ArticlePDF Available

Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations

November 2017
Journal of Management Studies 57(1):986-1018

DOI:10.1111/joms.12254

Authors:

Mary Crossan

Western University

Alyson Byrne

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Gerard Seijts

Western University

Mark Reno

Western University

Show all 6 authorsHide

While the construct of character is well grounded in philosophy, ethics, and more recently psychology, it lags in acceptance and legitimacy within management research and mainstream practice. Our research seeks to remedy this through four contributions. First, we offer a framework of leader character that provides rigor through a three-phase, multi-method approach involving 1,817 leaders, and relevance by using an engaged scholarship epistemology to validate the framework with practicing leaders. This framework highlights the theoretical underpinnings of the leader character model and articulates the character dimensions and elements that operate in concert to promote effective leadership. Second, we bring leader character into mainstream management research, extending the traditional competency and interpersonal focus on leadership to embrace the foundational component of leader character. In doing this, we articulate how leader character complements and strengthens several existing theories of leadership. Third, we extend the virtues-based approach to ethical decision making to the broader domain of judgment and decision making in support of pursuing individual and organization effectiveness. Finally, we offer promising directions for future research on leader character that will also serve the larger domain of leadership research.

Content uploaded by Lucas Monzani

Content may be subject to copyright.

TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF LEADER CHARACTER IN ORGANIZATIONS

Mary M. Crossan

Ivey Business School, Western University

London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7

Email: mcrossan@ivey.uwo.ca

Alyson Byrne

Memorial University

St. John’s, Newfoundland

Email: alyson.byrne@mun.ca

Gerard H. Seijts

Ivey Business School, Western University

London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7

Email: gseijts@ivey.ca

Mark Reno

Ivey Business School, Western University

London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7

Email: mreno@ivey.ca

Lucas Monzani

Ivey Business School, Western University

Postgraduate School of Management - Plymouth University

London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7

Email: lucas.monzani@plymouth.ac.uk

Jeffrey Gandz

Ivey Business School, Western University

London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7

Email: jgandz@ivey.ca

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Social Science and Humanities

Research Council of Canada, the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership at the Ivey Business

School, and three anonymous reviewers and editor who provided invaluable guidance on this

manuscript. We are also grateful for the input and support from Julie Carswell, Brenda Nguyen,

Erica Carleton, and the executives who participated in this study. Finally, we are grateful for the

constructive feedback from academics with whom we have interacted at conferences and

workshops.

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been

through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to

differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as a Journal

of Management Studies (‘Accepted Article’), doi: 10.1111/joms.12254

TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF LEADER CHARACTER IN ORGANIZATIONS

ABSTRACT

While the construct of character is well grounded in philosophy, ethics, and more

recently psychology, it lags in acceptance and legitimacy within management research and

mainstream practice. Our research seeks to remedy this through four contributions. First, we

offer a framework of leader character that provides rigor through a three-phase, multi-method

approach involving 1,817 leaders, and relevance by using an engaged scholarship epistemology

to validate the framework with practicing leaders. This framework highlights the theoretical

underpinnings of the leader character model and articulates the character dimensions and

elements that operate in concert to promote effective leadership. Second, we bring leader

character into mainstream management research, extending the traditional competency and

interpersonal focus on leadership to embrace the foundational component of leader character. In

doing this, we articulate how leader character complements and strengthens several existing

theories of leadership. Third, we extend the virtues-based approach to ethical decision making to

the broader domain of judgment and decision making in support of pursuing individual and

organization effectiveness. Finally, we offer promising directions for future research on leader

character that will also serve the larger domain of leadership research.

Keywords: (4-6 keywords) character, effectiveness, leadership, sustained excellence

TOWARD A FRAMEWORK OF LEADER CHARACTER IN ORGANIZATIONS

The scholarly account of character dates back millennia and yet debates about the nature

of “good character” remain (Hackett & Wang, 2012). While progress has been made in moving

beyond the debates as evidenced by the work of Peterson and Seligman (2004), and its recent

incorporation into management research (e.g., Gentry, Cullen, Sosik, Chun, Leupold &

Tonidandel, 2013; Hannah & Avolio, 2011a; Quick & Wright, 2011; Sosik, Gentry & Chun,

2012), there continues to exist a significant gap between the scholarly account of character and

the understanding, legitimacy and application of character to leadership in the practice of

governance and management. Our line of research is anchored in virtuous character and we

adopt the definition of character as the habits of cognition, emotion, and behavior that embody

human excellence and produce social betterment (Bright, Cameron & Caza, 2006; Moore, 2005).

