Character for Leadership
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
α
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.
Character for Leadership
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
α
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). Test–retest 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
Character for Leadership
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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: