Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

Demographics 
The demographic characteristics of survey participants are presented in 
Table 1. Item numbers correspond to Section 1 item numbers of the survey 
instrument (see Appendix A). 
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Survey Participants 
Demographic 
n 
% 
Gender Male 
59 
58.4 
Female 
42 
41.6 
Age 
< 30 years 
45 
44.6 
30 - 39 years 
35 
34.7 
40 - 49 years 
15 
14.9 
≥
50 years 
5 
4.9 
Unknown 
1 
0.9 
Marital status 
Single 
56 
55.4 
Married 
42 
41.6 
Single, 
divorced 
2 
2.0 
Single, 
widowed 
1 
1.0 
Family of origin 
Two parent home 
85 
84.1 
Divorced 
parents 12 
11.9 
Single parent home 
3 
3.0 
Foster 
home 
0 
0.0 
Unknown 
1 
1.0 
Degree program 
MA in christian education 
18 
17.8 
MA in biblical counseling 
2 
2.0 
MA in biblical exegesis and 
linguistics 
0 0.0 
ThM 
68 
67.3 

---

Character for Leadership 
50 
 
Demographic 
n 
% 
Other 
13 
12.9 
Vocational direction 
Senior pastor 
14 
13.9 
Pastoral 
staff 
22 
21.8 
Academic 
ministry 26 
25.7 
Parachurch 
ministry 24 
23.8 
Nonvocational 
ministry 
8 
7.9 
Unknown 
7 
6.9 
Participation in 
spiritual formation 
First year 
59 
58.4 
Second 
year 
23 
22.8 
Group leader, student 
19 
18.8 
Group leader, nonstudent 
0 
0.0 
Previous vocational 
leadership experience 
< 1 year 
38 
37.6 
1 - 3 years 
23 
22.8 
4 - 6 years 
15 
14.9 
7 - 10 years 
10 
9.9 
> 10 years 
15 
14.9 
Current weekly 
vocational leadership 
involvement 
≤
9 hours 
69 
68.3 
10 - 19 hours 
16 
15.8 
≥
20 hours 
15 
14.9 
Unknown 
1 
1.0 
Table 2 presents reliabilities for full scales utilized in this study. As 
previously noted, Cronbach 
α
s for the TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) for 
the community sample utilized for instrument validation range from .84 to .89 for 
the individual character scales. Cronbach 
α
s for the TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) 

---

Character for Leadership 
51 
 
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). Reliability of the 
TLP instrument for this sample is at the upper end of previous results utilizing 
different samples. Reliability measures could not be found for the impression 
management items of Paulhus’ (1984) social desirability scales. The sample for this 
study demonstrated low reliability for this instrument.
Table 2: Coefficient Alphas for Survey Scales, 
N
= 101
Scale 
α
TCI (Cloninger, Przybeck, et al., 1994) 
.87 
TLP (Sashkin et al., 1997) 
.94 
Social desirability scale (Paulhus, 1984) 
.51