Our exploratory research seeks to address two fundamental questions: What are the

essential dimensions of leader character in organizational contexts? And how do these

dimensions relate to one another? We adopted a three-phase process to address these questions,

using an engaged scholarship approach. As advocated by Van de Ven (2007), developing

leadership theories that are accepted and actionable for the business context may be better served

when formulated through “engaged scholarship,” defined as “a participative form of research for

obtaining the different perspectives of key stakeholders in studying complex problems. By

involving others and leveraging their different kinds of knowledge, engaged scholarship can

produce knowledge that is more penetrating and insightful than when scholars or practitioners

work on the problems alone” (2007, p. 9). In the first phase we used a Q-sort methodology and

focus groups with practitioners to help define and refine the dimensions and constituent elements

of leader character. The second phase employed an on-line Q-sort with 874 leaders in two

organizations to assess the relative importance of the leader character elements. The third phase

used a network analysis to investigate the relationship between a 360-degree assessment of

leader character and performance measures with 833 leaders in a North American organization

which we then replicated in a sample of 64 leaders from two organizations in Latin America.

Our research brings leader character into both mainstream management theory and

leadership practices through four core contributions. First, we offer a framework of leader

character that provides rigor through a three-phase, multi-method approach involving 1,817

leaders, and relevance by using an engaged scholarship epistemology (Van de Ven, 2007) to

validate the framework with practicing leaders. This framework articulates the character

dimensions and elements that operate in concert to promote effective leadership in organizations.

That the dimensions of character operate in concert is an important redirection in the current

research on character, which has been evolving toward treating the dimensions of character as

discrete constructs, in part because of the analytical techniques used to study it. Second, we

provide a robust framework of leader character, which has been validated by practitioners

through an engaged scholarship approach, serving to bring leader character into mainstream

leadership research. We extend the traditional competency and interpersonal focus on leadership

to embrace the critical component of leader character (Seijts, Gandz, Crossan & Reno 2015;

Thompson, Grahek, Phillips & Fay, 2008; Tsui, 2013). We articulate how leader character

complements and strengthens several existing theories of behavioral approaches to leadership,

responding to the call for more integrative theorizing and research in the field of leadership

(Avolio, 2007). Third, we extend the application of character research from a focus on well-

being and ethical decision making to the broader domain of judgment in support of pursuing

individual and organization effectiveness, specifically effectiveness that leads to sustained

excellence. We leverage and pivot the important concept of practical wisdom in character

research, to connect it to judgment and position judgment as a central dimension of character.

Finally, we identify the need for considerably more empirical investigation to fully understand

the theoretical underpinnings of what leader character is and how it can be applied in

organizational contexts. We offer promising directions for future research on leader character,

including preliminary insights into the structure of leader character, the introduction of a network

based analytical technique to explore the structure, and an agenda for future research that will

also serve the larger domain of leadership research.

BRIDGING CHARACTER AND LEADERSHIP

Character Overview

Philosophers have debated the role of virtue and character in pursuit of the good life for

millennia, with early work rooted in Plato and Aristotle and more recent revivals attributable to

Anscombe (1958), MacIntyre (2007), Solomon (1992), Kupperman (1995) and Hursthouse

(2001) amongst others. There is a substantial amount of philosophical theory (Hursthouse 2001;

MacIntyre, 2007) and, to a lesser extent, psychological theory on character (Peterson &

Seligman, 2004) yet there is comparatively little actionable research applied to leadership in

organizational contexts (Crossan, Seijts & Gandz, 2015; Dyck & Wong, 2010). As research on

leader character is only recently emerging within the management field, it is not surprising that

there is little agreement on how to formally define and apply character amongst practitioners

(Conger & Hollenbeck, 2010). Hannah and Avolio (2011a; 2011b), Wright and Quick (2011)

and Quick and Wright (2011) debated the theoretical underpinnings of leader character and

concluded that leader character is something that occurs within the leader; has a moral

component that is related but separate from values and personality; and can be developed in

people. They recognized in their discussion series that the work on leader character in the field of

management is only beginning and ongoing attention to important debates is necessary (e.g., see

Beadle, Sison & Fontrodona, 2015; Sison & Ferrero, 2015) as we forge stronger links between

theory and practice.

