Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

Self-Directedness 
The character component of self-directedness, as defined by Cloninger, 
Przybeck, et al. (1994), is a higher-order character trait that contains several lower-
order subtraits such as responsibility, purposefulness, resourcefulness, self-
acceptance, and congruent second nature. In the description by Cloninger, Svrakic, 
and Pryzbeck (1993), self-directedness refers to individuals who are able to control, 
regulate, and adapt their behavior in concert with their chosen goals and values. 
This description fundamentally correlates with the concept of behavioral self-

---

Character for Leadership 
30 
 
regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1998). In Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck’s (1993) 
view, self-directedness (self-regulation) is of such importance that its absence “is 
the common characteristic of all categories of personality disorder. Regardless of 
other personality traits or circumstances, a personality disorder is likely to be 
present if self-directedness is low” (Sperry, 1997, p. 271). In fact, most significant 
personal and social problems can be explained from the viewpoint of failures in 
self-regulation (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). 
Therefore, for a study of leadership, self-directedness (self-regulation) should be an 
essential component in the evaluation of character.
The first subtrait of self-directedness compares responsibility versus 
blaming. Individuals high in responsibility generally recognize the consequences of 
their own choices and do not blame others or the external circumstances for their 
situation. This responsibility trait corresponds with the constructs of optimism 
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and hardiness (McCall, 1994) in which 
people take charge of their own actions and believe that their actions will produce 
the desired results. This is also similar in concept to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
The second subtrait of self-directedness compares purposefulness versus 
lack of goal direction. Individuals high in purposefulness are able to regulate their 
behavior by comparing behavioral choices to long-term values and goals. As such, 
individuals high in purposefulness are usually able to delay immediate gratification 
to achieve their goals. This delay of gratification is a significant component of 
behavioral self-regulation (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998; Brown, 1998). 
As stated, the psychological construct of behavioral self-regulation appears 
equivalent to the character trait of self-directedness. Therefore, an examination of 
self-regulation is warranted. 
Self-Regulation 
Self-regulation is a psychological construct that explains the manner in 
which individuals carry out actions. Individuals regulate behavior in order to reach 
predetermined goals. These goals are established through comparison to complex 
schemas or patterns of behavior and being. 

---

Character for Leadership 
31 
 
Leader self-regulation is necessary to understand the motivation and 
structure of leadership schemas (Murphy, 2002). Unfortunately, the consideration 
of such schemas has been underrepresented in the literature, except perhaps when 
considered from the standpoint of implicit leadership theory (Keller, 2003; Kenney, 
Blascovich, & Shaver, 1994; Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). However, little is 
known about how one’s leadership schemas are developed throughout life, even 
though such schemas have a profound impact on enacted behavior. 
One component of schemas commonly held for leaders is the ability to 
delay gratification to achieve some tangible personal reward (O’Toole, 1996). 
Delay of gratification is one motivation shared by a number of constructs that are at 
their heart self-regulatory. For example, learned resourcefulness (Rosenbaum, 
1989) and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998) specifically include the delay of 
gratification as a component of each construct.
Self-regulation is “a continual process of moving toward, and away from, 
various kinds of mental goal representations, and that this movement occurs by a 
process of feedback” (Carver & Scheier, 1998, p. 2). Self-regulation is a control 
process whereby an organism makes modifications to systems in order to reach 
specified goals. Feedback is a crucial part of the self-regulatory process and is 
important in the overall organizational leadership process as seen through the lens 
of open systems theory (Burke, 2002; Katz & Kahn, 1966).
Feedback often enters the individual’s behavior cycle in the form of 
reflection. It has been demonstrated that those leaders who practice reflection are 
more intentional (Welch, 1998) and, therefore, theoretically, more mature. 
Reflection is a necessary component of leadership development (Smith, 2001). This 
component correlates well with curricula of theological education that traditionally 
include theological reflection as part of practical ministry training or field 
education. Reflection allows the individual to assimilate what he or she is learning 
and then apply it to life’s situations. 
Self-Efficacy 
Sashkin and Sashkin (2002) related the concept of confident leadership to 
one’s self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s 

---

Character for Leadership 
32 
 
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given 
attainments” (p. 3). Self-efficacy is a part of the process of behavioral self-
regulation and these efficacy beliefs are necessary for someone to enact specific 
behaviors. Ponton and Carr (1999) demonstrated conceptually that self-efficacy 
assessment occurs prior to the development of attitudes (values) about particular 
actions. Related to leadership, some form of self-efficacy beliefs must exist before 
a leader will determine to undertake a particular leadership action or behavior. 
Research has demonstrated the link between self-efficacy, self-regulation, 
and leadership. Wood and Bandura (1989) found that increasing the perceived self-
efficacy of managers positively impacted the managers’ self-regulatory processes 
that led to increased organizational performance measures. Leadership self-efficacy 
is related to one’s motivation to lead change efforts among subordinates (Paglis & 
Green, 2002). In addition, Hartsfield (2003) demonstrated the correlation between 
self-efficacy and a measure of transformational leadership. Self-efficacy, as a 
component of self-regulation, is a significant factor in effective leadership 
functioning. 
Empirical Research 
Research on self-directedness has demonstrated that the absence of this 
character trait is significantly related to the presence of personality disorder 
(Svrakic, Whitehead, Przybeck, & Cloninger, 1993). Self-directedness has also 
been shown to be lower in people who are prone to some kind of self-regulation 
failure, such as with illicit drug use (Hosak, Preiss, Halir, Cermakova, & Csemy, 
2004). In addition to research with the full TCI, Prosnick, Evans, and Farris (2003) 
developed a Short Index of Self-Directedness. However, most research still utilizes 
the full TCI instrument (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994). 
Summary 
The character trait of self-directedness corresponds with the concept of 
behavioral self-regulation. In addition, self-directedness conceptually incorporates 
self-efficacy. Both self-regulation and self-efficacy have been linked to leadership 
in general and transformational leadership in particular. Therefore, self-
directedness should also demonstrate this significant relationship. 

---

Character for Leadership 
33 
 
H
1
: 
Leaders exhibit confident leadership differently based on their level 
of self-directedness. 
H
2
: 
Leaders exhibit effective visionary leadership differently based on 
their level of self-directedness.