Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

Character for Leadership 
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 one’s 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 one’s character to the 
development of values, it should be given a greater priority in behavioral research. 

---

Character for Leadership 
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, one’s 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, one’s 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 
one’s 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 individual’s ethics. However, it may be better to 
consider this external evaluation a different construct altogether—the construct of 
morality.