As articulated, we align our research in virtuous character, where the habits of cognition,

emotion, and embody human excellence are able to produce social betterment (Bright, Cameron

& Caza, 2006; Moore, 2005). Cameron (2011) described the important differences between

virtue and character: “The term virtue refers to singular attributes that represent moral excellence

…Virtue is sometimes equated with character strengths (Grant & Schwartz, 2011; Peterson &

Seligman, 2004), but virtue and character strengths are not synonymous. One can possess too

much or too little of a strength, and in doing so it may become a weakness or produce a negative

outcome (as when too much tolerance becomes spinelessness and too little tolerance becomes

bigotry). Virtuousness, on the other hand, cannot be exceeded” (p. 27). Therefore, in further

unpacking Bright et al.’s (2006) definition of character, it is important to recognize that virtuous

character (henceforth, character) is an amalgam of virtues, personality traits and values that

enable excellence, as discussed by Seijts et al. (2015). Virtues refer to situationally-appropriate

behaviors that are widely considered emblematic of good leadership. Some of these virtues are

personality traits, such as conscientiousness and openness, which are relatively stable

dispositional variables (Bono & Judge, 2004). They predispose individuals to behave in certain

ways, if not overridden by other forces such as organizational culture, reward systems or peer

pressure. We acknowledge that most virtues are not trait-based and hence there is significant

potential to develop character. Some of the virtues operate as values, such as being equitable.

However, we concur with Wright and Huang (2008) that character is not simply a set of any

deeply held personal values. Character encompasses only values that are virtuous.

The definition of character upon which we base our conceptualization of leader character

is consistent with MacIntyre (2007). He defines character in relatively open terms as a “set of

dispositions to behave systematically in one way or another, to lead one particular kind of life”

(p. 38). MacIntyre explains that character can be good or bad and that “good character” is

distinguished by a mutually-reinforcing combination of character strengths that not only enable

the individual to achieve excellence in the practice of these strengths “but will also sustain us in

the relevant kind of quest for what is often termed the “common good” or “good” by enabling us

to overcome the harms, dangers, temptations, and distractions which we encounter, and which

will furnish us with increasing self-knowledge and knowledge of the good” (p. 219).

Specifically, we propose that good character involves various forms of coherence among

character strengths that are aimed at achieving an intended good, as directed by practical wisdom

(MacIntyre, 2007; Sison, Hartman & Fontrodona, 2012; Surendra, 2010). We build upon

Aristotle’s conceptualization of virtues as a desirable mean state between the vice of deficiency

and the vice of excess. The mean state was not viewed as an average point between strength and

weakness but rather a depth of the virtue that resists excess because of its connectivity to other

virtues. For example, courage is a virtue that can be deepened in its own right and also by relying

on other virtues such as integrity or temperance. Related to courage, cowardliness is a vice of

deficiency and recklessness is a vice of excess (Nicomachean Ethics, 1106a26-b28). High

courage without corresponding high temperance may lead to recklessness. The interconnectivity

between the virtues and the possible explanation for why some behaviors that appear to be

virtuous are vices has been neglected in most research on leader character.

To achieve the virtuous mean state individuals must draw upon the concept of phronesis,

meaning practical wisdom. This involves knowing how to secure the common good effectively

in any situation (Mele, 2010; Roca, 2008; Smith & Dubbink, 2011). Practical wisdom requires

situational appreciation — the capacity to recognize, in any particular situation, the features that

are salient for decision making and subsequent action (Price, 2000; Rest, 1986, 1994).

Importantly, it implies that individuals are able to draw on, and exhibit the required virtues as

needed. Thus all virtues are important in human excellence and producing social betterment.

The importance of all virtues and their interconnectivity is consistent with the ontology of

character, however current approaches to studying character typically emphasize only certain

virtues such as humility, courage or integrity without regard for the connectivity to other

dimensions (Tangney, 2000). This is largely due to current research methods and practices that

tend to isolate the dimensions of character.

While many scholars have been exemplary furthering research on character, primarily

emphasizing its moral aspects (e.g., Hannah, Avolio & May, 2011; Jennings, Mitchell &

Hannah, 2015), there are important distinctions to be made when focusing on virtue-oriented

character. Moral character is most strongly associated with ethical behavior (Cohen, Panter,

Turan, Morse & Kim, 2014) and is captured in the language of right/wrong, good/bad and

should/ought (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Virtue-oriented character is concerned with a broader

set of issues associated with practical wisdom, which we equate to judgment, as discussed below.

