, is
something to be relegated to an environment outside of the theological institution
(Farley, 1983) such as the family or church. However, theological institutions are
increasingly realizing that they are responsible for playing a significant role in the
development of such qualities in their students and graduates (Tenelshof, 1999).
Unfortunately, those institutions that have accepted responsibility for development
of spirituality within their curricula do so by expanding course requirements, not
revising programs, contributing to an ever-increasing problem of course
proliferation (Jones, 1987).
Theoretically, character development should be implicit and integrated
within the enterprise of theological education since the purpose of such training is
to develop leaders for the church who, in turn, are able to build up (transform)
others (Ephes 4:11-13). One cannot hope to transform another person without
proceeding through such transformation himself. Therefore, church leaders are to
be mature (1 Tim 3:1-13). Yet, churches, as well as institutions of theological
education, struggle with ways to develop such leaders (Banks, 1999). Perhaps, it is
due to the fact that the approach to leadership development is rooted in a former
paradigm of education, consisting only of the presentation of content (Farley,
1988). If this is true, a new perspective from outside the theological academy is
required.
Leadership Theories
Leadership studies during the past 20 years have been dominated by the
paradigm of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
Transformational leadership involves a relationship between a leader and followers
that moves beyond an exchange for services or rewards (i.e., transactional
leadership). Such a relationship is one in which leaders exercise behaviors that raise
the values and ethical standards of followers to new levels (Burns, 1978, 2003).
Transformational Leadership
Burns (1978) identified transforming (transformational) leadership as that
which occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that
leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality
(p. 20). In fact, the concept of character seems to be implicit in transformational
leadership theory. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) argued that only those with moral
character can enact authentic transformational leadership. In reality, all others,
while effective as leaders according to some external standards, are counterfeits and
should not be considered truly transformational.
Transformational leadership theory implies the significance of the leaders
character toward the practice of authentic transformational leadership. Yet, many
theories of transformational leadership continue to promote effective leadership
simply as that which occurs when leaders display behaviors that empower and
motivate followers beyond a pure exchange relationship (transactional leadership).
Nonetheless, transformational leadership theory does not explicitly include
character as a component in the foundation, conceptualization, and

operationalization of the theory.
Visionary Leadership Theory
One theory of leadership that incorporates both transformational leadership
behaviors and stresses the importance of the underlying characteristics or motives
of the leader is that of visionary leadership theory (VLT; Sashkin & Rosenbach,
1996; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2002). In contrast to other views of transformational
leadership, VLT implies that the underlying characteristics of the leader produce
effective leadership behaviors and, therefore, external attributions by followers of
effective leadership.
Though not called by the same name, VLT is consistent with the level 5
leaders identified by Collins (2001a, 2001b) who exhibit both humility and
determination. Such leaders have a proper perspective of both power and their own
drive to succeed. These two componentshumility and willare personal
characteristics of the leader. Consistent with this perspective, and in line with the
work of others (McClelland, 1975), Sashkin and Sashkin (2002) referred to these
underlying characteristics of the leader as character. But, what is meant by the use
of the term character?
Character
Both psychologically and nonpsychologically, good character is important
for individuals to function appropriately in society. From a nonpsychological
perspective, good characterappropriate patterns of behavior formed and shaped
throughout lifeis deemed extremely important for leaders. For example, Sheehy
(1990) evaluated the character of the political candidates for the 1988 presidential
election and concluded that their character profoundly impacts the manner and
propensity with which they lead. Yet, we have seen such disparities between the
public and private lives of leaders that even writers of fiction have posed the
question of whether character really matters to successful leadership function
(Wetlaufer, 1999).
Psychologically, character is an aspect of personality distinct from

temperament (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Leonard, 1997; Sperry,
1997). Character is consistency in behavior across time (Leonard, p. 240) and is
more than just a sense of self (p. 240), also including volitional and selfregulatory matters. In addition, personal beliefs and values are often included in the
character components of personality.
Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck (1993) developed a model of
temperament and character that addresses this multifaceted perspective of
personality. This model, while incorporating an aspect of temperament (those traits
supposedly acquired primarily through heredity), provides significant promise for
evaluating the core character components that influence the manner in which one
utilizes temperament. While temperament influences ones automatic response to a
stimulus, character involves the assessment and selection of behavior in response to
ones preprogrammed reaction. According to Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbecks
model, character is comprised of three higher-order components: self-directedness,
cooperativeness, and self-transcendence. These character traits comprise means of
relating to oneself, other individuals, and the surrounding world, respectively. The
primary instrument used to assess these traits is the Temperament and Character
Inventory (TCI; Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994).
Character is foundational to ones selection of behavior in a given situation.
Therefore, the consideration of such leader characteristics is vital since such
characteristics play a significant role in the selection of leadership behaviors. Many
such leader characteristics are considered part of the leaders personality or
temperament. However, beyond issues of temperament, character comprises those
personality traits that can be changed and that represent the motivation behind
leadership action or inaction.
When approaching this study from the understanding that character
determines the actions undertaken, a question is raised: what are the character traits
that lead to transformational leadership behaviors? This study will consider those
traits at work in the leader who chooses to practice transformational leadership.
Three such character components that have been linked to enacting
transformational leadership behaviors are the self-directedness, cooperativeness,

and self-transcendence of the leader.
Purpose Statement
Since ones character has a direct effect on the decision to enact leadership
behavior, it is important to investigate the impact of the character of prospective
religious leaders. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of three
independent components of leader characterexpressed as self-directedness,
cooperativeness, and self-transcendenceon the dependent variable of effective
leadership behaviors.
Past research of VLT has supported the relationship of leader characteristics
and effective leadership (Colyer, 1996; Vona, 1997) as well as effective leadership
development (Lafferty, 1998) but has done so with a seemingly inadequate
understanding of the underlying components of a psychological formulation of
character. VLT does incorporate character as a foundational component within the
theory. However, the character subscales of The Leadership Profile (TLP; Sashkin
et al., 1997) used to assess ones visionary leadership, specifically confident
leadership and follower-centered leadership, have not been correlated with an
instrument intentionally designed to measure psychological formulations of
character. In addition, no study has considered the interaction of these variables in a
population preparing for leadership in Christian ministry.
This study will attempt to assess the three character constructs of selfdirectedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence measured by the TCI
(Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994). In support of the concept of character
development for leadership, Clark (2003) demonstrated the constructive use of the
TCI to help leaders understand their character development needs in order to
develop appropriately as leaders. This study expanded this concept and used
character to evaluate differences in effective leadership for a population of
seminary students preparing for positions of ministry leadership. Therefore, this
study is promising because a leaders character is used to evaluate these differences
in effective leadership behaviors.
This is a quantitative study designed to answer the following research

question: how much do effective leadership behaviors differ based on ones level of
self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence? This investigation will
evaluate the differences these independent variables have on effective visionary
leadership behaviors by studying prospective ministry leaders.
Definition of Terms
Transformational leadership is defined as leadership that motivates
followers through an inspiring vision in such a way that followers are
fundamentally transformed in their values, attitudes, and actions. Such leadership is
an ethical enterprise (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978, 2003; Ciulla, 1998a).
Visionary leadership is (a) leadership in which the personal characteristics
of the leader are seen as extremely significant in guiding the leaders actions as
well as (b) leadership that transforms individuals and organizations. Visionary
leadership is similar to transformational leadership in that visionary leaders develop
themselves and their followers morally in constructing organizational cultures that
benefit others. Thus they create meaning in their own lives and an organizational
context in which others can make their own meaning (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2002, p.
145). However, in contrast to other perspectives of transformational leadership,
visionary leadership is based on the character of the leader in addition to the
behaviors and context of the leader.
Character is a component of personality, apart from temperament, that is
the capacity of the self involved in the exercise of good judgment and the display of
moral development (Leonard, 1997). Character governs ones selection of
particular behaviors in response to external stimuli. Temperament refers to ones
natural response to such stimuli, while character is limited to those attributes
involved in the selection and implementation of behavioral responses. Unlike
character, temperament has a physiological basis.
Self-directedness is defined as a multifaceted, higher-order character trait
that includes the aspects of personal responsibility, purposefulness, resourcefulness,
self-acceptance, and well-developed goal-congruent habits (Cloninger, Przybeck, et
al., 1994). Alternatively, this character trait has been described as self-discipline
and self-control. In most treatments of personality, self-directedness is equivalent
to the concept of behavioral self-regulation.
Cooperativeness, like self-directedness, is a multifaceted, higher-order
character trait that includes the aspects of tolerance of others, empathy, helpfulness
toward others, compassion, and fairness and ethical stability in interpersonal
relationships (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994).
Self-transcendence is defined as a multifaceted, higher-order character trait
that includes the aspects of self-forgetfulness, a strong connection to nature and
social justice, and spiritual acceptance (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994).
Significance of Study
Transformational leaders differ from transactional leaders in terms of their
specific behaviors (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Burns, 1978; Kouzes &
Posner, 1987). Yet, studies of transformational leadership have been limited, for the
most part, to considerations of such behaviors rather than the underlying character
of the leaders. VLT (Sashkin, 1986; Sashkin & Rosenbach, 1996; Sashkin &
Sashkin, 2002) moves beyond this behavioral paradigm to consider specific
characteristics of the transformational leader, namely the leaders character. This
study continues an investigation of visionary (transformational) leadership but
furthers the literature by investigating the foundations of transformational
Theoretical Significance
This study contributes to the theory of transformational leadership in
general and visionary leadership in particular by presenting an explicit
characterological perspective on the theory. Existing literature has hinted at the
relationship of character to leadership. This study makes this link explicit and
demonstrates how character is the foundation of transformational leadership
behaviors.
10
Practical Significance
The primary significance of this study relates to the focus of theological
education and its emphasis on developing leaders for Christian ministry. The
identification of character as foundational to effective leadership demands a focus
on programs of character development, including existing programs of spiritual
formation, as well as continued monitoring, especially as individuals build
character through leadership experiences.
No longer can character development be relegated to a process that occurs
outside of the classroom. It must be integrated with the entire endeavor to develop
leaders who lead out of an ethical, moral, and righteous foundation, rather than one
of pragmatism whose focus is on accomplishing tasks rather than transforming
lives. This may provide additional fodder for the discussion on revitalizing
programs of theological education.
Another point of practical significance for this study is that it impacts the
direction and curriculum of seminary programs of spiritual formation.
Traditionally, such programs have been designed to address the character
development of those involved. However, operational definitions of character have
been seldom considered in construction of such programs nor are there empirical
studies that measure character growth of program participants.
This study advances this intention of character development by considering
the character dimensions that are most significant to effective leadership
functioning. Such programs of spiritual formation would do well to consider the
manner in which their graduates develop in these areas toward becoming more
effective leaders.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was designed as a cross-sectional, self-report survey using a
convenience sample of masters-level students from the main campus of one large
evangelical institution of theological education. As such, problems of common
method variance and lack of random sampling were inherent in the research design.
Nonetheless, since self-report measures are subject to response bias such as social
11
desirability, participants also completed instrument items in an attempt to consider

the effects of social desirability (Paulhus, 1984), specifically image management,
the component of social desirability that pertains to claiming desirable
characteristics for the self.
Finally, this study investigated students at various stages of completion of
the seminary curriculum in an attempt to control for those factors that may result in
maturation effects as a function of prolonged exposure to the curriculum. The
decision not to conduct longitudinal research for this sample was made by the
researcher for logistical reasons, even though only such a design can answer the
long-term effects of seminary preparation on the character and leadership of such
students.
Summary
Programs of spiritual formation within seminaries often have been designed
to address the character development of students who are preparing for leadership
in vocational Christian service. These emerging leaders must develop in specific
aspects of their character in order to lead appropriately in the Christian ministry for
which they will be responsible in the future.
12
Chapter 2 Literature Review

This literature review begins with research concerning transformational
leadership and its relationship to the character development of leader and followers.
Following is the discussion of the concept of character, its components, and the
relationship of values, ethics, and morality. The map shown in Figure 1 guided this
literature review. Leadership can be evaluated from numerous vantage points.
Because of the primacy of self-regulation (self-directedness) in this study, a social
cognitive framework (Carver & Scheier, 1998) is an appropriate vantage point from
which to view leadership. When viewed as a self-regulatory process, leadership
involves the selection of appropriate behaviors as determined by the beliefs and
abilities of the leader which, when moderated by situational factors, result in
specific outcomes. The degree to which the outcomes are congruent with the
intended goals of the leader (ascertained through appropriate feedback processes)
confirms leadership effectiveness. This framework is especially useful when
considering the concept of character in its relation to other behavioral constructs
and will inform the overall development of leadership theory for this study.
From its inception, transforming leadership has had internal motivation and
change at its heart. Burns (1978) first identified the role of values and beliefs in the
leaderfollower relationship. Transformational leadership has been viewed as the
ideal leadership perspective (Collins, 2001a). A significant volume of research has
considered the behaviors of transformational leaders (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus,
1985; Burns, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 1987) and the impact of those behaviors on
follower affect (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer,
1996), follower development of trust (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990; Simon, 1994), and overall measures of organizational effectiveness
(Anderson-Rudolf, 1996; Bass & Avolio, 1994). However, much is unknown about
the reason transformational leaders undertake such behaviors and how their
motivation differs from those who exhibit only transactional leadership behaviors
13
(Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Because of the role of ones belief and value system in
the selection and enacting of behaviors (Feather, 1988, 1995), understanding the
internal system that determines the actions of transformational leaders is crucial to
the prediction of transformational leadership and, therefore, leadership
effectiveness. Said another way, the leaders person (ontology) or character has a
drastic effect on the choice of leadership behavior that is enacted. Therefore, an
understanding of character is critical in order to predict, as well as develop, such
desired leadership behaviors by leaders.
Other authors have continued the theme of leadership that transforms. The
five exemplary practices of Kouzes and Posner (1987) highlight a similar
perspective on leadership. While these and other authors have demonstrated that
transformational leadership impacts individuals and organizations positively, they
do so from what appears to be a one-sided perspective, that of the behaviors of the
leader that transform followers. Despite the many useful and interesting insights
of these popular books, there has been minimal, if any, systematic study on the
inner experience of being a leader of an organization (Judge, 1999, p. 3).
Nonetheless, transformation leadership offers a robust paradigm for the
considerations of leadership and the effects of the leaders personal characteristics
on leadership effectiveness.
Comparison to Transactional Leadership
With the advent of the transformational leadership paradigm, most other
theories of leadership have been viewed as less than optimal. Certainly, this may be
inferred from Burns (1978) who considered transformational leaders as moral
agents. By implication, Burns (1978) seems to have considered
nontransformational leaders agents of amoral leadership. However, all forms of
leadership carry moral implications. This is true of transactional forms of
leadership as much as leadership that is considered transformational. Transactional
leadership, or leadership that is based primarily on an exchange relationship
between leaders and followers, still produces actions that have moral consequences.
What differs between transformational and transactional leadership is the explicit
focus of the former on positively developing the values and beliefs of followers.
14
Transactional leadership focuses primarily on accomplishing the task, while

transformational leadership considers the need for each followers emotional,
social, physical, and spiritual development.
Bass (1985)
Bass & Avolio (1994)
Burns (1978)
Visionary Leadership Theory

Sashkin & Rosenbach (1996)
Sashkin & Sashkin (2002)
Character
Leonard (1997)
Cloninger, Svrakic, & Pryzbeck (1993)
Self-Directedness
Cooperativeness
Self-Regulation
Power Motive
Carver & Scheier (1998)
McClelland (1975)
Self-Transcendence
Spirituality
Piedmont (1999)
Theoretical Research
Tsui & Ashford (1994)

Murphy (2002)
Winter (2002)
Fry (2003)
Tischler, Biberman, &
McKeage (2002)
Empirical Research
Empirical Research
Empirical Research
Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al.

