Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

Cooperativeness 
The character trait of cooperativeness, as defined by Cloninger, Przybeck, et 
al. (1994), is a higher-order character trait that contains several lower-order 
subtraits such as social acceptance, empathy, helpfulness, compassion, and 
integrated conscience. Cooperativeness leads to one’s ability to interact 
appropriately with others. 
One subtrait of cooperativeness, integrated conscience, seems to correspond 
with the concept of power motivation (McClelland, 1974, 1975) since both pertain 
to treating others fairly and not behaving in an opportunistic manner. Power 
motivation has been demonstrated to significantly impact leadership abilities and 
effectiveness (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). In addition, empathy and 
compassion, two additional subtraits of cooperativeness, are components of some 
models of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Such components are 
significant to transformational leadership efforts (Sosik & Megerian, 1999). 
Therefore, for the study of a leader’s character, cooperativeness is also an essential 
component. 
O’Toole (2000) presented ambition as the one trait essential to good 
leadership. However, ambition must be qualified, since the characteristic can drive 
both a Ghandi and a Hitler (Kaplan, Drath, & Kofodimos, 1991). The classic work 
on the topic of power is that of French and Raven (1959) who defined power in 
“terms of influence, and influence in terms of psychological change” (p. 375). This 
description is particularly useful in this study due to the nature of transformational 
leadership as a process that involves the transformation of values and beliefs (i.e., 
psychological change). Leadership is a process that often utilizes power to 
accomplish the interactions between leader and followers. The confounding issue is 

---

Character for Leadership 
34 
 
whether the focus of the leader’s power is directed for personal gain or for the gain 
of others as well. 
Power Motive 
McClelland’s (1975) work is basic to the discussion on power motive. The 
power motive construct has obvious correlations with the concept of servant 
leadership where personalized power is viewed as detrimental to the leadership 
process. Greenleaf (1996) asked, “What is the corruption that flows from absolute 
(real or near) or unchecked power? I believe that it is 
arrogance
, being overly 
convinced of one’s own importance, and all of the evils that stem from that 
aberration in judgment” (p. 60).
Power-motivated people engage in a variety of “impact” and prestige-
seeking behaviors. If they are also high in responsibility [self-regulation], 
their power-seeking is prosocial and involves successful leadership; but if 
they are low in responsibility, their power-seeking reflects a pattern of 
“profligate impulsivity”—drinking, multiple drug use, exploitative sex, 
verbal and physical aggression, and other high risk behaviors. (Winter, 
2002, p. 123) 
Abshire (2000) echoed Greenleaf in his evaluation of the pride that can 
easily lead to the fall of a leader. In both cases, these men described the dark side of 
leadership (Conger, 1990), something that is a potential of charismatic leaders, 
especially those who do not cooperate or defer to the needs of others but neglect the 
needs of others to follow their own grandiose visions. 
It seems that transactional leaders and charismatic leaders are particularly 
prone to exercise power for their own objectives, rather than those of the 
organization or group. Popper (2002) highlighted the difference between 
charismatic leaders who are prosocial versus those who exercise power for personal 
gain: 
Socialized leaders use their power to serve others; align their vision with the 
followers’ needs and aspirations; maintain open, two-way communication; 
and adhere to moral standards. Personalized leaders, in contrast, use their 
power solely for personal gain, promote their own personal vision, maintain 

---

Character for Leadership 
35 
 
one-way communication, and have recourse to convenient external moral 
standards that suit their self-interest. (p. 798) 
Socialized leaders are transformational in their orientation, aligning with the ideals 
presented by Burns (1978). In contrast, personalized leaders are narcissistic, 
promoting themselves over others around them. These narcissistic leaders are those 
who have an expansive personality according to Kaplan et al. (1991). It is this 
narcissistic characteristic that is most insidious when evaluating transformational 
leadership behaviors. 
VLT considers the leader’s power motive as one of the personal 
characteristics that leads to effective transformational leadership. TLP (Sashkin et 
al., 1997) includes a scale called follower-centered leadership that is designed to 
measure the leader’s degree of personal versus prosocial power. 
H
3
: 
Leaders exhibit follower-centered leadership differently based on 
their level of cooperativeness. 
Empirical Research 
In contrast with research on self-directedness for which the Short Index of 
Self-Directedness (Prosnick et al., 2003) has been developed, research on 
cooperativeness still utilizes the full TCI instrument (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 
1994). Existing research has demonstrated that the absence of cooperativeness is 
significantly related to the presence of personality disorder (Svrakic et al., 1993). 
As was found with self-directedness, cooperativeness has also been shown to be 
lower in people who experience some kind of self-regulation failure, such as with 
illicit drug use (Hosak et al., 2004). Perhaps this is due to the lack of ability to 
withstand peer pressure appropriately. Giotakos, Vaidakis, Markianos, Spandoni, 
and Christodoulou (2004) found a significant correlation between an abusive or 
affectionless parent and the development of low cooperativeness in individuals. 
Those individuals with low cooperativeness are often found in circumstances where 
their self-focused actions negatively impact themselves and others. Such is to be 
expected of persons who are pathologically narcissistic. However, less extreme 
narcissism may still lead to negative consequences as a result of the actions of these 
individuals, especially those who are leaders whose actions impact the lives of 

---

Character for Leadership 
36 
 
multiple people. In addition, this research demonstrates how such a character trait 
may or may not develop adequately in individuals.
Summary 
A greater focus on the needs of others is generally seen as maturity or 
wisdom and is something highly valued in Christian ministry. Therefore, 
developing Christian leaders should display this focus in line with an appropriately 
developing power motive and display interpersonal tendencies that are counter to 
leader narcissism. 
Based on the theoretical links between the constructs, and in line with VLT, 
Bass (2002) speculated that there might be a link between one who is highly self-
oriented and the practice of pseudotransformational leadership. Therefore, the 
antitheses of self-oriented leaders, those who are highly cooperative, are much 
more likely to exhibit transformational behaviors. 
H
4
: 
Leaders exhibit effective visionary leadership differently based on 
their level of cooperativeness. 
TCI research has demonstrated a significant link between the presence of 
both self-directedness and cooperativeness in healthy individuals. In other words, 
both character traits are necessary and the absence of either trait denotes immaturity 
or leads to unhealthy behavior. Winter (2002) highlighted the correlation between 
the leader’s power motivation and effective leadership. There must be balance of 
the power motivation of the leader with responsibility; otherwise, leadership 
becomes narcissistic in nature. Cooperativeness is an essential consideration of 
one’s personal motivation to lead and, therefore, the prediction of transformational 
leadership behaviors. However, cooperativeness by itself is not sufficient to predict 
ethical or authentic transformational leadership. A leader must exercise self-
directedness over his or her ability to influence and direct others. If not, unethical 
charismatic behaviors can occur. Therefore, self-directedness is also an essential 
trait. 

---

Character for Leadership 
37