MacIntyre (1966) argues that practical wisdom “is not only itself a virtue, it is the keystone of all

virtue. For without it one cannot be virtuous” (p. 127). Practically wise people are skilled at

balancing personal interests with those of others, and in deliberating with moral purpose in the

service of the common good (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Mele, 2010; Sternberg, 1998, 2008).

While character can be conceived as virtuous, vicious or incontinent (Hursthouse, 2001; Müller,

2015), it is through practical wisdom that individuals can exercise their will to control

temptations towards vice (Hursthouse, 2001) and manifest good character (MacIntyre, 2007) that

works to achieve the common good. Current frameworks of leader character recognize wisdom

or judgment as a dimension of character, but have not accounted for the central role it plays to

integrate the other dimensions of character (see for example Peterson & Seligman, 2008).

In sum, we endorse the view of character by MacIntyre (2007) where the combination of

character strengths, supported by practical wisdom, embodies the notion of character. The

ontology of character is that it represents a wholeness of being (Bauman, 2013; Palanski &

Yammarino, 2007). In order to operationalize such wholeness of being, we have adopted the

term character dimension to refer to the higher order character strengths, and character elements

to refer to the behaviors that support the dimension. The dimensions and elements work together

to foster this wholeness, and through practical wisdom, various dimensions and elements are

exercised both in appreciation and analysis of any given situation and through the decisions and

actions taken. It is the interconnectivity between the dimensions of character and their

corresponding elements that provides the necessary depth to each dimension and avoids the

deficiencies and excesses previously discussed.

Leadership and Character

Although scholars have examined the role of virtues in developing character with several

different frameworks emerging, e.g., Hackett & Wang (2012), Riggio, Zhu, Reina & Maroosis

(2010); Thompson et al. (2008), recent reviews of leadership research reveal little reference to

leader character or virtuous leadership (e.g., Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Crossan, Vera

& Nanjad, 2008; Dinh et al., 2013; Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio & Johnson, 2011). Thus we see an

important opportunity to contribute to the broad domain of leadership research. Our preliminary

inventory of leader character dimensions, and its constitutive elements, builds significantly on

the work of Peterson and Seligman (2004) who have done extensive work to synthesize the

scholarly literature on character. They conducted a comprehensive review of the philosophy,

psychology, sociology, religious and historical literatures, identified 24 character strengths,

clustered them within six broad virtues (wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and

transcendence), and associated them with personal qualities that are conducive to individual and

collective human outcomes including achievement and job performance, stress, health and

wellness, and both work and life satisfaction.

We concur with Hannah and Avolio (2011b) that “character and competence become the

raw building blocks of effective and sustainable leadership” (p. 979). Character is not simply

something that is nice to have, or good to have, but rather something that is foundational in

enhancing leaders’ competencies in a way that drives superior and sustainable performance. For

example, Cameron et al. (2004) examined the relationship between virtuousness and

performance in 18 organizations representing 16 different industries. Their survey measured

virtuousness among organizational members as well as virtuousness being enabled by the

organization. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that virtuousness and most of its five sub-

factors – compassion, forgiveness, integrity, optimism and trust – were positively and

significantly related to measures of organizational performance, namely, customer retention,

innovation, quality, turnover and profit margin. Sosik et al. (2012) examined the behavioral

manifestations of the character strengths of bravery, integrity, perspective, and social intelligence

as influences on top-level executive performance in for-profit and not-for profit organizations.

Their hierarchical regression analysis revealed positive relationships between direct reports’

ratings of executive bravery, integrity, and social intelligence and bosses’ and board members’

ratings of executive performance. Each character strength accounted for variance in executive

performance above and beyond direct reports’ ratings of executives’ developing and empowering

behaviors. Accordingly, character may serve an important role as a foundation to both support

and integrate leadership theories, thus responding to Avolio’s (2007) call for such theorizing and

subsequent research. For example, connecting character and leadership elevates the role of

judgment (or practical wisdom) within behavioral approaches to leadership. We assert that it is

character-based judgment coupled with competencies that results in increased leader

effectiveness and sustained organizational performance.