(1994)
Religious Leadership
Gilpin (1988)
Campbell (1992)
Current Study
Figure 1: Literature review map.
15
Even given these distinctions, Bass (1985) emphasized the need for
transactional leadership in addition to purely transformational elements in order to
accomplish the needs for organizations as well as individuals. Similarly, Avolio
(1999) considered transactional and transformational leadership as necessary to
develop the full range of leadership. This distinction to also include transactional
elements is what distinguishes some perspectives of transformational leadership
from pure charismatic leadership.
Comparison to Charismatic Leadership
Another form, perhaps a subset, of transformational leadership is
charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership, like transformational leadership,
requires an emotional connection between leader and follower such that an
influence relationship can occur. Charismatic leadership takes this emphasis to a
deeper level.
The theory of charismatic leadership, first made explicit by House (1977),
identifies those aspects of a leader that set him or her apart from followers in an
extraordinary way. In addition to the leaders charisma, charismatic leadership
involves exceptional leadership behaviors and positive attributions by followers.
According to Waldman, Javidan, and Varella (2004),
Key behaviors on the part of the leader include providing a sense of
mission, articulating a future-oriented, inspirational vision based on
powerful imagery, values, and beliefs. Additional behaviors include
showing determination when accomplishing goals and
communicating high performance expectations. Favorable
attributional effects on the part of followers include the generation
of confidence in the leader, making followers feel good in his/her
presence, and strong admiration or respect. (p. 358)
Obviously, values and beliefs are a core concept in these conceptualizations
of charismatic leadership, much as they are in transformational leadership. Yet,
what is it that governs the outcomes of the charismatic leadership relationship when
some state that followers desire, even create, their own toxic leaders (Kellerman,
2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005)?
16
Howell (1988) stated that charismatic leadership is neither moral nor

immoral. Rather, such judgment should be reserved for the outcomes of the
leaders actions. In contrast, Kanungo and Mendona (1996) maintained that
charismatic leadership, as well as every other form of leadership, is very much a
moral enterprise, the determination of which depends on the underlying motivation
of the leader. They asserted that
organizational leaders are truly effective only when they are
motivated by a concern for others, when their actions are invariably
guided primarily by the criteria of the benefit to others even if it
results in some cost to self. The underlying rationale or purpose for
having a leader in a group or organization is to move it toward the
pursuit of objectives that, when attained, would produce benefits to
both the organization and its members. (p. 35)
They then stated this even more forcefully by stating that, in fact, the
altruistic motive becomes the only consistent motive for the leader role (p. 35).
This altruistic motive is consistent with moral leadership. In contrast, immoral
leadership is egotistic and benefits the leader personally rather than benefiting
others or the organization. The difficulty becomes identifying the socialized (otherfocused) versus personal (self-focused) motives of the leader. This difficulty is
complicated by the fact that some personally motivated leaders may truly believe
that their motives are altruistic. This may proceed from a lack of self-awareness or
blatant denial that their vision is personally motivated. Apparently, this reality is
significant enough to warrant the publication of a business allegory decrying the
disaster that awaits the leader who is self-deceived (Arbinger Institute, 2002).
Regardless, when leaders compromise their ethical standards they do harm, often
irreparable, in terms of the immediate physical and moral suffering to others within
and outside the organization (Kanungo & Mendona, 1996, p. 33). Leadership in
general and transformational leadership in particular are moral exercises and
proceed from the character of the leader.
While Conger and Kanungo (1987) presented charismatic leadership
primarily as a behavioral process not based on the individual traits of the leader,
17
several behavioral components discussed have explicit characterological

foundations. The willingness to incur significant personal risk, such as that
demonstrated by self-sacrificial leadership (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998; De Cremer
& van Knippenberg, 2004), as well as the use of power are both elements founded
in the leaders character trait of cooperativeness examined elsewhere in this study.
House and Howell (1992) considered the personal characteristics of charismatic
versus noncharismatic leaders and found a distinction in their personalities. Those
elements that were explicit were those that distinguished personalized versus
socialized charismatic leaders. Consequently, those same elements parallel the
character trait of cooperativeness.
Summary
Transformational leadership provides a strong foundation for the
consideration of the leaders character in the process of moral leadership. However,
the inclusion of character in the theory is implicit at best and needs to be
established explicitly to demonstrate its importance.
There has recently been a reawakening of the consideration of leader
characteristics and their impact on leadership effectiveness. The early divestiture
from trait theories of leadership (as a result of Stogdill, 1948) generated a
significant move from research regarding the trait perspective, primarily because no
single characteristics were thought to be consistent across effective leadership
contexts. However, Stogdills article, in reality, proposed that while no one set of
characteristics was essential for leadership, there were groups of characteristics that
interacted (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). With a reevaluation of this foundational
assertion comes the opportunity to consider whether certain leader characteristics
are important to effective leadership.
In line with this perspective on the leaders personal characteristics,
character assessment can be a useful tool for leadership development of those
committed to professional and personal growth (Clark, 2003). However, even
measurements of character do not seem to readily grasp the essential components.
Furthermore, many leadership theories do not incorporate character in the process
18
of enacting effective leadership behaviors. What is necessary is a theory of

leadership that incorporates the character of the leader.
VLT
VLT, developed by Sashkin and his colleagues (Sashkin & Rosenbach,
1996; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2002), incorporates leader characteristics into the
framework of the theory. Again, one of thee primary reasons for consideration of
VLT over other existing leadership theories is that fact that VLT shows how the
personal characteristics of the leader guide transformational leaders actions
(Sashkin & Sashkin, p. 184). Yet, at the same time, VLT holds many elements in
common with these other theories.
VLT does not discount the importance of leadership behaviors. It simply
attempts to include such factors that influence transformational leadership
behaviors, including personal characteristics and characteristics of the leadership
situation. Therefore, VLT appears to be more holistic than other conceptions of
transformational leadership that exist.
Sashkin and Sashkin (2002) compared VLT to other theories of leadership.
VLT thus comprises an integration of the current research base on transformational
leadership. See Figure 2 for a proposed model of the theory.
Situational
factors
Leader
character
Abilities
Leadership
behaviors
Leadership
outcomes
Feedback processes
Figure 2: The role of character in leadership.
Compared with other theories, VLT explicitly includes the elements of the
leaders personal characteristics (character and abilities), leadership behaviors,
factors specific to the situation, and leadership outcomes. The leader then utilizes
19
what is gleaned from the situation to develop his or her character for leadership
through means of feedback.
Though not discussed in literature concerning VLT, others have examined
conceptual distinctions between character and abilities. Character is a component of
personality while abilities relate to ones competence to perform a task. For
example, intelligence is considered an ability (Nicholls, 1990). However,
personality is not contingent on intelligence to function properly. Said another way,
personality traits operate independent of ones cognitive ability (intelligence). A
further example of the distinction between trait and ability is the mixed model of
emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1997; Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002) which
explicitly attempts to combine the two, as compared to pure ability measures of the
concept of emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1997; Salovey &
Mayer, 1990). Nonetheless, personality in general and character in particular are
distinct from ones ability to enact specific behaviors and, therefore, garner
different attention in the model presented.
Vision is one of the constructs included in VLT, but it is an ability of the
leader rather than an aspect of the leaders character. However, the foundational
components of vision may be tied to leader self-regulation; such capacity to see
long-term implications and consequences of an action impacts ones decision to
postpone the desire for immediate gratification (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982).
Other leadership theorists consider vision to have both cognitive and affective
components that then lead to specific behaviors (Lubin, 2001; Snyder, Dowd, &
Houghton, 1994; Strange & Mumford, 2002). However, because VLT considers the
construct of vision as the primary evaluation of a leaders cognitive ability, this
study does not intentionally consider the visionary leadership component of VLT.
Within VLT, the construct called confident leadership has been developed
as one of the components of the leaders character. This concept has been referred
to by Sashkin and Sashkin (2002) as self-efficacy and self-control and has been tied
somehow to emotional intelligence. Leader confidence involves personal control or
belief in overall unifying purpose and meaning in lifes events, a concept
equivalent to another self-regulatory construct called sense of coherence
20
(Antonovsky, 1985). Each of these concepts is a component within the construct of

behavioral self-regulation or self-directedness as defined in this study.
In addition to the leaders character trait of confidence, VLT includes the
construct called follower-centered leadership. This concept involves the leaders
motivation for leading, specifically whether leadership actions are personally or
other motivated. Foundational to this discussion is the concept of power motive
(McClelland, 1975). VLT addresses this issue as a component of effective
visionary leadership. Follower-centered leadership corresponds to the
cooperativeness of the leader as defined in this study.
Measures
Initially, the Leader Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ) was developed by
Sashkin (1996) to assess visionary leadership. It was this instrument which was
shown by McElreath (1999) to correlate substantially with Bass (1985) Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) as well as Kouzes and Posners (1987)
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). However, the LBQ originally only included
behaviors associated with transformational leadership, not the personal
characteristics of the leader nor transactional elements. The LBQ was subsequently
revised to include these elements in line with developments in VLT and came to be
known as TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997).
The TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997), as well as the first generation of the
instrument, the LBQ, has been used to assess transformational leadership in a
variety of organizational contexts such as business, elementary and secondary
schools, engineering teams, and health care facilities (Colyer, 1996; Dixon, 1997;
Major, 1988; Silver, 2000). These studies demonstrated the significant link between
visionary leadership and effective organizational performance.
Summary
Implicit in this pursuit of the foundational character to insure authentic
transformational leadership is a model of leadership processes that the leader
follows in the selection of specific leadership behaviors (see Figure 2). VLT is one
theory that incorporates the personal characteristics of the leader in addition to the
leaders behaviors and the situational context. This study entails a further
21
investigation of the leaders character as a component of these personal

characteristics. However, there is discrepancy concerning the use of the term
character and its relation to other concepts mentioned in the literature.
The Leaders Character, Values, Ethics, and Morality
Though once discounted in the discussion of leadership, certainly there has
been a renaissance in the consideration of the personal characteristics of leaders.
Now, leadership theorists routinely discuss the primacy of ethics in leadership
(Ciulla, 1998a, 2002). Equally, leadership is considered a moral enterprise (Burns,
1978, 2003; Gini, 1998b). Some of these theorists have drawn implications for the
character of the leader based on the ethical or moral nature of leadership outcomes
(Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Still others have discussed how values are foundational
in the selection of effective leadership behaviors (Malphurs, 2004; OToole, 1996).
All of these theorists and philosophers have used the terms character, values,
ethics, and morality interchangeably. However, confusion exists about the nature of
these constructs and how they are to be distinguished from each other. Burns
(1998), when discussing the current plight of the literature, is disturbed by this
trend to confuse terminology and called for conceptual clarity. Such clarity is
necessary to understand how differing leadership theories approach the personal
characteristics of the leader and where deficiencies exist in these theories that
require greater precision. First, understanding each of these characteristics
individually will begin to shed light on their differences.
Character
Popularly, character has been considered that aspect of the person that
forms the foundation for behavior. One of the best known treatments of character
on this level is that of Sheehy (1990). According to Sheehy, character is a pattern of
behavior that is engraved through significant experiences and decisions. It is
evident by observing a persons important threads of experience (p. 20), that
persons life story. Others have continued a similar framework and have propagated
the perspective that character is a multifaceted dimension of personality that
incorporates all things such as values, morals, attitudes, interpersonal traits,
22
intrapsychic processes, and personal interests and preferences (Hogan & Sinclair,
1997). However, this perspective serves to continue the confusion about how each
of these constructs differ as well as relate to each other.
Psychologically, personality includes both character and temperament
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Leonard, 1997; Sperry, 1997).
Temperament includes the perceptual organization of information related to the self
that is acted upon unconsciously. As such, this is the realm of impulses in response
to some internal or external stimuli. On the other hand, character involves an
individuals abstract conceptualization of personal, interpersonal, and
transpersonal identity that is utilized to consciously alter interactions with the
environment (Cloninger, Svrakic, & Pryzbeck, 1993). Character is consistency in
behavior across time (Leonard, p. 240) and includes more than just a sense of
self (p. 240). In addition, personal beliefs are included in the character
components of personality. Character, then, is the realm of impulse control and
includes volitional elements. As such, character is the component of personality
that corresponds with belief in the Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) model since ones
general beliefs are conceptualizations of the way things work from a social learning
perspective and lead to attitudes upon which an individual eventually acts (Ponton
& Carr, 1999). The reader will recognize the correspondence to self-regulatory
models of behavior (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1982, 1998) in which the typical
response to an impulse is compared to some established standard prior to action
(Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996). However, even given this research on character,
no studies have actually considered the effect of a leaders character on effective
leadership functioning.
Values
Rokeach (1968, 1973, 1979), father of much values-related research,
spawned a great amount of material on the topic covering both personal and
societal values. From a personal standpoint, values are attitudes held by each
individual and are fundamental in the selection of behaviors to be enacted (Ponton
& Carr, 1999). As such, values develop out of, but are distinct from, ones
character or beliefs about his or her identity. Values utilize ones identity
23
conceptualization (character) to determine desired goals or end states for the

individual. These hierarchical values are then utilized to prioritize behavior that is
designed to achieve the targeted goal (Frese & Sabini, 1985). It is important to
observe that values are internal to the individual and do not include action
themselves. However, values do lead to actions (Feather, 1988, 1995).
Research has demonstrated that values are related to personality. Much of
the research has related personal values to the five-factor model of personality
(Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). However, the evidence has conflicted about how
values may correspond to particular personality traits (Wolfradt & Dalbert, 2003).
Perhaps, this incongruity is a result of an incomplete understanding of personality.
Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck (1993) developed a more complete model of
personality that includes character in addition to temperament alone to account for
such cases. However, to date, no study has considered the correspondence of
particular values to specific character traits. Yet, the conceptual model presented
here helps explain the manner in which values develop from such character traits.
Another concept related to values is that of moral development. Rest (1979)
and Rest, Narvaez, and Thoma (2000) have done much to empiricize moral
development based on the initial work done by Kohlberg (1976). Moral
development differs from character in that it comprises the ability to select between
a developed hierarchy of values. Significant research has demonstrated that moral
development is linked to effective leadership practice (Cox, 2000; Goeglein, 1997;
Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002).
However, evidence also has demonstrated that higher stages of moral development
do not necessarily result in moral behavior. In fact, only moderate correlations exist
between ones moral judgment and moral behavior (Rest, 1994). This evidence
leads to the conclusion that additional psychological factors are at work, distinct
from moral judgment alone. Character is one factor that is not typically considered
as a predictor of moral behavior. Yet, given the primacy of ones character to the
development of values, it should be given a greater priority in behavioral research.
24
Ethics
Ethics is considered as that which leads to good leadership, leadership that
is both morally and technically effective (Ciulla, 1998). What is generally meant
when discussing ethics is a system of standards against which all intended actions
are compared, especially those actions that affect other people (Gini, 1998b). Those
intended actions that align with the standard are ethical, while those that deviate
from the standard are unethical. However, what is important to note is that, though
it may coincide with a system that is developed and agreed upon by some
community, this system is internal to the individual. Therefore, ones ethics are an
intensely personal matter. In addition, since they are internal, there may be a
discrepancy between the standards of the community and the standards of the
individual. It is this discrepancy that is addressed by most ethics courses as well as
ethics texts. The ultimate goal is to transfer the standards of the community to the
individual.
In the process of behavior, ones intended actions are first compared to this
internal system of standards. Assuming that there is congruence with the system,
action may pursue without hindrance. However, if incongruent or if the system of
ethics is inadequate to the given situation, intentions may be modified in line with
ones value system. In this instance of incongruence or inadequacy, the individual
must revert to his or her value system to make a determination if the intended
behavior is in line with the prioritized values and intended outcomes.
Unfortunately, the term ethical often has been used in conjunction with the
external consideration of another individuals ethics. However, it may be better to
consider this external evaluation a different construct altogetherthe construct of
morality.
Morality
Common sense dictates that behavior is somehow related to our intentions.
Our legal system entails the assessment of ones behavioral intentions (e.g., was
ones role in anothers death premeditated or accidental). The legal consequences
of actions are determined by ethical intention when compared to some socially
developed system of interpretation (i.e., laws). Each system of morality is a socially
25
constructed reality. Actions that are considered moral for one society may be
considered immoral for another. Therefore, such systems are socially constructed
though somehow related to the self (Rest, Bebeau, & Volker, 1986).
Judgments of ones morality are related to the behaviors that are exhibited
since no judgment would be necessary if ones thoughts were to remain as
intentions and not become enacted as behaviors. Prior to action, intentions are
related to ones internalized system of ethics. Upon action, an observer judges the
behavior as moral or immoral, measured against an established system of standards.
Morality, then, is an assessment of the nature of the outcomes of the behavior
rather than the intention itself. There is, however, a distinct tie between ones
morality (action) and personality (character) in that morality is rooted in some
form of identity (Blasi, 1984, p. 137).
Distinctions Between Characteristics
Since existing leadership literature has not provided the desired conceptual
distinctions, we turn to the discipline of psychology for assistance. A comparison to
the model of behavior presented by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) is helpful since it
distinguishes the factors involved in enacting specific behaviors (see Figure 3).
Beliefs
Attitudes
(values)
Intentions
Behaviors
Figure 3: Model of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

What is important is the separation of the components involved in the
process. Ones beliefs lead to the development of attitudes toward those beliefs.
These attitudes or values, in turn, influence ones intention to take action. However,
intention alone is not sufficient. The individual must take action and follow through
on the intentions. The result of this process, the behaviors enacted, then influence
26
(provide feedback to) ones original beliefs. They either support the particularly
held belief or lead to a revision of the belief system.
The different components of the personal characteristics of leaders that have
been coveredcharacter, values, ethics, and moralitycan be incorporated into
such a model of behavior to explain the manner in which they differ conceptually.
Additionally, these characteristics can be separated into those components that are
internal to the individual and those that involve external behavior. These
distinctions have been previewed in the discussion regarding the different
components. This conceptual distinction is necessary to understand the differences
between the characteristics under consideration.
External
behavior and
appraisal
Internal beliefs and attitudes
Character
Values (moral
development)
Ethics
Morality
Figure 4: A behavioral model of character, values, ethics, and morality.

Character is that which forms the foundational beliefs that determine the
prioritized value system. As such, though integrally tied, ones character and moral
development are distinct parts of the process that lead toward behavior. Therefore,
leadership studies that only consider the moral development of leaders are missing
the initial component in the process, ones character. In addition, the distinction
between values and ethics helps demonstrate how someone can profess a particular
ethical system but still behave immorally. Evidently, in such circumstances, though
there is an ability to discern between what actions are desirable, behavior is enacted
in line with ones true character and value system. This is akin to the discrepancy
between Argyris and Schns (1974, 1978) espoused theories of action versus
actual theories in use, and it occurs on both the personal and organizational level.
27
The model presented corresponds with components in Rests (1984, 1986,

1994) four component model of morality. Rests (1994) model includes the
components of moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral
character. The first and fourth components, moral sensitivity and moral character,
correspond conceptually to the character traits of cooperativeness and selfdirectedness (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994). Moral sensitivity involves the
awareness of how our actions affect other people (Rest, 1994, p. 23) which
corresponds with those who understand and respect the preferences and needs of
others (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., p. 26), that which is true of cooperative
individuals. Moral character requires a person to have sufficient perseverance, ego
strength, and implementation skills to be able to follow through on his/her intention
to behave morally, to withstand fatigue and flagging will, and to overcome
obstacles (Rest et al., 1986, p. 34). Such characteristics are true of self-directed
individuals (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994; Cloninger, Svrakic, & Pryzbeck,
1993) who have the strength to self-regulate their responses to various behavioral
options (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994).
The other two components of the four component model, moral motivation and
moral judgment, correspond with the role of values and ethics in the behavioral
model. Moral motivation requires prioritization of values such that those values
that are moral are given more weight than those that are not (e.g., justice versus
self-actualization). Moral judgment requires discerning between alternatives to
determine that which is morally right in the given situation. Such moral judgment
corresponds to the role of ethics in ones process of moving toward the selection of
moral behavior.
Again, in accord with the model of behavior presented in Figure 4, this
conception of morality addresses several different processes at play in the selection
of appropriate behavior. Moreover, ones character is required in the selection of
moral behavior followed by a prioritization of pertinent values and then the
comparison of likely outcomes with a particular ethical system.
28
Implications for This Study

Current leadership theories have considered the role of ethics and morality
in authentic and transformational leadership (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Price,
2003). However, this consideration still tends to address the results of the leaders
character and values (namely, ones system of ethics) or includes an external
appraisal of the results of the leadership effort (morality) rather than the leaders
personal characteristics. Even those discussions of leadership that have addressed
values do so without considering the leaders understanding of the self and how
that understanding affects values and action. Therefore, future studies must
evaluate the character of the leader if research hopes to address those fundamental
issues that lead to effective leadership behaviors, those that are both technically
good as well as morally good. The primacy of this concept of character is
recognized by Ciulla (2002) who stated, Morality not only requires good habits,
but it also requires self-discipline and self-knowledge (p. 54). This study of leader
character is the bridge between studies of leader behaviors (i.e., contingency
theories) and consideration of the personal characteristics of leaders (i.e., trait
theories).
Morality is the manner in which ones values are enacted. Ones morality
can be considered either good or bad just as one can have good or bad values. What
determines the goodness or badness of ones value system is whether it coincides
with an accepted (external) moral value system. What determines the goodness or
badness of ones morality is whether the consequences of actions undertaken are
either good or bad when judged by an accepted system of social outcomes. It is this
external judgment of outcomes that is described as moral or immoral. Therefore,
morality is an external evaluation of ones actions as compared to some accepted
system of social values.
Character
According to Leonards (1997) model, character refers to those aspects of
personality that are learned through experience, through training, or through a
socialization process (p. 240) and is shaped or learned through simultaneous
29
development of self-identity (who I am) and self-regulation (i.e., the ability to

delay gratification, resist peer pressure, and act courageously) (p. 241). Character
includes the ability to think effectively while emotions of fear, greed, pity,
disappointment, and so forth, are raging (p. 242), indicating the ability to
demonstrate sound judgment, as well as the capability of making decisions that
consider the common good of society or individuals within an organization as well
as their own parochial or selfish interests (p. 243). Character is a component of
personality and the capacity of the self that facilitates the exercise of good
judgment and the display of moral development.
Temperament, the second component of personality, is relatively stable over
time. In fact, Costa and McCrae (1994) argued that ones temperament is set like
plaster after age 30. In contrast, ones character is subject to change, particularly
with traumatic experiences (Sympson, 2000).
Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck (1993), in describing individuals with
healthy personalities, coalesced the essential dimensions of character to three: selfdirectedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence. These three components
essentially correspond with Leonards (1997) model. These three components also
correspond to the three domains that must be considered to insure ethical decisionmaking processestheories about ones self, others, and the surrounding world
(Messick & Bazerman, 1996). Though measured individually, it is the combination
of traitsboth self-directedness and cooperativenessthat is necessary to consider
ones character mature (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994).
Self-Directedness
The character component of self-directedness, as defined by Cloninger,
Przybeck, et al. (1994), is a higher-order character trait that contains several lowerorder subtraits such as responsibility, purposefulness, resourcefulness, selfacceptance, and congruent second nature. In the description by Cloninger, Svrakic,
and Pryzbeck (1993), self-directedness refers to individuals who are able to control,
regulate, and adapt their behavior in concert with their chosen goals and values.
This description fundamentally correlates with the concept of behavioral self-
30
regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1998). In Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbecks (1993)
view, self-directedness (self-regulation) is of such importance that its absence is
the common characteristic of all categories of personality disorder. Regardless of
other personality traits or circumstances, a personality disorder is likely to be
present if self-directedness is low (Sperry, 1997, p. 271). In fact, most significant
personal and social problems can be explained from the viewpoint of failures in
self-regulation (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Vohs & Baumeister, 2004).
Therefore, for a study of leadership, self-directedness (self-regulation) should be an
essential component in the evaluation of character.
The first subtrait of self-directedness compares responsibility versus
blaming. Individuals high in responsibility generally recognize the consequences of
their own choices and do not blame others or the external circumstances for their
situation. This responsibility trait corresponds with the constructs of optimism
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and hardiness (McCall, 1994) in which
people take charge of their own actions and believe that their actions will produce
the desired results. This is also similar in concept to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
The second subtrait of self-directedness compares purposefulness versus
lack of goal direction. Individuals high in purposefulness are able to regulate their
behavior by comparing behavioral choices to long-term values and goals. As such,
individuals high in purposefulness are usually able to delay immediate gratification
to achieve their goals. This delay of gratification is a significant component of
behavioral self-regulation (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998; Brown, 1998).
As stated, the psychological construct of behavioral self-regulation appears
equivalent to the character trait of self-directedness. Therefore, an examination of
self-regulation is warranted.
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation is a psychological construct that explains the manner in
which individuals carry out actions. Individuals regulate behavior in order to reach
predetermined goals. These goals are established through comparison to complex
schemas or patterns of behavior and being.
31
Leader self-regulation is necessary to understand the motivation and

structure of leadership schemas (Murphy, 2002). Unfortunately, the consideration
of such schemas has been underrepresented in the literature, except perhaps when
considered from the standpoint of implicit leadership theory (Keller, 2003; Kenney,
Blascovich, & Shaver, 1994; Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). However, little is
known about how ones leadership schemas are developed throughout life, even
though such schemas have a profound impact on enacted behavior.
One component of schemas commonly held for leaders is the ability to
delay gratification to achieve some tangible personal reward (OToole, 1996).
Delay of gratification is one motivation shared by a number of constructs that are at
their heart self-regulatory. For example, learned resourcefulness (Rosenbaum,
1989) and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998) specifically include the delay of
gratification as a component of each construct.
Self-regulation is a continual process of moving toward, and away from,
various kinds of mental goal representations, and that this movement occurs by a
process of feedback (Carver & Scheier, 1998, p. 2). Self-regulation is a control
process whereby an organism makes modifications to systems in order to reach
specified goals. Feedback is a crucial part of the self-regulatory process and is
important in the overall organizational leadership process as seen through the lens
of open systems theory (Burke, 2002; Katz & Kahn, 1966).
Feedback often enters the individuals behavior cycle in the form of
reflection. It has been demonstrated that those leaders who practice reflection are
more intentional (Welch, 1998) and, therefore, theoretically, more mature.
Reflection is a necessary component of leadership development (Smith, 2001). This
component correlates well with curricula of theological education that traditionally
include theological reflection as part of practical ministry training or field
education. Reflection allows the individual to assimilate what he or she is learning
and then apply it to lifes situations.
Self-Efficacy
Sashkin and Sashkin (2002) related the concept of confident leadership to
ones self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as beliefs in ones
32
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments (p. 3). Self-efficacy is a part of the process of behavioral selfregulation and these efficacy beliefs are necessary for someone to enact specific
behaviors. Ponton and Carr (1999) demonstrated conceptually that self-efficacy
assessment occurs prior to the development of attitudes (values) about particular
actions. Related to leadership, some form of self-efficacy beliefs must exist before
a leader will determine to undertake a particular leadership action or behavior.
Research has demonstrated the link between self-efficacy, self-regulation,
and leadership. Wood and Bandura (1989) found that increasing the perceived selfefficacy of managers positively impacted the managers self-regulatory processes
that led to increased organizational performance measures. Leadership self-efficacy
is related to ones motivation to lead change efforts among subordinates (Paglis &
Green, 2002). In addition, Hartsfield (2003) demonstrated the correlation between
self-efficacy and a measure of transformational leadership. Self-efficacy, as a
component of self-regulation, is a significant factor in effective leadership
functioning.
Empirical Research
Research on self-directedness has demonstrated that the absence of this
character trait is significantly related to the presence of personality disorder
(Svrakic, Whitehead, Przybeck, & Cloninger, 1993). Self-directedness has also
been shown to be lower in people who are prone to some kind of self-regulation
failure, such as with illicit drug use (Hosak, Preiss, Halir, Cermakova, & Csemy,
2004). In addition to research with the full TCI, Prosnick, Evans, and Farris (2003)
developed a Short Index of Self-Directedness. However, most research still utilizes
the full TCI instrument (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994).
Summary
The character trait of self-directedness corresponds with the concept of
behavioral self-regulation. In addition, self-directedness conceptually incorporates
self-efficacy. Both self-regulation and self-efficacy have been linked to leadership
in general and transformational leadership in particular. Therefore, selfdirectedness should also demonstrate this significant relationship.
H1:
33
Leaders exhibit confident leadership differently based on their level

of self-directedness.
H2:
Leaders exhibit effective visionary leadership differently based on

their level of self-directedness.
Cooperativeness
The character trait of cooperativeness, as defined by Cloninger, Przybeck, et
al. (1994), is a higher-order character trait that contains several lower-order
subtraits such as social acceptance, empathy, helpfulness, compassion, and
integrated conscience. Cooperativeness leads to ones ability to interact
appropriately with others.
One subtrait of cooperativeness, integrated conscience, seems to correspond
with the concept of power motivation (McClelland, 1974, 1975) since both pertain
to treating others fairly and not behaving in an opportunistic manner. Power
motivation has been demonstrated to significantly impact leadership abilities and
effectiveness (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). In addition, empathy and
compassion, two additional subtraits of cooperativeness, are components of some
models of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Such components are
significant to transformational leadership efforts (Sosik & Megerian, 1999).
Therefore, for the study of a leaders character, cooperativeness is also an essential
component.
OToole (2000) presented ambition as the one trait essential to good
leadership. However, ambition must be qualified, since the characteristic can drive
both a Ghandi and a Hitler (Kaplan, Drath, & Kofodimos, 1991). The classic work
on the topic of power is that of French and Raven (1959) who defined power in
terms of influence, and influence in terms of psychological change (p. 375). This
description is particularly useful in this study due to the nature of transformational
leadership as a process that involves the transformation of values and beliefs (i.e.,
psychological change). Leadership is a process that often utilizes power to
accomplish the interactions between leader and followers. The confounding issue is
34
whether the focus of the leaders power is directed for personal gain or for the gain
of others as well.
Power Motive
McClellands (1975) work is basic to the discussion on power motive. The
power motive construct has obvious correlations with the concept of servant
leadership where personalized power is viewed as detrimental to the leadership
process. Greenleaf (1996) asked, What is the corruption that flows from absolute
(real or near) or unchecked power? I believe that it is arrogance, being overly
convinced of ones own importance, and all of the evils that stem from that
aberration in judgment (p. 60).
Power-motivated people engage in a variety of impact and prestigeseeking behaviors. If they are also high in responsibility [self-regulation],
their power-seeking is prosocial and involves successful leadership; but if
they are low in responsibility, their power-seeking reflects a pattern of
profligate impulsivitydrinking, multiple drug use, exploitative sex,
verbal and physical aggression, and other high risk behaviors. (Winter,
2002, p. 123)
Abshire (2000) echoed Greenleaf in his evaluation of the pride that can
easily lead to the fall of a leader. In both cases, these men described the dark side of
leadership (Conger, 1990), something that is a potential of charismatic leaders,
especially those who do not cooperate or defer to the needs of others but neglect the
needs of others to follow their own grandiose visions.
It seems that transactional leaders and charismatic leaders are particularly
prone to exercise power for their own objectives, rather than those of the
organization or group. Popper (2002) highlighted the difference between
charismatic leaders who are prosocial versus those who exercise power for personal
gain:
Socialized leaders use their power to serve others; align their vision with the
followers needs and aspirations; maintain open, two-way communication;
and adhere to moral standards. Personalized leaders, in contrast, use their
power solely for personal gain, promote their own personal vision, maintain
35
one-way communication, and have recourse to convenient external moral

