Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

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 leader’s character. This 
study continues an investigation of visionary (transformational) leadership but 
furthers the literature by investigating the foundations of transformational 
leadership behaviors. 
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. 

---

Character for Leadership 
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.