While there are many ways character could inform leadership theories we focus on two

broad areas to illustrate character’s potential contribution to leadership. The first relates to the

promise character provides as a foundational personal resource that both serves existing

leadership theories, while highlighting potential gaps and shortcomings of those theories. The

second relates to recasting the view of contingency or situational theories of leadership, which

tend to rely on competencies and leadership style to suggest that different situations call for

different kinds of leadership (e.g., delegating versus directive leadership approaches).

Understanding that character can be developed and that judgment is an important mechanism

employed to activate different dimensions of character in different situations (the essence of

practical wisdom) broadens the versatility of leaders thereby enabling them to adapt to the

context rather than the context dictating the type of leader that is required.

As a foundational personal resource, character supports leadership theories affirming that

effective leadership of others and the organization is derived from leadership of self (Crossan et

al., 2008). Examples of leadership theories that emphasize the self as critical to leading others

include transformational (Bass, 1985), authentic (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Sosik & Cameron,

2010), ethical (Brown & Treviño, 2006), and servant leadership (van Dierendonck, 2010).

Character supports these leadership theories by offering dimensions that leaders can draw on as

required by a specific situation, exercising judgment to orchestrate the behavioral expression of

the various character dimensions whether it be courage, humility or justice.

Leader character and the critical role played by the dimension of judgment may renew

contingency or situational theories of leadership. This set of theories focuses on the

characteristics of the situation (e.g., task characteristics or features of interpersonal relationships)

that should determine the appropriate leadership style. Hence effective leaders must be

situationally aware, insightful and adaptable – in short, demonstrate good judgment – that

contributes to the success of a team or organization. For example, Bass (1995) clarified that

transformational leadership is not a pure style, as transformational leaders can display

transactional behaviors if warranted. Thus, judgment is central in orchestrating and activating the

character dimensions as required by the situation. The dimensions of character may therefore

serve to explain why some leaders have versatility to lead across different contexts.

There is also a strong link between our research and the burgeoning field of ethical

decision-making (EDM). In a comprehensive meta-review of EDM empirical studies, Lehnert,

Park and Singh (2015) built on four extensive meta-reviews of the literature, covering almost

400 previous empirical studies. It is clear that many aspects of leader character are involved in

each of the four steps or stages of ethical decision-making as described by Rest (1986):

awareness—recognizing a moral action in a situation; judgment—deciding or judging whether

the action or decision is ethical; intention—making a goal of moral action; and behavior—

engaging in ethical actions (Crossan et al. 2013). Humanity, integrity, justice, courage and

judgement, for example, affect whether people see situations and decisions in an ethical light,

how they analyze them, how they assess competing interests on their decisions, what they decide

to do and how they enact their decisions. Indeed, the process of character development is very

much akin to the process of cognitive moral development and its association with EDM in most,

but not all, of the studies reported in the Lehnart et al.’s (2015) review.

In summary, there is a substantial body of literature in the domain of philosophy, and

more recently psychology, management and EDM research, that seeks to understand character as

it relates to both individual performance and EDM. Prior research reveals that character is not

just about knowing the right thing to do, but also having the capacity to act in the right way given

the specific circumstances. It also reveals that virtue-oriented character is fundamentally

different from the characteristics of an individual as captured in personality traits or their deeply

held personal values, and finally that character can be developed. The assertion we make is that

character is not only important to individual and collective well-being and EDM but it is also

essential to effective leadership in organizations. While we make the theoretical argument for

the importance of character to leader effectiveness through the mechanism of judgment, our

primary purpose is to examine empirically how leaders perceive leader character. Specifically,

we seek to understand whether leaders perceive that elements and dimensions of character are

essential to leader effectiveness. We also provide preliminary evidence for the structure of

character and its relationship to effectiveness.

Next, we build upon prior research and clarify the specific underpinnings of our

theoretical approach. Specifically, we assess whether the dimensions of character are perceived

to be essential to leadership in organizations and provide preliminary evidence of effectiveness.

METHODOLOGY

Though our attempts to provide language and structure around character are necessary to

advance both theory and practice, there are important methodological limitations that need to be

addressed at the outset. The underlying theory suggests that there should be strong correlations

between the dimensions and across their respective elements. Consequently, attempts to find

clean or orthogonal dimensions will tend to undermine the theoretical foundations of character.