standards that suit their self-interest. (p. 798)
Socialized leaders are transformational in their orientation, aligning with the ideals
presented by Burns (1978). In contrast, personalized leaders are narcissistic,
promoting themselves over others around them. These narcissistic leaders are those
who have an expansive personality according to Kaplan et al. (1991). It is this
narcissistic characteristic that is most insidious when evaluating transformational
VLT considers the leaders power motive as one of the personal
characteristics that leads to effective transformational leadership. TLP (Sashkin et
al., 1997) includes a scale called follower-centered leadership that is designed to
measure the leaders degree of personal versus prosocial power.
H3:
Leaders exhibit follower-centered leadership differently based on

their level of cooperativeness.
Empirical Research
In contrast with research on self-directedness for which the Short Index of
Self-Directedness (Prosnick et al., 2003) has been developed, research on
cooperativeness still utilizes the full TCI instrument (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al.,
1994). Existing research has demonstrated that the absence of cooperativeness is
significantly related to the presence of personality disorder (Svrakic et al., 1993).
As was found with self-directedness, cooperativeness has also been shown to be
lower in people who experience some kind of self-regulation failure, such as with
illicit drug use (Hosak et al., 2004). Perhaps this is due to the lack of ability to
withstand peer pressure appropriately. Giotakos, Vaidakis, Markianos, Spandoni,
and Christodoulou (2004) found a significant correlation between an abusive or
affectionless parent and the development of low cooperativeness in individuals.
Those individuals with low cooperativeness are often found in circumstances where
their self-focused actions negatively impact themselves and others. Such is to be
expected of persons who are pathologically narcissistic. However, less extreme
narcissism may still lead to negative consequences as a result of the actions of these
individuals, especially those who are leaders whose actions impact the lives of
36
multiple people. In addition, this research demonstrates how such a character trait
may or may not develop adequately in individuals.
Summary
A greater focus on the needs of others is generally seen as maturity or
wisdom and is something highly valued in Christian ministry. Therefore,
developing Christian leaders should display this focus in line with an appropriately
developing power motive and display interpersonal tendencies that are counter to
leader narcissism.
Based on the theoretical links between the constructs, and in line with VLT,
Bass (2002) speculated that there might be a link between one who is highly selforiented and the practice of pseudotransformational leadership. Therefore, the
antitheses of self-oriented leaders, those who are highly cooperative, are much
more likely to exhibit transformational behaviors.
H4:

TCI research has demonstrated a significant link between the presence of

both self-directedness and cooperativeness in healthy individuals. In other words,
both character traits are necessary and the absence of either trait denotes immaturity
or leads to unhealthy behavior. Winter (2002) highlighted the correlation between
the leaders power motivation and effective leadership. There must be balance of
the power motivation of the leader with responsibility; otherwise, leadership
becomes narcissistic in nature. Cooperativeness is an essential consideration of
ones personal motivation to lead and, therefore, the prediction of transformational
leadership behaviors. However, cooperativeness by itself is not sufficient to predict
ethical or authentic transformational leadership. A leader must exercise selfdirectedness over his or her ability to influence and direct others. If not, unethical
charismatic behaviors can occur. Therefore, self-directedness is also an essential
trait.
37
Self-Transcendence
The character trait of self-transcendence, as defined by Cloninger,
Przybeck, et al. (1994), includes such subtraits as creative self-forgetfulness,
transpersonal identification, and spiritual acceptance. Self-transcendence refers to
ones perspective on his or her relationship to the external environment at large.
Such a perspective goes beyond interpersonal interaction to include the manner in
which a person views his or her place in the universe.
One subtrait of self-transcendence, spiritual acceptance, correlates strongly
with the concept of spirituality (Ritscher, 1998). Baumeister and his colleagues
(Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Baumeister, Heatherton, Tice, & Marsh, 1996)
proposed that transcendence has a mediating effect on ones abilities to selfregulate behavior. Therefore, for the study of a leaders character, selftranscendence would also seem to be an essential component.
Self-transcendence has been considered as intrinsic to leadership (Carey,
1992, p. 226) as the leader understands himself or herself in relation to others and,
as a result, makes decisions to lead from either a personal or social motivation. This
is inextricably linked with the character trait of cooperativeness and the construct of
power motive. This demonstrates that self-transcendence is a necessary component
of ones mature character for effective leadership to operate.
H5:

their level of self-transcendence.
Though the literature presented has demonstrated that self-transcendence is

a significant construct for leadership effectiveness, the data that demonstrate this
relationship between self-transcendence and leadership are much more tentative
overall. However, a greater stream of leadership research exists that examines the
relationship between leadership effectiveness and spirituality.
Spirituality
Though once discounted, spirituality is gaining momentum as a specialized
area of organizational research (Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002).
One difficulty that has led to the lack of development of the concept is the variety
of measures and definitions that exist (Heaton, Schmidt-Wilk, & Travis, 2004).
38
Regardless, spirituality has been considered a significant component of personality

(Piedmont, 1999) and is therefore important in leadership functioning. Spirituality
also has been related to ones leadership development (Vaill, 1990) and has been
demonstrated to significantly affect the development of the values, ethics, and
beliefs of transformational leaders (Jacobsen, 1994).
Conceptually, spirituality is significant to leadership function. Spirituality
and, more specifically, spiritual leadership are necessary to create vision and value
congruence across the strategic, empowered team, and individual levels and,
ultimately, to foster higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity
(Fry, 2003, p. 693). Tischler et al. (2002) posited that both spirituality and
emotional intelligence should be considered as significant to workplace
performance or effectiveness. Regardless of the perspective, researchers have
agreed that respecting a followers particular viewpoint of spirituality is essential to
promote healthy relationships and organizations (Hicks, 2002).
Empirical Research
Several recent doctoral dissertations have considered the role of spirituality
in transformational leadership. However, results from these studies have been
mixed. Both Field (2003) and Hartsfield (2003) found positive correlations.
Contrary to these results, Zwart (2000) found little to no relationship between
spirituality and transformational leadership. This finding is puzzling considering
the literature to the contrary and may demonstrate the difficulty in assessing
spirituality with current instruments.
Research on the self-transcendence component of character has
demonstrated an interesting link between this character trait and behavioral
outcomes. This research has been conducted using the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et
al., 1994). Researchers have investigated the self-transcendence dimension of the
theory (MacDonald & Holland, 2002).
Unlike self-directedness and cooperativeness, the relationship between selftranscendence and predicted positive behaviors seems more tentative. For example,
self-transcendence appears to be high among those who suffer from eating
disorders (Gendall, Joyce, Sullivan, & Bulik, 1998), behave as sexual predators
39
(Giotakos et al., 2004), and suffer from depression (Hansenne et al., 1999).
However, in the case of these personality disorders, self-directedness (and
cooperativeness, in some cases) was low. Therefore, self-transcendence appears to
be a necessary but insufficient predictor of both self-directedness and
cooperativeness. Nonetheless, self-transcendence should be high in those
individuals who have mature character (i.e., high in both self-regulation and
cooperativeness for a combined score of 58 on the TCI) (Cloninger, Przybeck, et
al., 1994).
H6:
Leaders possess different levels of mature character based on their

level of self-transcendence.
Summary
It was expected that this population of students preparing for Christian
ministry would demonstrate greater self-transcendence than other secular groups.
Theoretically, this personal character trait has led to their vocational direction. This
trait includes selflessness as individuals focus on the needs of people and the world
around them rather than exclusively their own. Therefore, developing Christian
leaders should display this focus in line with an appropriate humility and display
interpersonal tendencies that demonstrate this selfless orientation.
Religious Contexts for Leadership
Calian (2002) considered seminaries the ideal place to develop leaders for
churches. In fact, he considered leadership development the primary task of such
institutions. In this process of leadership development, the formation of ones
character is paramount to the purposes of theological education (Gilpin, 1988).
Because theological education is focused on the development of church leaders
(Herring, 1999), it is particularly important to develop the foundation of character
for leadership within institutions of theological education. As stated by one church
historian, It is the task of the seminaries to produce a competent coterie of leaders
for Christian ministry (Hannah, 2004, p. 1). Additionally, it is imperative that
religious leadership not be pursued for personal gain. Rather, strong leadership in
40
the church serves the churchs ends when it helps the community to order its life
for ministry (Campbell, 1992, p. 6).
Greenleaf (1998), seeing the magnitude of developing transformational and
servant leadership qualities in religious leaders, leveled the responsibility for the
transformation of society upon seminaries. Seminaries play a key role in the
development of clergy (leaders) for churches and denominations. It is these
churches and denominations that then have a responsibility to minister to the world
in which we live. Therefore, the issue of leadership development is of special
importance to institutions of theological education. In particular, the evaluation of
their graduates is crucial in order to insure that these graduates mirror the values
that must be present to promote the transformation of individuals and society. If
this vision [of personal development to then meet the needs of society] is to be
achieved, a process that has to do with the beingthe characterof students and
graduates is required (Hardman-Cromwell, 1993, p. 26).
Spiritual formation programs are often curricular component designed to
address the spiritual life and character development of seminary students.
Spiritual formation is a matter to be considered in the context of moral
[character] formation not only because the two cannot be separated but also
because failure on the part of the theological school or the student to attend
to the spiritual life undermines the authenticity of ministry. (Campbell,
1992, p. 18)
In addition to programs of spiritual formation that generally address the
character development of participants, Hillman (2004) demonstrated that students
who are currently involved in some ministry leadership activities had the greatest
propensity for displaying effective leadership behaviors. Such current ministry
involvement is an important component in the process of transferring theory into
practice and positively affecting the leadership development process. It is likely
that the character of those involved in such ministry activities is different than that
of uninvolved students. What is unknown is whether the character precedes and
leads to involvement in ministry or ministry involvement promotes character
development.
H7:
41
Leaders exhibit effective visionary leadership behaviors based on

their current level of involvement in a ministry capacity.
Conclusion
This literature review has demonstrated that the character traits of selfdirectedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence are prerequisites to effective
enactment of transformational leadership behaviors. Other constructs are important.
However, these three personal characteristics of the leader are foundational to
appropriate functioning. This is primarily due to the foundational nature of these
character components for any healthy individual including transformational leaders.
In addition, while it is true that situational factors, especially the level of current
ministry leadership, moderate the relationship between the leaders character and
effective leadership, good (that which is both technically and ethically good)
leadership cannot occur without appropriate character.
While self-transcendence plays an important part, the literature has strongly
supported the fact that both self-directedness and cooperativeness must be present
to insure effective leadership functioning. The presence of one construct without
the other reflects a deficiency of personality or character. Cooperativeness without
adequate self-directedness is likely to result in unethical leadership influence
behaviors. Self-directedness without adequate cooperativeness is likely to result in
high task orientation personally for the leader but limited ability (or desire) to
influence followers. A model of the relationships between the variables in this
study is presented in Figure 5.
Indeed, character is foundationally important to leadership. Therefore,
effective leaders should be identifiable by the presence of specific aspects of
character. A model of leadership effectiveness based on character should provide
significant predictive power for the enactment of transformational leadership
behaviors.
42
Selftranscendence
Ministry
leadership
involvement
+
Self-directedness/
confident
leadership
Cooperativeness/
follower-centered
leadership
Figure 5: The proposed relationship between variables.
+
+
+
Visionary
leadership
43
Chapter 3 Method
This study utilizes a research design intended to examine the differences
between those who possess certain character traits and their ability to enact
effective leadership practices. This chapter describes the sample from which the
data were collected, the instruments utilized in the data collection, and the
procedures used for this study.
Sample
This study utilized a sample to assess the relationship between character and
transformational leadership effectiveness that consisted of 334 individuals
preparing for ministry leadership. These individuals were seminary students and
group leaders involved in a program of spiritual formation at a major evangelical
seminary. This program requires participation in group meetings and activities for 2
years. Participation in the program at this institution is only required of students in
two degree programs: the Master of Theology (ThM) and the Master of Arts in
Christian Education (MA CE) programs. These two programs have been designed
to prepare students for full-time vocational Christian ministry. Participation by
students in other programs at the institution is voluntary. Enrollment in the spiritual
formation program comprises approximately 60% of the entering student
enrollment at the institutions main campus each year.
Students are assigned to spiritual formation groups based on certain
demographic factors such as marital status, age, ministry background, and class
schedule. Group size ranges from 4 to 10 individuals, including the group leader.
Student peers who have previously completed the program are the primary leaders
of these groups, although a small number of group leaders are institutional faculty
and staff. Some spiritual formation groups are composed of students and spouses.
However, this study only considered groups in which student spouses were not
group participants. Additionally, only those groups that hold meetings at the
institutions main campus were included in this sample, though additional groups
meet at other extension locations and at local churches. These excluded groups
44
represent approximately 33% of the total spiritual formation group population

