Character for Leadership: The Role of Personal Characteristics

Transformational Leadership 
Bass (1985) 
Bass & Avolio (1994) 
Burns (1978) 
Visionary Leadership Theory 
Sashkin & Rosenbach (1996) 
Sashkin & Sashkin (2002) 
Character 
Leonard (1997) 
Cloninger, Svrakic, & Pryzbeck (1993) 
Self-Directedness 
Theoretical Research 
Tsui & Ashford (1994) 
Cooperativeness 
Figure 1: Literature review map. 
Murphy (2002) 
Theoretical Research
Winter (2002) 
Empirical Research 
Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al. 
(1994) 
Empirical Research
Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al. 
Current Study 
Power Motive 
McClelland (1975) 
Self-Regulation 
Carver & Scheier (1998) 
Self-Transcendence 
Theoretical Research
Fry (2003) 
Tischler, Biberman, & 
McKeage (2002)
Spirituality 
Piedmont (1999) 
Religious Leadership 
Gilpin (1988) 
Campbell (1992) 
Empirical Research
Cloninger, Pryzbeck, et al. 

---

Character for Leadership 
15 
 
Even given these distinctions, Bass (1985) emphasized the need for 
transactional leadership in addition to purely transformational elements in order to 
accomplish the needs for organizations as well as individuals. Similarly, Avolio 
(1999) considered transactional and transformational leadership as necessary to 
develop the full range of leadership. This distinction to also include transactional 
elements is what distinguishes some perspectives of transformational leadership 
from pure charismatic leadership. 
Comparison to Charismatic Leadership 
Another form, perhaps a subset, of transformational leadership is 
charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership, like transformational leadership, 
requires an emotional connection between leader and follower such that an 
influence relationship can occur. Charismatic leadership takes this emphasis to a 
deeper level. 
The theory of charismatic leadership, first made explicit by House (1977), 
identifies those aspects of a leader that set him or her apart from followers in an 
extraordinary way. In addition to the leader’s charisma, charismatic leadership 
involves exceptional leadership behaviors and positive attributions by followers. 
According to Waldman, Javidan, and Varella (2004),
Key behaviors on the part of the leader include providing a sense of 
mission, articulating a future-oriented, inspirational vision based on 
powerful imagery, values, and beliefs. Additional behaviors include 
showing determination when accomplishing goals and 
communicating high performance expectations. Favorable 
attributional effects on the part of followers include the generation 
of confidence in the leader, making followers feel good in his/her 
presence, and strong admiration or respect. (p. 358) 
Obviously, values and beliefs are a core concept in these conceptualizations 
of charismatic leadership, much as they are in transformational leadership. Yet, 
what is it that governs the outcomes of the charismatic leadership relationship when 
some state that followers desire, even create, their own toxic leaders (Kellerman, 
2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005)? 

---

Character for Leadership 
16 
 
Howell (1988) stated that charismatic leadership is neither moral nor 
immoral. Rather, such judgment should be reserved for the outcomes of the 
leader’s actions. In contrast, Kanungo and Mendonça (1996) maintained that 
charismatic leadership, as well as every other form of leadership, is very much a 
moral enterprise, the determination of which depends on the underlying motivation 
of the leader. They asserted that
organizational leaders are truly effective only when they are 
motivated by a concern for others, when their actions are invariably 
guided primarily by the criteria of “the benefit to others even if it 
results in some cost to self.” The underlying rationale or purpose for 
having a leader in a group or organization is to move it toward the 
pursuit of objectives that, when attained, would produce benefits to 
both the organization and its members. (p. 35) 
They then stated this even more forcefully by stating that, in fact, “the 
altruistic motive becomes the only consistent motive for the leader role” (p. 35). 
This altruistic motive is consistent with moral leadership. In contrast, immoral 
leadership is egotistic and benefits the leader personally rather than benefiting 
others or the organization. The difficulty becomes identifying the socialized (other-
focused) versus personal (self-focused) motives of the leader. This difficulty is 
complicated by the fact that some personally motivated leaders may truly believe 
that their motives are altruistic. This may proceed from a lack of self-awareness or 
blatant denial that their vision is personally motivated. Apparently, this reality is 
significant enough to warrant the publication of a business allegory decrying the 
disaster that awaits the leader who is self-deceived (Arbinger Institute, 2002). 
Regardless, “when leaders compromise their ethical standards they do harm, often 
irreparable, in terms of the immediate physical and moral suffering to others within 
and outside the organization” (Kanungo & Mendonça, 1996, p. 33). Leadership in 
general and transformational leadership in particular are moral exercises and 
proceed from the character of the leader. 
While Conger and Kanungo (1987) presented charismatic leadership 
primarily as a behavioral process not based on the individual traits of the leader, 

---