One of the shortcomings of prior research on character is that it has drifted from this underlying

ontology to treat character like certain personality constructs (e.g., the five-factor model of

personality) and thus seeking to establish the discriminant validity of its dimensions searching

for factor-type structures. This treatment of character has fueled some of the debate regarding

the ontology of character mentioned earlier. We seek to provide an approach that recognizes the

interconnectivity between the dimensions and elements while also identifying meaningful

differences between the dimensions and elements that can serve the advancement of both theory

and practice, thereby addressing some of the existing debate in leader character research.

To deliver on our aim of examining leaders’ perceptions of leader character and explore

the structure of leader character essential to sustained excellence, we sought to close the gap

between theory and practice using a three-phase multi-method and multi-source engaged

scholarship approach. Van de Ven (2007) argued that the gap between theory and practice is not

simply a knowledge translation problem, but rather it often is a knowledge production problem.

As well, he suggested that it is through the process of engagement that “common meaning” (p.

246) is established. Such an approach is neither purely inductive nor purely deductive. Rather it

uses prior theory to inform the engaged scholarship approach while using the perspective of

practicing managers to inform the underlying theory.

Phase 1 involved face-to-face sessions using Q-sort methodology to examine how

business leaders (N = 46) define character. Phase 2 involved an on-line Q-sort task with 874

leaders from two organizations rating the importance of the leader character elements. Phase 3

built on the findings of phases 1 and 2 to examine responses on leader character in one

organization involving 111 leaders and 722 raters using a 360-degree assessment of leader

character. We replicated the findings of phase 3 in a sample of 20 small and medium enterprise

(SME) owners and 44 senior managers working for a public organization to assess the

generalizability of our findings. We also related leader character to measures of performance.

We provide a brief overview of the Q-sort methodology before describing the three phases in

more detail.

Q-sort Methodology

Q-sort methodology is ideally suited to establish the bridge we seek to make between

theory and practice, which also entails bridging rigor and relevance. The methodology employs

a range of techniques to provide a systematic study of individuals’ personal beliefs, values,

attitudes, and viewpoints on a topic (McKeown & Thomas, 1988; van Exel, 2005). A group of

respondents are presented with a sample of statements, called the Q Set, about some topic. Most

Q Sets contain between 40 and 60 statements. The respondents are asked to rate the Q Set

statements according to their personal judgments about them. In our study, participants were

asked to rate how essential each element of character is to effective personal leadership in

organizations. Participants also used the Q Set to sort elements into leader character dimensions.

Phase 1

In phase 1 we identified an initial pool of character elements and dimensions and then

conducted a face-to-face Q-sort with nine executives to (1) identify the importance of the

elements; and (2) assess the alignment of the elements with the dimensions. The Q-sort provided

the full description of each element. The primary aim of phase 1 was to forge an initial bridge

between theory and practice in a co-creation process. We took the existing theory as a starting

point and used the face-to-face Q-sort process to modify it. We then piloted an on-line Q-sort

with the nine executives.

Step 1 - Identifying character elements and dimensions. As input into the Q-sort we

identified character elements that had not been included in the Peterson and Seligman (2004)

classification of twenty-four and subjected the new elements to the same criteria they employed.

That is, that the elements be: fulfilling; intrinsically valuable; non-rivalrous; not the opposite of a

desirable trait; trait-like or habitual patterns that are relatively stable over time; not a

combination of the other character strengths; personified by people made famous through story,

song, etc.; absent in some individuals; and nurtured by societal norms and institutions. We did

not invoke Peterson and Seligman’s criteria that the element be observable in child prodigies

given that they themselves noted that it was not applicable to all character strengths and, given

our interest in the context of leadership in organizations, we deemed this to be tangential. Our

intention was to cast a wide net to allow practitioners, through the Q-sort methodology

employed, to surface the meaning they associated with the elements of character. Therefore,

when in doubt, we erred on the side of inclusion in the initial stages.

We reviewed publicly available documentation from organizations, such as annual

reports, web sites and articles, and employed our judgment to identify missing character

dimensions and elements. For example, accountability was central to the leadership profile of

many organizations and fit the criteria established by Peterson and Seligman (2004). In addition,

we had many opportunities to test the face validity of the evolving set of dimensions and

elements given presentations on leader character and roundtable discussions that we conducted

during this period, which lasted one year.