(participants and leaders) at the institution.
Measures
This study utilized a four-part survey. The first part of the survey requested
demographic information from the participant, followed by measurements of
character (TCI; Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994), visionary (transformational)
leadership (TLP; Sashkin et al., 1997), and social desirability.
Demographic Survey
The first part of the survey that participants completed was a section
requesting demographic information. This section was designed to assess the level
of previous and current ministry leadership involvement. In addition, age, gender,
marital status, and family of origin categories were included to identify the
potential effects of these factors on character development and the use of specific
leadership practices. Finally, questions regarding degree program and vocational
direction were included to identify differences that may exist due to self-selection
criteria. A sample of this instrument is provided in Appendix A.
TCI
The instrument used to assess the participants character was the TCI,
version 9 (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994). Typically, the TCI has been used in
clinical populations for the identification of personality disorders and includes
items intended to assess both temperament and character. For the purposes of this
study, only the character scales of the TCI instrument which consist of 107
true/false items that assess the self-directedness, cooperativeness, and selftranscendence of participants were used.
The TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) was selected for this study
because it is the only instrument that assesses an individuals character as a
component of personality. In addition, the TCI utilizes the conceptual definition of
character consistent with the foundational assertions for this study. Many other
moral character measurements exist. However, only the TCI provides an
45
appropriate assessment of character as distinct from values, ethics, and morality as

detailed in the literature review.
In its current form, the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) has been
modified from the original Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ;
Cloninger, Przybeck, & Svrakic, 1991). The TPQ was originally designed with
three temperament scales only. Later, a fourth temperament factor was identified
and items for the character scales were added to assess those abstract self-concepts
that develop throughout life. All but two of the original 100 items from the TPQ
were included in the TCI with additional items added to increase reliability of the
subscales. The full TCI instrument consists of 226 true/false items.
While the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) has been utilized
primarily in clinical research, the theoretical foundations of the instrument are
based on character components of healthy personality and have been validated with
a community sample. The comparison between TCI scales and identified symptoms
of personality disorders yielded moderate correlations (Svrakic et al., 1993). The
TCI includes a number of internal validity indicators, such as the Rarity Scale, the
Runs Scale, the Number True, the Scale of Like Items, the Scale of Unlike Items,
and one item that directly asks the participant about honesty. Cronbach s for the
TCI range from .65 to .89 for seven factors in the community sample (N = 300)
utilized for instrument validation.
TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) research using the community
sample defined mature character as a combined score of greater than 58 for the
character subscales measuring self-directedness and cooperativeness. This equates
to the 33rd percentile for the TCI community sample used in the validation of the
instrument (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al.). This study utilized the same percentile
measure to rank cases in thirds based on TCI responses for this particular sample to
identify participants with mature character and assign them to groups for analysis.
This same percentile measure was used to assign participants to analysis groups
(low, medium, or high) for all three character traits: self-directedness,
cooperativeness, and self-transcendence. A sample of the TCI instrument used in
this study is included in Appendix A.
46
Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP

To assess transformational leadership, Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP was
used. Other measures of transformational leadership exist that have wider
recognition and use such as the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and the LPI (Kouzes
& Posner, 1987). McElreath (1999) evaluated all three of these instruments and
found significant correlations for most of the factors represented (r = .47 to .54, p <
.01 for the TLP and LPI; r = .31 to .42, p < .01 for the TLP and MLQ), which is
remarkably consistent since all three instruments were developed out of
independent research programs. For this study, the TLP was selected since it
incorporates an evaluation of the personal characteristics of the leader in addition to
an assessment of transactional and transformational leadership behaviors. The TLP
was used to evaluate those who are high in transformational leadership behavior.
The TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) is a 50-item instrument based on a five-point
Likert scale that includes 1 (to little or no extent), 2 (to a slight extent), 3 (to a
moderate extent), 4 (to a great extent), and 5 (to a very great extent),
Cronbach s for the TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) range from .42 to .94 for 9
of the 10 factors in seven different samples (Sashkin, 2002). Scale 8 regarding
follower-centered leadership had the lowest reliabilities demonstrated (.21 - .51)
due to the conceptually inconsistent subscales assessing prosocial versus
personalized power orientation (Sashkin, 2002). Testretest reliability measures for
the TLP show correlations ranging from .22 (p < .05) to .62 (p < .01) (Lafferty,
1998). A sample of the TLP used in this study is included in Appendix A.
Social Desirability Scale
The final instrument used was included to measure social desirability
(Paulhus, 1984). This instrument consists of 20 true/false self-report items. Other
useful social desirability measures exist such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The major advantage of Paulhus
scale is its length. For purposes of this study, only those items related to impression
management were used, limiting the instrument to 10 true/false items. Self-report
instruments have been known for false positive responses or faking good,
especially when an item or instrument is assessing characteristics that are desirable
47
for the respondent to possess. This measurement artifact is predicted to be present

for both aspects related to desired character and leadership behaviors. A sample of
the social desirability instrument used in this study is included in Appendix A.
This research study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at
Regent University. The approval form is included in Appendix B.
Procedure
Individual participants in the seminary spiritual formation program
represent a convenience sample for this study. A total of 334 individuals in the
spiritual formation program were identified as potential participants. Participants
include both group members and group leaders. Upon review of survey materials,
permission to invite individuals to participate was given by the Director of Spiritual
Formation Program, as listed in Appendix D. Participants were invited to
participate through contact with the group leaders. The researcher addressed these
group leaders at a scheduled biweekly group leader development meeting. All
surveys were paper-based with an attached instruction sheet detailing the survey
procedures. A copy of the survey and attached instruction sheet are included in
Appendices A and E, respectively. Group leaders were asked to read the
instructions and distribute the surveys during the normal course of the weekly
group meeting. All members of the group, including the leader, were asked to
complete the survey prior to the end of the group meeting. The group leaders then
returned the completed surveys to the Director of Spiritual Formation.
Summary
This research was conducted to examine the differences between those
potential ministry leaders who possess certain character traits and their ability to
enact effective leadership practices.
48
Chapter 4 Results
This chapter presents the demographics of survey respondents and the
results of the data analyses including descriptive statistics, reliabilities of all scales,
and analyses of variance for all hypotheses.
The purpose of this study was to investigate if visionary leadership
behaviors (which, according to VLT, are characterized as capable management,
reward equity, communication leadership, credible leadership, caring leadership,
creative leadership, confident leadership, follower-centered leadership, visionary
leadership, and principled leadership) differ according to levels of the character
traits of self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence. In addition, this
study also considered if mature character (defined as the combination of the
character traits self-directedness and cooperativeness) differ according to levels of
the character trait self-transcendence. Finally, this study considered if visionary
leadership behaviors differ according to current level of involvement in a ministry
capacity. These differences were hypothesized to be significant for a population of
masters-level seminary students preparing for positions of ministry leadership at
the main campus of one large evangelical institution of theological education.
Specifically, this study examined the following hypotheses:
H1:

H2:

H3:

H4:

H5:

H6:

49
H7:

Demographics
The demographic characteristics of survey participants are presented in
Table 1. Item numbers correspond to Section 1 item numbers of the survey
instrument (see Appendix A).
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Survey Participants
Demographic
Gender
Age
Marital status
Family of origin
Degree program
Male
59
58.4
Female
42
41.6
< 30 years
45
44.6
30 - 39 years
35
34.7
40 - 49 years
15
14.9
50 years
4.9
Unknown
0.9
Single
56
55.4
Married
42
41.6
Single, divorced
2.0
Single, widowed
1.0
Two parent home
85
84.1
Divorced parents
12
11.9
Single parent home
3.0
Foster home
0.0
Unknown
1.0
MA in christian education
18
17.8
MA in biblical counseling
2.0
MA in biblical exegesis and
0.0
68
67.3
linguistics
ThM
50
Demographic
Vocational direction
Participation in
Other
13
12.9
Senior pastor
14
13.9
Pastoral staff
22
21.8
Academic ministry
26
25.7
Parachurch ministry
24
23.8
Nonvocational ministry
7.9
Unknown
6.9
First year
59
58.4
Second year
23
22.8
Group leader, student
19
18.8
0.0
< 1 year
38
37.6
1 - 3 years
23
22.8
4 - 6 years
15
14.9
7 - 10 years
10
9.9
> 10 years
15
14.9
9 hours
69
68.3
spiritual formation
Group leader, nonstudent

Previous vocational
leadership experience
Current weekly
vocational leadership
involvement
10 - 19 hours
16
15.8
20 hours
15
14.9
Unknown
1.0
Table 2 presents reliabilities for full scales utilized in this study. As

previously noted, Cronbach s for the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) for
the community sample utilized for instrument validation range from .84 to .89 for
the individual character scales. Cronbach s for the TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997)
51
range from .42 to .94 for 9 of the 10 factors in seven different samples (Sashkin,
2002). Scale 8 regarding follower-centered leadership had the lowest reliabilities
demonstrated (.21 - .51) due to the conceptually inconsistent subscales assessing
prosocial versus personalized power orientation (Sashkin, 2002). Reliability of the
TLP instrument for this sample is at the upper end of previous results utilizing
different samples. Reliability measures could not be found for the impression
management items of Paulhus (1984) social desirability scales. The sample for this
study demonstrated low reliability for this instrument.
Table 2: Coefficient Alphas for Survey Scales, N = 101
Scale
TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994)
.87
TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997)
.94
Social desirability scale (Paulhus, 1984)
.51
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 gives the descriptive statistics for all study variables including the
number of responses, means, and standard deviations.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics, N = 101
M
SD
Self-directedness
34.18
7.07
Cooperativeness
37.78
3.07
6.71
3.07
Visionary leadership
190.37
20.74
Confident leadership
18.94
3.04
Follower-centered leadership
17.51
2.20
5.99
1.85
Self-transcendence
Social desirability
52
Missing responses in the data set were replaced using the practice of
substituting the variable mean (Newton & Rudestam, 1999) so as not to reduce the
total number of responses, thereby severely limiting the power of the analysis. To
calculate the character scores for the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994), only
the 107 items related to character were used in this study. The individual responses
to TCI items were combined to create each composite subscale within each
character scale. Each subscale score was then combined to create the composite
score for the specific character scales. Table 4 lists the TCI character scales and
their corresponding subscales.
Table 4: TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) Character Subscales and
Descriptive Statistics, N = 101
M
SD
Self-directedness
SD1
Responsibility vs. blaming
7.24
1.44
SD2
Purposefulness vs. lack of goal direction
6.50
1.66
SD3
Resourcefulness vs. inertia
4.22
1.13
SD4
Self-acceptance vs. self-striving
7.70
2.90
SD5
Congruent second nature vs. bad habits
8.52
2.59
Cooperativeness
C1
Social acceptance vs. social tolerance
7.34
.87
C2
Empathy vs. social disinterest
5.54
1.33
C3
Helpfulness vs. unhelpfulness
7.38
.77
C4
Compassion vs. revengefulness
8.90
1.38
C5
Integrated conscience vs. self-serving advantage
8.61
.66
Self-transcendence
ST1
Creative self-forgetfulness vs. self-consciousness
4.39
2.19
ST2
Transpersonal identification
2.30
1.60
ST3
Spiritual acceptance vs. rational materialism
.99
.10
53
The scores on the character scales of the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al.,
1994) can range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 44 for the self-directedness
scale, from 0 to 42 for the cooperativeness scale, and from 0 to 20 for the selftranscendence scale.
Individual responses to TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) items were combined to
create each composite scale within the full TLP instrument. Table 5 lists the scales
for the TLP instrument.
Table 5: Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP Scales and Descriptive Statistics, N = 101
M
SD
Scale 1
Capable management
18.80
2.95
Scale 2
Reward equity
18.68
2.62
Scale 3
Communication leadership
19.14
2.61
Scale 4
Credible leadership
21.27
2.74
Scale 5
Caring leadership
20.22
2.98
Scale 6
Creative leadership
18.70
2.89
Scale 7
Confident leadership
18.94
3.04
Scale 8
Follower-centered leadership
17.51
2.20
Scale 9
Visionary leadership
18.06
3.11
Scale 10
Principled leadership
19.04
2.69
Each scale score was then combined to create the visionary leadership
composite score. The confident leadership and follower-centered leadership scales
are components of the overall visionary leadership score of the TLP (Sashkin et al.,
1997). The scores on the TLP can range from a minimum of 50 to a maximum of
250. The confident leadership scale of the TLP can range from a minimum of 5 to a
maximum of 25, as can the follower-centered leadership scale of the TLP.
Analyses of Variance
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine if there are differences
between the means of three or more discrete groupings for a variable. Group
54
members were identified as those whose responses fell within the lowest third,
middle third, and upper third percentiles, respectively, for each character scale. The
traditional ANOVA is based on the assumptions that the population from which the
data are taken is both normally distributed and is homoscedastic. The data in this
study meet the criterion of equal variances according to Levenes test. Table 6
presents this information.
Table 6: Levenes Test for Equality of Variances
Levene statistic
H1
2.90
.06
H2
1.19
.31
H3
1.62
.20
H4
.24
.79
H5
.55
.58
H6
1.10
.34
H7
.14
.87
However, due to the noncontinuous nature of the independent variable data,

a nonparametric test must be used to examine differences between means.
Therefore, the data for this study were analyzed using the nonparametric equivalent
of the traditional ANOVA, the KruskalWallis test. Data were analyzed for
hypotheses 1 - 6 by KruskalWallis to determine whether or not there were
significant differences in character groups (low, medium, and high levels) for each
leadership scale. Data for hypothesis 7 were also analyzed for differences between
groups due to the division of data for the independent variable, current ministry
leadership involvement, into three discrete groups. KruskalWallis was also used to
analyze data for hypothesis 7. Table 7 presents the results of all data analyses for
the stated hypotheses. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.
55
Table 7: Chi-Squared Results for Hypotheses, = .05

2
H1
Confident leadership by self-directedness level
20.37
.00
H2
Visionary leadership by self-directedness level
17.29
.00
H3
Follower-centered leadership by cooperativeness level
7.97
.02
H4
Visionary leadership by cooperativeness level
18.40
.00
H5
Mature character by self-transcendence level
2.87
.24
H6
Visionary leadership by self-transcendence level
.22
.95
H7
Visionary leadership by current ministry level
5.45
.07
Hypothesis 1 posited a difference in how the VLT construct of confident

leadership was enacted between groups based on measured levels for the character
trait self-directedness. The difference between participants demonstrating low,
medium, and high levels of self-directedness was found statistically significant for
confident leadership, 2 (2, = 101) = 20.37, p = .00. This hypothesis was
supported, allowing rejection of the null hypothesis at that level. Hypothesis 2
posited a difference in how visionary leadership [the total score on Sashkin et al.s
(1997) TLP] was enacted between groups based on measured levels for the
character trait self-directedness. The difference between participants demonstrating
low, medium, and high levels of self-directedness was found statistically significant
for visionary leadership, 2 (2, = 101) = 17.29, p = .00. This hypothesis was also
supported, allowing rejection of the null hypothesis at that level. Hypothesis 3
proposed a difference in how the VLT construct of follower-centered leadership
was enacted between groups based on measured levels for the character trait
cooperativeness. The difference between participants demonstrating low, medium,
and high levels of cooperativeness was found statistically significant for followercentered leadership, 2 (2, = 101) = 7.97, p = .02. This hypothesis was supported,
allowing rejection of the null hypothesis at that level. Hypothesis 4 proposed a
difference in how visionary leadership was enacted between groups based on
measured levels for the character trait cooperativeness. The difference between
56
participants demonstrating low, medium, and high levels of cooperativeness was

found statistically significant for visionary leadership, 2 (2, = 101) = 18.40, p =
.00. This hypothesis was also supported, allowing rejection of the null hypothesis at
that level.
Hypothesis 5 proposed a difference in how visionary leadership was
enacted between groups based on measured levels for the character trait selftranscendence. The difference between participants demonstrating low, medium,
and high levels of self-transcendence was not found statistically significant for
visionary leadership, 2 (2, = 101) = 2.87, p = .24. These results did not allow the
researcher to reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 6 proposed a difference in
mature character (the combination of the character traits of self-directedness and
cooperativeness) based on measured levels for the character trait selftranscendence. The difference between participants demonstrating low, medium,
and high levels of self-transcendence was not found statistically significant for
mature character, 2 (2, = 101) = .11, p = .95. These results did not allow the
researcher to reject the null hypothesis.
Finally, Hypothesis 7 posited that ones current level of involvement in a
ministry capacity while in school would result in differences in how visionary
leadership was enacted. The difference between participants involved in low,
medium, and high levels of in-school ministry leadership was not found statistically
significant for visionary leadership, 2 (2, = 101) = 5.45, p = .07. These results
did not allow the researcher to reject the null hypothesis. However, it is appropriate
to note that these results are significant at = .10.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Though not part of the original hypotheses, because of the exploratory
nature of the study, the researcher chose to utilize multiple regression analysis to
explore the degree of variance in visionary leadership that could be attributed to the
character traits of the leader. Multiple regression analysis was designed to explain
the relationship between multiple independent variables and one dependent variable
even though the results, in and of themselves, are not designed to assess causality
57
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). In addition to leader character traits, the
demographic variables related to ministry leadership experience (previous
vocational leadership experience and current weekly vocational leadership
involvement) were also loaded in the regression model to explore the degree of
variance that could be attributed to them. Though the previous experience variable
was not specifically identified in the literature as a variable of interest, it is similar
in nature to that of current ministry leadership involvement and may therefore have
a similar effect on the dependent variable.
Backward regression analysis was performed in the first analysis to assess
the amount of variance accounted for in the dependent variable (visionary
leadership behaviors) by the independent variables (self-directedness,
cooperativeness, and self-transcendence). In backward regression analysis, all
independent variables are entered into the regression model and then those that do
not contribute significantly to the regression equation, based on statistical analysis,
are removed from the model.
The results of this analysis demonstrate that of the three character trait
independent variables, only self-directedness and self-transcendence remained in
the model. Table 8 shows the combined effects of these two variables account for
31% of the variance in the dependent variable, visionary leadership behaviors (R2 =
.31), and multiple correlation of .55 of these two variables with the dependent
variable.
Table 8: Regression Model Character Traits
R2
Model
.56a
.32
.55b
.31
df 1
df 2
15.07
97
.00
21.61
98
.00
Predictors: (constant), self-transcendence, self-directedness, cooperativeness.
Predictors: (constant), self-transcendence, self-directedness.

