Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

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. 
Transformational Leadership 
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 
leader–follower 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 

---

Character for Leadership 
13 
 
(Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Because of the role of one’s 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 leader’s 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 leader’s 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. 

---

Character for Leadership 
14 
 
Transactional leadership focuses primarily on accomplishing the task, while 
transformational leadership considers the need for each follower’s emotional, 
social, physical, and spiritual development.