It is important to note that although this research is intended to inform both theory and

practice, there is a natural tension that exists between the two. In particular, there are often

significant differences in the language employed by researchers and practitioners. Although we

employed semantic analysis to investigate the differences, we needed to rely on our judgment

throughout the research. For example, the commonly used practitioner term “vision” does not

adequately capture the virtue of transcendence as identified by scholars. On the other hand, the

commonly used practitioner term “judgment” proved to be a reasonable substitute for the virtue

of “wisdom” and, in fact, our research revealed that it more accurately captured the scholarly

underpinning of wisdom in the minds of practitioners. Wisdom carried with it the unwanted

connotation of needing to be “old and grey” as we often heard. Similarly, we replaced the

character strength of “love” with the more corporately acceptable “compassion”. We

acknowledge there are differences in the research traditions underlying love and compassion, and

concluded that compassion might provide the closest approximation to love in organizational

contexts.

In the course of assessing whether additional character dimensions and elements should

be added we also encountered a more difficult question of whether Peterson and Seligman’s

(2004) six virtues (again, what we refer to as leader character dimensions since this is the

language that practitioners more easily relate to as opposed to virtues and character strengths)

adequately captured the way in which practicing managers experienced them. It became apparent

from discussions with executives that some character elements needed to be elevated to the level

of dimension to recognize the weight placed on it in practice. For example, whereas integrity

was a character strength in the Peterson and Seligman classification, we identified it as a

dimension with associated character elements. This was not simply prompted by practice, but

also by the burgeoning theory supporting leader integrity (e.g., Dineen, Lewicki & Tomlinson

2006; Gentry et al., 2013; Moorman, Darnold & Priesemuth, 2013; Palanski & Yammarino,

2011). Similarly, we included accountability as a dimension given the heavy emphasis placed on

it in both organizations and in the governance of those organizations. Whereas humility had

been housed under temperance in the Peterson and Seligman classification, we identified it as a

dimension given the emerging research pointing to the importance of this virtue in leadership

(e.g., Ou, Tsui, Kinicki, Waldman, Xiao & Song, 2014; Owens & Hekman, 2012; Owens,

Johnson & Mitchell, 2013). Finally, we included collaboration as a dimension given the heavy

emphasis placed on it in practice.

As with the character elements, our intention was to err on a broad rather than narrow

conceptualization and allow participants in the study to assess their perceived importance.

However, we excluded some character strengths identified by Peterson and Seligman from our

framework including spirituality and humour. It was not simply that these terms were not part of

practitioners’ everyday language or vocabulary since words like temperance and transcendence

did not evoke the same resistance. Rather, the practitioners argued quite strongly that these

terms did not have a place in an organizational context. While they accepted the inclusion of

spirituality and humour in frameworks of character that focus on individual well-being in life,

they were concerned that including these terms would undermine the credibility and application

of the leader character framework in organizations. We return to this point in our discussion.

Figure 1 depicts the original Organizational Leader Character (OLC) framework we

employed in the Q-sort study as well as the revised framework based on the initial findings. The

original OLC contained 10 organizing dimensions: integrity, courage, accountability,

temperance, justice, humanity, judgment, collaboration, transcendence, and, humility, along with

43 associated character elements. So, for example, in the original OLC the dimension of courage

contains the following elements: bravery, vitality, self-confidence, determination and resilience.

---------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

---------------------------------------

Step 2 - Pilot study of face-to-face Q-sort methodology. We conducted a face-to-face Q-

sort methodology pilot study with nine executives (3 women; 6 men). These executives were

highly experienced and reputable business leaders including former CEOs and board members of

companies in industries such as financial services, packaged goods and consulting who had been

engaging in discussions with both graduate students and scholars about leader character. Hence

they were able to provide the kind of informed expertise we were seeking in our engaged

scholarship approach to bridge theory and practice. There were two groups of three participants,

and three individual interviews. Each session took between 120 and 180 minutes. All sessions

were audio taped and reviewed to ensure we captured key insights. Participants were presented

with a set of cards, each of which provided a set of statements that describes a potential leader

character element. They were asked: Please rate each of the following character elements

according to how strongly you agree or disagree that it is an essential or very important element

of effective personal leadership in organizations. The rating scale used was a 7-point continuum

ranging from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree), with 0 as the neutral midpoint.

Following this, participants were asked to clarify their reasoning for the ratings. They

were also invited to identify any additional elements of leader character that came to mind during

the process, but were not among the cards provided. Those who identified additional character

elements were asked to rate these additional elements. Finally, the participants were asked to

organize the character elements into broader categories of related dimensions. Upon completing

this process, we conducted a group discussion and debriefing, focused upon soliciting

participants’ feedback about the process itself and the character elements under consideration.