Furthermore, as shown by Table 9, variance in visionary leadership
behaviors is primarily attributed to self-directedness ( = .23 for self-transcendence
58
and visionary leadership which is statistically significant though moderately

correlated), thus indicating the relative significance of the character trait selfdirectedness.
Table 9: Regression Coefficients Character Traits, Dependent Variable Visionary
Leadership
Unstandardized
coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
4.66
.00
101.71
21.83
1.40
.59
.21
2.39
.02
Cooperativeness
.90
.70
.13
1.29
.20
Self-directedness
1.32
.30
.45
4.41
.00
126.96
9.83
12.92
.00
Self-transcendence
1.58
.57
.23
2.77
.01
Self-directedness
1.54
.25
.53
6.22
.00
Self-transcendence
SE
Standardized coefficients
(Constant)
Forward stepwise regression analysis was used in a second analysis to

assess the effects of ministry leadership on visionary leadership behaviors of study
participants. In stepwise regression, entry of the variables into the regression model
is done statistically based on those having the highest correlation with the
dependent variable. Table 10 shows that three variables entered the model: selfdirectedness, self-transcendence, and previous leadership experience. The effects of
these three variables combined explained 33.8% of the variance in the dependent
variable visionary leadership behaviors (R2 = .338).
59
Table 10: Regression Model Character Traits and Previous Leadership

Experience
Model
R2
df 1
df 2
.502a
.252
33.33
99
.00
.553b
.306
21.61
98
.00
.582c
.338
16.53
97
.00
Predictors: (constant), self-transcendence, self-directedness, cooperativeness.
Predictors: (constant), self-transcendence, self-directedness.
Predictors: (constant), self-transcendence, self-directedness, leadership experience.

Table 11 shows that when controlling for the effects of self-directedness,
regression coefficients indicate only a moderate though significant correlation ( =

.21) between the character trait self-transcendence and visionary leadership
behaviors and a weak though significant correlation ( = .18) between previous
leadership experience and visionary leadership behaviors. These results together
indicate that while self-transcendence and ones previous experiences do affect
ones ability to behave in a manner consistent with the ideals of visionary
leadership, the character trait self-directedness explains the most variance ( = .50)
in the selection of those behaviors.
60
Table 11: Regression Coefficients Character Traits and Previous Leadership

Experience, Dependent Variable Visionary Leadership
Unstandardized
coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
15.73
.000
5.77
.000
12.92
.000
140.02
8.90
1.47
.26
126.96
9.83
Self-directedness
1.54
.25
.53
6.22
.000
Self-transcendence
1.58
.57
.23
2.77
.007
124.82
9.70
12.87
.000
Self-directedness
1.46
.25
.50
5.89
.000
Self-transcendence
1.41
.57
.21
2.49
.015
Leadership experience
2.62
1.21
.18
2.17
.032
Self-directedness
2
SE
Standardized coefficients
(Constant)
(Constant)
.50
Conclusion
This study was conducted to examine the differences that the three
independent variablesself-directedness, cooperativeness, and selftranscendencehave on the dependent variablevisionary leadership behavior.
These differences were hypothesized to be significant for a population of masterslevel seminary students preparing for positions of ministry leadership at the main
campus of one large evangelical institution of theological education. Specifically,
this study examined the following hypotheses:
H1:

H2:

H3:

H4:
61

H5:

H6:

H7:

Results of the analyses of variance showed support for hypotheses 1 4,

suggesting statistical significance for the differences displayed between character
groups for the assessed independent variables: by level of self-directedness for
confident leadership (H1), level of self-directedness for visionary leadership (H2),
level of cooperativeness for follower-centered leadership (H3), and level of
cooperativeness for visionary leadership (H4). Differences hypothesized between
groups for the character trait self-transcendence were not significant which,
therefore, did not support hypothesis 5 (level of self-transcendence for visionary
leadership) or hypothesis 6 (level of self-transcendence for mature character). The
ANOVA between groups with discrete levels of current ministry involvement for
visionary leadership was not found significant which did not support hypothesis 7.
Results for the exploratory multiple regression analysis indicate that the
character traits self-directedness and self-transcendence predict visionary
leadership behaviors among the participants in the study preparing for positions of
ministry leadership.
62
Chapter 5 Discussion
This study was conducted to examine the differences between low and high
levels of character on effective leadership behaviors for potential ministry leaders.
Specifically, this study evaluated differences between levels of the character traits
of self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence on visionary
leadership behaviors. This chapter discusses research results and the implications
for the study of transformation and visionary leadership; the distinction between the
leaders character, values, ethics, and morality; character and its components; and
leadership for religious contexts. Also discussed in this chapter are the limitations
and broader implications of this study as well as suggestions for future research
into these concepts.
Research Results
Leadership, as a self-regulatory process, involves the selection of
appropriate behaviors as determined by the beliefs of the leader in a desire to affect
specific outcomes. The character traits of a leader are those fundamental beliefs
that drive the selection of specific behaviors. Transformational leadership is well
defined as a behavioral construct with significant links to follower affect, follower
development of trust, and overall measures of organizational effectiveness. At its
core is the focus on the heart of a leader as he or she attempts to lead others toward
personal and organizational transformation. In fact, what defines transformational
leadership as transformational is positively developing the values and beliefs of
followers (Burns, 1978). However, what has been missing in this discussion,
though implicit within the theory itself, is consideration of the character of the
leader that forms the foundation for the transformational behaviors that in turn
transform followers.
Visionary Leadership
VLT (Sashkin, 1986; Sashkin & Rosenbach, 1996; Sashkin & Sashkin,
2002) emerged through research streams similar to those considering
transformational leadership function but arrived with an explicit acknowledgement
63
of the character of the leader in the motivation to enact transformational leadership

behaviors. Unfortunately, the concept of character within VLT still has not been
defined well. Additionally, neither literature nor specific studies were found that
explicitly tied a psychological formulation of character to the ideals of both
visionary leadership and, by extension, transformational leadership. This study has
expressed a foray into this key area of interest, demonstrating that the character
components of VLT, specifically confident leadership and follower-centered
leadership, function differently for those leaders who possess higher levels of
particular character traits. This finding provides a significant link between the
implied character aspects of the theory and psychologically defined character traits.
This study, therefore, ties the theory to its characterological foundations. These
findings are significant for the future development of transformational leadership
theory in general and VLT in particular.
The Leaders Character, Values, Ethics and Morality
Leadership is a moral enterprise (Burns, 1978, 2003; Gini, 1998b), and
ethics are also a significant requirement (Ciulla, 1998a, 2002) with implications for
the character of the leader based on the ethical or moral nature of leadership
outcomes (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Values, too, have been considered
foundational in the selection of effective leadership behaviors (Malphurs, 2004;
OToole, 1996). However, there is still confusion over how these constructs differ
from one another as well as interact in the leadership process. Theoretically,
character is primary to the development of values, ethics, and morality (in that
order). What this study has done is move the discussion from the theoretical to the
practical by demonstrating the link between the leaders character and leadership
action. Certainly, values, ethics, and morality are at play in the process. This is
demonstrated by some of the specific items on the TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) that
conceptually refer to moral choices on the part of the leader.
TLP24 The leader keeps promises.
TLP28 The leader uses power and influence to benefit others.
TLP34 The leader acts in ways consistent with her or his words.
TLP44 The leader can be trusted.
64
Each of these items come from the TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) subscales of
either credible leadership (focusing on the leaders integrity) or follower-centered
leadership (focusing on humility and the inclusion of others in the common vision
and use of power). Each of these items possesses significant relationships (r = .399,
p < .01; r = .313, p < .01; r = .575, p < .01; r = .348, p < .01, respectively) with the
TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) subscale of congruent second nature
(having good habits, self-discipline, trustworthy). Through the use of such
measurements, this study shows how such concepts are birthed from the character
of the leader rather than simply emerging on their own. Visionary leadership
embraces the moral fabric of leadership but does so without specifically identifying
the characterological components at work that form the motivation to lead in a
transformational manner. This study extends the research that has already been
conducted on both visionary and transformational leadership to provide insight into
the nature of the characterological foundation of leadership action. Specifically, this
study demonstrates that those high in the character components of self-directedness
and cooperativeness are more likely to exhibit visionary leadership behaviors,
especially those related to confident leadership and follower-centered leadership,
each tied to the individual character traits of self-directness and cooperativeness,
respectively.
One item addressed cursorily in the literature review but not addressed
specifically in this study was the moral development of the leader. If moral
development proceeds from the character of the leader as proposed, then those
leaders with higher character levels would also express higher degrees of moral
development. Further research should address this area specifically, especially
since moral reasoning has already been demonstrated to impact transformational
leadership (Turner et al., 2002). However, what is not known is if those leaders
who possess specific character traits are better able to make moral decisions or if
there are other components at play in enacting ethical and moral leadership
behaviors. Assessment of this area will help strengthen the conceptual link between
character, values, ethics, and morality.
65
This study is consistent with the perspective of leadership as a

developmental process (McCall, 1998). At the core of such development is leaders
self-identity. Leadership schemas have a profound impact on enacted leadership
behavior. Murphy (2002) addressed this issue specifically as it relates to leader
self-regulation. However, much is still unknown about how these different
constructs develop in a leaders schema. Further research needs to be done
regarding how these schemas develop throughout life since they are so fundamental
to leadership function. Even further, the self-concept of the leader should be
examined to see in what ways it affects the self-concepts of followers (Lord &
Brown, 2001, 2004).
One area related to leader self-concepts that is addressed in the literature is
that of individual differences, specifically the motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow,
2001). According to an extension of the theory (Lee, 2005), motivation is the
interplay of cognitive and affective components. Many of these affective
components overlap conceptually with the character traits addressed in this study.
Could character be a significant antecedent to the motivation to lead and tie the
theory together more substantively with the conceptual foundations of
transformational leadership? Future research should address these areas to
determine overlap of the theories and functional consideration of implications for
leadership and its development.
Character and its Components
Character is a robust psychological construct that is part of personality but
distinct from temperament. The results of this study demonstrate that character is a
significant predictor of visionary leadership behavior. This has been implicitly
understood based on the theoretical literature. This study moved beyond the
implicit and provides empirical evidence that character should become an explicit
part of leadership theory. This study is an entrance into the study of character traits
with leadership instruments. Future research should be conducted to determine the
significance of these traits to leadership as operationally measured by such
instruments as the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and the LPI (Kouzes & Posner,
2003).
66
This study revealed the differences between leaders with high levels of
character and their demonstration of transformational behaviors. In addition to this
link with transformational leadership, conceptual relationships also exist between
character traits and the practice of servant leadership. Greenleaf (1977) emphasized
the servant-first aspect of servant leadership. As the theory has developed, various
people have developed frameworks to operationalize the theory. The framework
offered by Russell and Stone (2002), which they developed from the literature on
servant leadership, includes the dimensions of vision, credibility, trust, service,
modeling, pioneering, appreciating others, and empowerment. Many of these
dimensions, especially credibility, trust, appreciating others, and empowerment,
related directly to the aspects of self-directedness and cooperativeness. Further
research should be done to determine if the strength of relationship between servant
leadership and character exists as it does for transformational leadership.
In addition to general implications that can be drawn from the study of
leadership and character, specific implications can be drawn from the character
traits identified and assessed in this study.
Self-directedness. According to the research regarding Cloninger, Przybeck,
et al.s (1994) TCI, self-directedness is the key trait that determines a healthy
personality. In fact, low self-directedness predicted personality disorder in the
original TCI validation sample; by antithesis, high self-directedness was consistent
with healthy function. This study supported that same finding but associated high
self-directedness with healthy leadership function.
Self-directedness is a trait that primarily addresses ones internal selfregulatory function. Such intrapersonal as well as interpersonal abilities act as part
of a set of competencies shown to predict effective leadership (Boyatzis, 2007).
However, many visible deficiencies are often evidenced first by internal selfregulatory failures (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004).
These types of failures are related to executive derailment (Lombardo & Eichinger,
1991; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996), overactive ambition (Kaplan et al., 1991), and
even burnout. Future research needs to consider the primacy of self-directedness to
leadership function. This study has confirmed that self-directedness is significant to
67
the function of visionary leadership. However, what are the costs to leaders (and
their organizations) if self-directedness is low? Such questions should be
considered by future research to better understand the role that self-directedness
and the other character traits play in effective leadership function.
Cooperativeness. Results from this study reveal that ones level of
cooperativeness is significant to visionary leadership behaviors. Interestingly, this
trait was not included when the exploratory multiple regression analysis was
conducted. Nonetheless, this trait is still significant to leadership function.
Organizational psychologists have long agreed that leadership requires the
use of power. Yet, there are some leaders who use power for their own purposes
while others use it to accomplish collective goals. This orientation has been termed
the power motive (McClelland, 1974, 1975). It has been demonstrated to
significantly impact leadership abilities and effectiveness (McClelland & Boyatzis,
1982). The character trait of cooperativeness corresponds with this concept of
power motivation since both pertain to treating others fairly and not behaving in an
opportunistic manner. In addition, empathy and compassion, two additional
subtraits of cooperativeness, are components of some models of emotional
intelligence (Goleman, 1995) which itself has been shown significant to efforts of
effective leaders (Sosik & Megerian, 1999).
The question regarding character is how to identify leaders with character
that leads to the appropriate use of power. Personal versus prosocial power has
been tied to pseudotransformational practices (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), practices
by which the leaders actions look like they are transformational in nature but the
leaders motivation is not authentic. In the end, such leaders are immoral because
their leadership is egotistical and benefits the leader personally rather than
benefiting others or the organization. This study has identified the significance of
leaders high in the character trait cooperativeness as displaying greater evidence of
visionary leadership behaviors. Cooperativeness then becomes a key factor in
determining true transformational leadership. Future studies should consider how
better to measure the cooperativeness trait in leaders and determine if it is
significant in determining the power motive of the leader. Research using the VLT
68
subscale regarding cooperative leadership should also consider how to better

