Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

Morality 
Common sense dictates that behavior is somehow related to our intentions. 
Our legal system entails the assessment of one’s behavioral intentions (e.g., was 
one’s role in another’s 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 

---

Character for Leadership 
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 one’s morality are related to the behaviors that are exhibited 
since no judgment would be necessary if one’s thoughts were to remain as 
intentions and not become enacted as behaviors. Prior to action, intentions are 
related to one’s 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 one’s 
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. One’s beliefs lead to the development of attitudes toward those beliefs. 
These attitudes or values, in turn, influence one’s 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 

---

Character for Leadership 
26 
 
(provide feedback to) one’s 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 covered—character, values, ethics, and morality—can 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. 
Character 
Values (moral 
development) 
Ethics 
Morality 
Internal beliefs and attitudes 
External 
behavior and 
appraisal 
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, one’s 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, one’s 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 one’s true character and value system. This is akin to the discrepancy 
between Argyris and Schön’s (1974, 1978) espoused theories of action versus 
actual theories in use, and it occurs on both the personal and organizational level. 

---

Character for Leadership 
27 
 
The model presented corresponds with components in Rest’s (1984, 1986, 
1994) four component model of morality. Rest’s (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 self-
directedness (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. 3–4). 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 one’s 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, one’s 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. 

---

Character for Leadership 
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 leader’s 
character and values (namely, one’s system of ethics) or includes an external 
appraisal of the results of the leadership effort (morality) rather than the leader’s 
personal characteristics. Even those discussions of leadership that have addressed 
values do so without considering the leader’s 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 one’s values are enacted. One’s morality 
can be considered either good or bad just as one can have good or bad values. What 
determines the goodness or badness of one’s value system is whether it coincides 
with an accepted (external) moral value system. What determines the goodness or 
badness of one’s 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 one’s actions as compared to some accepted 
system of social values.