identify the power motive of leaders so their personal motivation can be addressed
in a development context.
Self-transcendence. Results from this study pertaining to the character trait
self-transcendence reveal several unexpected findings. First, no support was found
for the hypothesis expecting a difference in visionary leadership behaviors based on
ones level of self-transcendence. Second, no support was found for the hypothesis
expecting a difference in mature character based on ones level of selftranscendence. That neither hypothesis was supported does not signify a lack of
effect. Interestingly, this trait was a significant part of the multiple regression
analysis examining variance in visionary leadership behaviors.
Perhaps this trait is significantly different for the particular sample in this
study. Though a difference was expected as a result of the literature on the topic,
perhaps the reduced effect is due to differences in this particular population. One
could speculate that there may be different cultural perspectives on selftranscendence and whether such a trait is typical and acceptable for those preparing
for ministry at this particular institution of theological education. This does raise
the following question: would responses be different at a different institution? The
differences associated with particular levels of self-transcendence and visionary
leadership behaviors should be explored further to determine if this effect is
reproducible in other populations.
Self-transcendence overlaps conceptually with the concept of spirituality.
Some studies have considered the relationship between spirituality and selftranscendence (MacDonald & Holland, 2002). Future research should continue to
explore the relationship. Spirituality has enjoyed significant interest within the
study of leadership in recent history, especially doctoral dissertations (Field, 2003;
Hartsfield, 2003; Jacobsen, 1994; Zwart, 2000). Some of these studies have
demonstrated significant relationships between spirituality and leadership function.
Noting the relationship between spirituality and leadership, Rima (2000) stated the
following:
69
In light of the reality that leadership is, at its most essential level, a spiritual
activity, I would strongly contend that in the final analysis every leadership
failure is, at its root, a spiritual issue. Regardless of whether the failure
takes the shape of sexual immorality, unethical business practices, criminal
activity, or any other impropriety that could lead to a leadership failure, at
the core of all these failures is the leaders inability to recognize, diagnose,
and address spiritual disease of one sort or another in his life. (p. 129)
Additionally, future explorations should consider the interaction of the trait
of self-transcendence with the other character traits self-directedness and
cooperativeness. Though not significant in this study, future studies should
consider how the traits develop and if there is progression in their development
(i.e., if one is fundamental to the development of the others). Such developmental
awareness can assist in the design of character development initiatives.
Future explorations are also appropriate to determine in what way highly
self-transcendent leaders may be different from those who are not. Such
consideration is important for leaders in general. However, given the apparent links
to spirituality, such consideration is essential for those exercising religious
leadership.
Leadership for Religious Contexts
It was a fundamental premise of this study that much can be learned by
institutions of theological education through an investigation of truth gleaned
through rigorous evaluation, even if not from an investigation of biblical texts.
While it is important that truth be in fundamental agreement with a biblical
worldview, all truth does not come directly from Scripture. Rather, all truth is
Gods truth (Gaebelein, 1954, p. 20). Much truth exists that has been gleaned from
secular analysis of the study of character and leadership that can improve the
process by which leaders are trained for Christian ministry (Malphurs, 2003).
From the standpoint of a social cognitive framework (Fiske & Taylor,
1991), if enacting leadership behaviors is based on specific leadership selfstructures or schemas (Murphy, 2002), it highlights the importance of clarification
of leadership schemas for Christian ministry. Students cannot enact appropriate
70
leadership behaviors if they do not know what behaviors are appropriate for
Christian leaders. Leader self-regulation can only occur based on the leadership
schemas held by each individual. Therefore, desired outcomes must take shape
through the evaluation of appropriate standards. This implies that seminary
curricula, if attempting to influence the development of appropriate leadership for
Christian ministry, must provide discussion and training to insure that graduates
embark with appropriate leadership schemas from which they can then enact
appropriate leadership behavior. At the very least, seminaries must clarify or
operationalize what is meant by the term Christian leader.
The developmental perspective has important implications for leader
selection and personorganizational fit (i.e., the admissions process).
If a pattern of how leaders develop can be determined reliably, the
constructive/developmental framework may have implications for selecting
and developing leaders. It may be possible to select individuals for
particular leadership positions on the basis of their stage in the
developmental process and the needs of the organization. (Kuhnert &
Lewis, 1987, p. 655)
Perhaps theological institutions should examine specific character competencies
that students should exhibit prior to undertaking theological education in
preparation for ministry. Some have speculated that the lack of personal maturity
has contributed to ministry failures in the past (Ferder & Heagle, 2002). If this is
true, such minimal expectations should be strongly considered, both for the benefit
of the minister as well as those to whom service is being rendered. This also
highlights again the problem that prospective leaders who do not exhibit behaviors
consistent with espoused beliefs undermine their own leadership (Raelin, 1993).
Regardless of the establishment of formal thresholds for admission,
institutions of theological education and hiring churches and denominations should
consider what maturity levels their graduates should be required to demonstrate
prior to graduation or prior to endorsement for specific ministries. Such should
specifically become topics within field education or theological reflection
coursework (cf., Ward, 1998).
71
Though utilizing a different instrument to assess leadership attributes, this

study represents a replication of the prior findings regarding differences in
leadership behaviors for those currently involved in ministry leadership. Hillman
(2004) found that there were statistically significant differences in students selfreported leadership behaviors on the LPI based on their current involvement in
ministry. Of particular interest is that the present study utilized a sample from the
same institution as Hillman. Unfortunately, the results of the present study for
hypothesis 7 which utilized the same ministry involvement categories were not
statistically significant at the alpha level selected for this study. However, the
results from this study do reflect a nonsignificant trend. In addition, the regression
analysis identification of previous ministry leadership as significant in the
explanation of variance of visionary leadership behaviors is of interest for future
studies of ministry leadership experience. Contrary to Hillmans study, previous
ministry leadership experience did play a significant role in the decision to enact
visionary leadership behaviors in the current study. It should be noted that both
categories are related to ones ministry leadership experiences outside of the
classroom. In both cases, it would appear that participation in these experiences has
and does help students more intentionally engage in appropriate leadership
behaviors. Again, this is consistent within a social cognitive framework for
leadership development in which theory must be integrated with practice for true
learning to occur. This is also consistent with the call by Sashkin and Sashkin
(2002) to consider transformational leadership as the creation of self-directed
learners (cf., Ponton & Carr, 1999; Vaill, 1990).
Having evaluated these findings, what implications are there for the design
of seminary curricula? Perhaps seminaries should more intentionally design the
amount, timing, and types of internships throughout the curriculum. Does this
argue for involvement all through the program or at specific key points? Additional
research is necessary to consider the ideal development environment for
internalized leadership behavior changes. Perhaps, institutions also should
encourage ministry leadership experiences prior to seminary so students can
maximize on the development of ministry insight and leadership perspective while
72
in seminary. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that seminaries would do well to

consider leadership in their curricular and cocurricular designs.
Limitations
Several limitations of this study are worth noting. First, all instruments
utilized in this study were self-report measures. Such measures may lead to the
problem of common method variance. This study attempted to assess whether or
not this was a problem through the use of the social desirability items in the survey.
Since there were low social desirability scores, it is unlikely that variance estimates
were inflated due to common method (Spector, 2006).
Second, the survey items utilized in this study were summed ordinal
variables, categorized and grouped to create scales. As such, these scales
approximate interval level statistics (Newton & Rudestam, 1999) that may allow
for correlational analysis. This study explored differences between groups created
by dividing participants scores into groups rather than evaluating relationships
between actual scores for independent variables. Though not the same as
dichotomization of variables (where groups are divided at the scale mean), this type
of analysis may result in a reduction of statistical power (MacCallum, Zhang,
Preacher, & Rucker, 2002).
Third, though this study utilized a population of first-year and second-year
students preparing for ministry at one institution, the sample was small, leading to
problems with generalizability of the findings. Additionally, only potential ministry
leaders participated in this study, not those in an actual ministry capacity.
Finally, this study incorporated a version of the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck,
et al., 1994) instrument that utilized a true/false item response rather than a fivepoint Likert scale. The latter version was only available online at the time the
survey was administered; it was not yet available in paper form. Also, reliability
and validity information were not readily available at that time. Future versions of
the TCI that utilize the five-point Likert scale for item response would allow
greater confidence in the analysis regarding evaluation of mean differences rather
73
than relationships between variables. Such future versions will allow increased
power in statistical analyses.
Implications
This chapter has already addressed a number of implications and
recommendations specific to particular expectations raised in the literature review.
However, other broader implications are also apparent due to results from this
study.
Leadership Development
Character assessment can be a useful tool for leadership development of
those committed to professional and personal growth (Clark, 2003). Can it be used
for more than personal reflection and self-motivated growth? Can such
instrumentation allow formal evaluation and the development of personal growth
plans? Perhaps such character assessment could be pertinent to the leadership
development engine that exists in our organizations.
Theological education is designed to function as dialectic in the formation
processdialectic as an examination of the assumptions that form the basis for a
particular belief system (Tracy, 1988). In fact, the educational process known as
transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1991) has much the same goal in mind
perspective transformation. This process requires an event that triggers the
evaluation of ones understanding of ones worldview. But, this would seem to be
exactly that for which we are lookingopportunities to reexamine priorities and
promote significant development and character change. Perhaps leadership
development programs should intentionally foster transformative experiences, even
through processes such as action learning (Smith, 2001).
Leader Character Traits
This study has attempted to demonstrate that specific character traits are
necessary to effective leadership function. If this is true, our only hope for good
leadership then is to develop people of good character. Unfortunately, we are
biased against such development. The difficulty lies in the fact that, even though it
is possible to experience a transformation of character, most people are not
74
exposed to the types of life-changing influences that stimulate such

transformations, and, further, if exposed, they tend not to changethat is, people
are motivated toward consistency in character, not change or development (Hogan
& Sinclair, 1997, p. 257-258).
Nonetheless, we have a responsibility to help people identify those
debilitating traits and overcome them for their own good as well as that of our
organizations. Certainly, this is the case for traits common to
pseudotransformational leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) who can wreck havoc
on people and organizations through their own self-serving actions.
This study links the concepts of leadership development to the character
development and formation of the developing leader. Leadership development
efforts must progress in the understanding of character as organizations seek to
identify those individuals who have the greatest propensity to lead well and, then,
to further address the character development of those prospective leaders.
Recommendations for Future Research
One specific recommendation for future research efforts is to evaluate
character development longitudinally.
If leaders develop as the constructive/developmental perspective suggests,
then a longitudinal approach is necessary to discover/decipher the variables
that influence how this leadership emerges and how it is expressed. Thus,
studies are needed that span leaders careers; at the same time, these studies
should identify the ways in which experiences are reflected in changes in
the leaders cognitive organizing processes. (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987, p.
654)
Experimental designs need to be developed to begin to empirically establish
causality so that leadership development can truly benefit from these concepts.
Additionally, this study was accomplished with a sample of prospective
ministry leaders: students preparing for vocational Christian service. Many of these
leaders already had previous vocational ministry experience. Nonetheless, this
75
study should be replicated using pastoral ministry leaders as a population, not just
prospective leaders.
Some concepts that are part of VLT were addressed conceptually in the
literature review but not specifically measured by this study. One specific concept
is that of vision. Is vision tied to self-regulation (as posited in the literature
review)? Is vision also tied to ones character trait of self-transcendence (the ability
to see long-term implications)? Additional research should consider these questions
specifically to determine the emergence of such a significant construct to the
landscape of leadership literature (Conger, 1989; Strange & Mumford, 2002).
Second, this study did not specifically consider how the situation affects the
leadership outcome of the situation as posited by VLT. Future studies should
consider how the character of the leader interacts with particular aspects of the
situation to create a positive organizational outcome.
As stated, significant links have been found in the literature between
transformational leadership and follower affect, follower development of trust, and
overall measures organizational effectiveness. However, future research should
attempt to address how these areas of leadership and organizational function are
affected by the character traits of leaders.
This study has attempted to demonstrate that specific character traits are
necessary to effective leadership function. If this is true, our only hope for good
leadership then is to develop leaders of good character. If then it is possible to
intentionally foster such changes in people, then maybe our most significant hope
lays in the process of building character (Klann, 2007).
76
References
Abshire, D. M. (2000). Presidential hubris. National Forum, 80(1), 45-48.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson-Rudolf, M. K. (1996). A longitudinal study of organizational change:
How change in individual perceptions of transformational and
transactional constructs predicts change in organizational performance.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
Antonovsky, A. (1985). The life cycle, mental health and the sense of coherence.
Israel Journal of Psychiatry & Related Sciences, 22(4), 273-280.
Arbinger Institute. (2002). Leadership and self-deception: Getting out of the box.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Co.
Banks, R. (1999). Reenvisioning theological education: Exploring a missional
alternative to current models. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual.
Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Barlow, C. B., Jordan, M., & Hendrix, W. H. (2003). Character assessment: An
examination of leadership levels. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17(4),
563-584.
77
Barna Group. (2003, January 13). New study identifies the strongest and weakest
character traits of Christian leaders. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp? PressReleaseID=130&
Reference=D.
Barna Group. (2004, January 12). Only half of Protestant pastors have a biblical
worldview. Retrieved October 6, 2004, from http://www.barna.org/
FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=156.
Barnett, R. (2003). Ethics in the workplace: It begins with character. Women in
Business, 55(2), 34-35.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of
transformational leaders. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo
(Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development:
Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181217.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An
overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 1-15.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How
and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., Tice, D. M., & Marsh, K. L. (1996). Losing
control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. Contemporary
Psychology, 41(9), 2.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
78
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (1998). Academic delay of gratification.

Learning & Individual Differences, 10(4), 329-346.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.
New York: Harper & Row.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines &
J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp.
128-139). New York: Wiley.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2007). Developing emotional intelligence through coaching for
leadership, professional and occupational excellence. In R. Bar-On, K.
Maree, & M. J. Elias (Eds.), Educating people to be emotionally intelligent
(pp. 155-168). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Brown, J. M. (1998). Self-regulation and the addictive behaviors. In W. R. Miller
& N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (2nd ed., pp. 61-73).
New York: Plenum Press.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (1998). Foreward. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership
(pp. ixxii). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New
York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Calian, C. S. (2002). The ideal seminary: Pursuing excellence in theological
education. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Campbell, D. M. (1992). Theological education and moral formation: Whats going
on in seminaries today? In R. J. Neuhaus (Ed.), Theological education and
moral formation (pp. 1-21). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Carey, M. R. (1992). Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for
self-transcendence. Leadership Quarterly, 3(3), 217.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an ability measure of
emotional intelligence to personality. Journal of Personality Assessment,
79(2), 306.
79
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A controltheory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual
framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology.
Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111-135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and
leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 481-498.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice.
Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 475-501.
Ciulla, J. B. (1998a). Ethics: The heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Ciulla, J. B. (1998b). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.),
Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 3-25). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Ciulla, J. B. (2002). The ethics of leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas
Learning.
Clark, R. S. (2003). Leadership development: Continuous improvement through
character assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San
Diego, CA.
Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1991). The Tridimensional
Personality Questionnaire: U.S. normative data. Psychological Reports, 69,
1047-1057.
Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svarkic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The
Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development
and use. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality,
Washington University.
Cloninger, R., Svrakic, D., & Pryzbeck, T. (1993). A psychobiological model of
temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.
80
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, J. C. (2001a). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and
others dont. New York: HarperBusiness.
Collins, J. C. (2001b). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce
resolve. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76.
Colyer, S. L. (1996). An empirical investigation of self and other perceptions of
visionary leadership as related to organizational performance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2),
44-55.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review,
12(4), 637-647.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the
stability of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.),
Can personality change? (pp. 21-40). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Cox, S. P. (2000). Leader character: A model of personality and moral
development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa, OK.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,
349-354.
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-155.
81
Dixon, D. L. (1997). The relationship between chief executive leadership

(transactional and transformational) and hospital effectiveness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University,
Washington, DC.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting
transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership
Quarterly, 14(3), 327-344.
Farley, E. (1983). Theologia: The fragmentation and unity of theological
education. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Farley, E. (1988). The fragility of knowledge: Theological education in the church
and the university. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting
the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 4972.
Feather, N. T. (1988). From values to actions: Recent applications of the
expectency-value model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 105-124.
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the
perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151.
Ferder, F., & Heagle, J. (2002, May 10). Clerical sexual abuse: Exploring deeper
issues. National Catholic Reporter, 38, 6-7.
Field, D. (2003). The relationship between transformational leadership and
spirituality in business leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent
University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In J. M. Shafritz & J.
S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (5th ed., pp. 319-328). Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt College.
82
Frese, M., & Sabini, J. (1985). Goal-directed behavior: The concept of action in
psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 693-727.
Gaebelein, F. E. (1954). The pattern of God's truth: Problems of integration in
Christian education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gendall, K. A., Joyce, P. R., Sullivan, P. F., & Bulik, C. M. (1998). Personality
dimensions of dietary restraint. International Journal of Eating Disorders,
24(4), 371-379.
Gilpin, W. C. (1988). Theological education as the formation of character.
Theological Education, 24(Supplement 1), 5-9.
Gini, A. (1998a). Moral leadership and business ethics. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.),
Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (pp. 360-371). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gini, A. (1998b). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics:
The heart of leadership (pp. 27-45). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Giotakos, O., Vaidakis, N., Markianos, M., Spandoni, P., & Christodoulou, G. N.
(2004). Temperament and character dimensions of sex offenders in relation
to their parental rearing. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 19(2), 141-150.
Goeglein, A. T. (1997). Values-based transformational leadership: The
relationship between consciousness, values, and skills. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology,
Berkeley/Alameda.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). Spirituality as leadership. In A. T. Fraker & L. C. Spears
(Eds.), Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership: The private
writings of Robert K. Greenleaf (pp. 51-64). San Francisco: Josey Bass.
83
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). Seminary as servant. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), The power of

servant leadership (pp. 169-233). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Hannah, J. D. (2004). Creeds in a confessing community. Paper presented at the
2004 Dallas Theological Seminary faculty workshop, Pine Cove, TX.
Hansenne, M., Reggers, J., Pinto, E., Kjiri, K., Ajamier, A., & Ansseau, M. (1999).
Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and depression. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 33(1), 31-36.
Hardman-Cromwell, Y. C. (1993). Character formation as a focus of seminary
curricula. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, American University,
Washington, DC.
Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational leadership:
Effects of spirituality, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Heaton, D. P., Schmidt-Wilk, J., & Travis, F. (2004). Constructs, methods, and
measures for researching spirituality in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 62-82.
Herring, R. S. (1999). Spiritual formation at six Thai evangelical theological
institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Biblical
Seminary, Columbia, SC.
Hicks, D. A. (2002). Spiritual and religious diversity in the workplace: Implications
for leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 379-396.
Hillman, G. M., Jr. (2004). A multivariate study of perceived leadership
development of masters-level seminary students at Dallas Theological
Seminary (Texas). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Forth Worth, TX.
Hogan, R., & Sinclair, R. (1997). For love or money? Character dynamics in
consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 49(4),
256-267.
84
Hosak, L., Preiss, M., Halir, M., Cermakova, E., & Csemy, L. (2004).
Temperament and character inventory (TCI) personality profile in
metamphetamine abusers: A controlled study. European Psychiatry, 19(4),
193-195.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized
leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness
(pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jacobsen, S. E. (1994). Spirituality and transformational leadership in secular
settings: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle
University, WA.
Jones, A. (1987). Are we lovers anymore (spiritual formation in seminaries).
Theological Education, 24, 9-29.
Judge, W. Q. (1999). The leaders shadow: Exploring and developing executive
character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendona, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, R. E., Drath, W. H., & Kofodimos, J. R. (1991). Beyond ambition: How
driven managers can lead better and live better. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New
York: Wiley.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An
attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 14(2), 141-160.
85
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kenney, R. A., Blascovich, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Implicit leadership theories:
Prototypes for new leaders. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 409437.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy
of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-51.
Klann, G. (2007). Building character: Strengthening the heart of good leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental
approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory,
research, and social issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Spirituality and
leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 165-182.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it,
why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Encouraging the heart: A leaders guide to
rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Leadership practices inventory (3rd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership:
A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review,
12(4), 648-657.
86
Lafferty, B. D. (1998). An empirical investigation of a leadership development

program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington
University, Washington, DC.
Lee, P. C. (2005). Cognition and affect in leader behavior: The effects of
spirituality, psychological empowerment, and emotional intelligence on the
motivation to lead. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University,
Virginia Beach, VA.
Leonard, H. S. (1997). The many faces of character. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 49(4), 235-245.
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America
and Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive
bosses and corrupt politiciansand how we can survive them. New York:
Oxford.
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1991). Preventing derailment: What to do
before its too late. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate selfconcepts. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 133-152.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower selfidentity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the
relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An
application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.
Lubin, K. A. (2001). Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant
leadership characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
La Verne, CA.
Lucius, R. H., & Kuhnert, K. (1999). Adult development and transformational
leader. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 73-85.
87
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the
practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological
Methods, 7(1), 19-40.
MacDonald, D. A., & Holland, D. (2002). Examination of the psychometric
properties of the Temperament and Character Inventory self-transcendence
dimension. Personality & Individual Differences, 32(6), 1013-1027.
Major, K. D. (1988). Dogmatism, visionary leadership and effectiveness of
secondary principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La
Verne, CA.
Malphurs, A. (2003). Being leaders: The nature of authentic Christian leadership.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Malphurs, A. (2004). Values-driven leadership: Discovering and developing your
core values for ministry (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1997). Multifactor Emotional
Intelligence Scale (MEIS): Emotional intelligence a key to success.
Simsbury, CT: Charles J. Wolfe Associates.
McCall, M. W. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international
executives: Developing a concept. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
& Research, 46(1), 49-63.
McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1974). The two faces of power. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, & J.
M. McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: A book of readings (2nd
ed., pp. 73-86). Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. Oxford, England:
Irvington.
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and longterm success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737743.
McElreath, J. M. (1999). Development of a biodata measure of leadership skills.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
88
Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology
of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 9-22.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, S. E. (2002). Leader self-regulation: The role of self-efficacy and multiple
intelligences. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.),
Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 163-186). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newton, R. R., & Rudestam, K. E. (1999). Your statistical consultant: Answers to
your data analysis questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A
developmental perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.),
Competence considered (pp. 11-40). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
OToole, J. (1996). Leading change: The argument for values-based leadership.
New York: Ballantine Books.
OToole, J. (2000). Real life ambition. Executive Excellence, 17(1), 13.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers
motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2),
215-235.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?
Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality,
67(6), 985-1013.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational
leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.
89
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Ponton, M. K., & Carr, P. B. (February 1999). A quasi-linear behavioral model and
an application to self-directed learning. Hampton, VA: Langley Research
Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (Technical
Memorandum No. TM-1999-209094)
Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and
socialized charismatic leaders. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships,
19(6), 797-809.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 14(1), 67-81.
Prosnick, K. P., Evans, W. J., & Farris, J. R. (2003). Development and
psychometric properties of scores from the Short Index of SelfDirectedness. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development,
36(2), 76.
Raelin, J. A. (1993). The Persean ethic: Consistency of belief and action in
managerial practice. Human Relations, 46(5), 575-621.
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. R. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 2440). New York: Wiley.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New
York: Praeger.
Rest, J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvez
(Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied
ethics (pp. 1-26). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
90
Rest, J. R., Bebeau, M., & Volker, J. (1986). An overview of the psychology of
morality. In J. R. Rest (Ed.), Moral development: Advances in research and
theory (pp. 1-27). New York: Praeger.
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., & Thoma, S. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to
morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 381-395.
Rima, S. D. (2000). Leading from the inside out: The art of self-leadership. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Ritscher, J. A. (1998). Spiritual leadership. In J. D. Adams (Ed.), Transforming
leadership (2nd ed., pp. 67-91). Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and
change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New
York: Free Press.
Rosenbaum, M. (1989). Self-control under stress: The role of learned
resourcefulness. Advances in Behaviour Research & Therapy Special Issue:
The role of individual differences in stress and stress management, 11(4),
249-258.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sashkin, M. (1986). Becoming a visionary leader: A guide for understanding and
developing visionary leadership. Bryn Mawr, PA: Organization Design and
Development.
Sashkin, M. (1996). The visionary leader: Leader Behavior Questionnaire: Trainer
guide (Rev. ed.). Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.
Sashkin, M. (2002). Visionary leadership theory: The research evidence.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.
91
Sashkin, M., & Rosenbach, W. E. (1996). A new vision of leadership. Amherst,

MA: Human Resource Development Press.
Sashkin, M., Rosenbach, W. E., & Sashkin, M. G. (1997, August). The Leadership
Profile: Psychometric development of a leadership assessment tool and its
use in leadership development. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Academy of Management, Boston.
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (2002). Leadership that matters: The critical factors
for making a difference in peoples lives and organizations success. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure
of human values. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53(3), 550562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Sheehy, G. (1990). Character: Americas search for leadership (Rev. ed.). New
York: Bantam Books.
Silver, S. R. (2000). Perceptions of empowerment in engineer workgroups: The
linkage to transformational leadership and performance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Simon, L. S. (1994). Trust in leadership: Its dimensions and mediating role.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Smith, P. A. C. (2001). Action learning and reflective practice in project
environments that are related to leadership development. Management
Learning, 32(1), 31-48.
Snyder, N. H., Dowd, J. J., & Houghton, D. M. (1994). Vision, values, and
courage: Leadership for quality management. New York: Free Press.
92
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence

and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational
leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367-390.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban
legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.
Sperry, L. (1997). Leadership dynamics: Character and character structure in
executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 49(4),
268-280.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic
versus ideological leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 343-377.
Svrakic, D. M., Whitehead, C., Przybeck, T. R., & Cloninger, C. R. (1993).
Differential diagnosis of personality disorders by the seven-factor model of
temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 991999.
Sympson, S. (2000). Rediscovering hope: Understanding and working with
survivors of trauma. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory,
measures, and applications (pp. 285-300). San Diego: Academic Press.
Tenelshof, J. (1999). Encouraging the character formation of future Christian
leaders. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42(1), 77-90.
Tischler, L., Biberman, J., & McKeage, R. (2002). Linking emotional intelligence,
spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for
research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 203.
Tracy, D. (1988). Can virtue be taught? Education, character and the soul.
Theological Education, 24, 33-52.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of
managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93-121.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002).
Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 304-311.
93
Vaill, P. B. (1990). Executive development as spiritual development. In S.

Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative management and
leadership: The power of positive thought and action in organizations (pp.
323-352). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An
introduction. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1-9). New York:
Guilford Press.
Vona, M. K. (1997). The relationship between visionary leadership and climates of
innovation in organizational work units. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the
strategic level: A new application of Upper Echelons Theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 15(3), 355.
Ward, D. C. (1998). Theological archaeology: A model for theological reflection in
field education. Unpublished masters thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,
TX.
Welch, D. V. (1998). Reflective leadership: The stories of five leaders successfully
building generative organizational culture (Jim Balkcom, Bruce Bertell,
Jack Lowe, Jim Stuart, Bob Veazie). Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH.
Wetlaufer, S. (1999). A question of character. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 3034.
Winter, D. G. (2002). The motivational dimensions of leadership: Power,
achievement, and affiliation. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy & F. J.
Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 119-138).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wolfradt, U., & Dalbert, C. (2003). Personality, values and belief in a just world.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35(8), 1911-1918.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on selfregulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415.
Zwart, G. A. (2000). The relationship between spirituality and transformational
leadership in public, private, and nonprofit sector organizations.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, CA.
94
95
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
96
Copyrighted Material
Questionnaire and/or Questions Cannot be
Reproduced Without the Authors Permission
97
Copyrighted Material
Questionnaire and/or Questions Cannot be
Reproduced Without the Authors Permission
98
99
Appendix B
Human Subject Research Approval
100
101
102
Appendix C
Approval to Use Sashkin et al.s (1997) TLP Instrument
Subject: RE: Use of TLP Instrument

From: Sashkin
Date: 8/10/03 7:38 PM
Item Type: Mail
Hi, Reid;
I'm glad to hear that you are making good progress on the dissertation plan. We
are in the midst of getting the TLP set up on line so that it can be completed by
anyone with internet access. While that might be ready by August 22, it would be
safer and probably simpler (given that you are giving these entering students a
battery of other assessments at the same time) to just use the paper form. This is
especially the case since you need not have individual analysis reports run and
need only a data disk for dissertation research purposes. There should be no
problem at all getting a ream of forms to you; that should be enough for all of the
uses you mentioned (the incoming students and the additional students completing
their intro coursework). I think the idea of developing a longitudinal quasiexperimental design is a very good one. See Brad Lafferty's dissertation for details
on how he did this at Air University's Air Command and Staff College.
We may have spoken about the alternative TLP form called the Leadership
Competency Assessment. It is essentially the same as the TLP but the items have
been slightly revised as needed to eliminate any implication that the respondent is
in a formal leadership or management position. Given your population, it might be
better to use the LCA.
I'll speak to Bill about all of this. Send us a mailing address so we can get the
forms to you.
Best,
Marshall Sashkin >>
103
Appendix D
Approval to Distribute Survey Instrument
104
Appendix E
Survey Instructions

18

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

18

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics in Effective

Submitted to Regent University

UMI Number: 3292253

UMI Microform 3292253

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Analyses of Variance ........................................................................................ 53

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

character as a component in the foundation, conceptualization, and

Character for Leadership

Psychologically, character is an aspect of personality distinct from

Character for Leadership

transformational leadership behaviors are the self-directedness, cooperativeness,

Character for Leadership

This is a quantitative study designed to answer the following research

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

desirability, participants also completed instrument items in an attempt to consider

Character for Leadership

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Transactional leadership focuses primarily on accomplishing the task, while

Visionary Leadership Theory

Carver & Scheier (1998)

Tsui & Ashford (1994)

Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al.

Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al.

Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al.

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Howell (1988) stated that charismatic leadership is neither moral nor

Character for Leadership

several behavioral components discussed have explicit characterological

Character for Leadership

of enacting effective leadership behaviors. What is necessary is a theory of

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

(Antonovsky, 1985). Each of these concepts is a component within the construct of

Character for Leadership

investigation of the leaders character as a component of these personal

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

conceptualization (character) to determine desired goals or end states for the

Character for Leadership

Character for Leadership

Figure 3: Model of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

Character for Leadership

Internal beliefs and attitudes

Figure 4: A behavioral model of character, values, ethics, and morality.