The participants’ ratings and categorizations were captured on score-sheets.

The pilot test groups provided valuable feedback and suggestions for improving the face-

to-face group process and clarifying the inventory of potential leader character dimensions and

elements. As well, the groups identified many nuances important to interpreting the results of

the study. The following were the key findings.

(a) A large majority of the character elements were rated "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" as

being very important or essential to effective personal leadership in organizations. This

finding provided a preliminary indication of a high degree of consensus at the "Agree"

end of the response continuum.

(b) Only a small list of the character elements were rated "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree"

as being very important or essential to effective personal leadership in organizations and

there was no consensus on these elements. This result provided a preliminary indication

of a low degree of consensus at the "Disagree" end of the rating continuum.

The lack of consensus prompted discussions that helped to clarify the meaning

participants ascribed to the character elements.

(d) Participants also identified an additional 18 potential character elements they deemed

important or essential to effective personal leadership in organizations. However, there

was no consensus on the Agree – Disagree ratings for these additional dimensions.

We probed the differences of opinions in ratings for importance of the elements and

discovered that there were two main sources of variation. First, there were different

interpretations around the element descriptions. For example, there appeared to be a common

concern amongst practitioners that many leaders are simply “jerks” with other more colorful

language often used. While there are many sources for this behavior, capturing the virtuous form

of the desired behavior seemed to be important. The term “agreeable” was intended to do that.

However, respondents revealed that this term had an unwanted connotation around simply

“agreeing” or “being easy.” The nature of the discussion around this term was similar to the type

of discussion with many of the elements and their definitions. Thus we sought to clarify labels

and definitions to weed out any confusion arising from semantics. With an engaged scholarship

approach the semantics are very important.

Second, there were differences in interpretation about what “essential” meant. For some

respondents it meant that the element should be present all the time and without concern for any

limit. For example, integrity was viewed as something that should be employed all the time and

one for which there is no danger of having too much, whereas something like humility was

viewed as not always required and in fact could be counterproductive when present in excess. As

well, since the executives did not employ the full range of the scale, we adjusted the scale in

subsequent administrations from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important).

The participants identified 18 additional potential character elements. Many of these

were closely connected with, or subsumed within, the original 43 character elements. However,

the conversations revealed a dimension and set of elements that had been overlooked – the

dimension of drive which became associated with the following elements: strives for excellence;

demonstrates initiative; results-oriented; vigorous; and passionate. Participants were insistent that

drive should be viewed as a critical dimension of character. Given that the elements it subsumes

were consistent with the criteria we had established for inclusion, and that there is a considerable

literature connecting vigor (an element of drive) and well-being, we included drive as a

dimension.

Our discussions with these practitioners also reminded us that the dimension of judgment

plays a central role in character, which was not captured in the original framework. Consistent

with Aristotle’s view of practical wisdom, judgment is a dimension in and of itself. For

example, on a daily basis, business leaders face a host of pressures – economic, regulatory,

political, competitive, financial, market-based and so on – in their decision making. However, as

Aristotle described, it is the judgment arising from the virtue of practical wisdom, shaped by

practice and reflection, which enables individuals to apply virtues, or in our terminology

character dimensions, in context. For example, Tichy and Bennis (2007) wrote that “Any

leader’s most important role in any organization is making good judgments – well-informed,

wise decisions that produce the desired outcomes. When a leader shows consistently good

judgment, little else matters. When he or she shows poor judgment, nothing else matters” (p. 94).

However, judgment also serves a special role in activating the other dimensions of character as

the situation requires. One of the participants provided us with an appropriate metaphor:

judgment acts like the air traffic controller, orchestrating the various dimensions in a given

context (e.g., when it’s appropriate to demonstrate humility and when to show confidence; or

when to be temperate and when to be bold). The metaphor is consistent with the work of Shotter

and Tsoukas (2014) on phronetic leadership, or the application of practical wisdom.

As a result, in the revised framework, we placed judgment in the middle. We also

reassembled the positioning of the dimensions in the framework as discussions revealed some

possible groupings and tensions that might prove useful for future research. This was immaterial

to the process we pursued in our study since the framework was not revealed to the participants.

However, during the course of our research we continued to gather feedback on the framework

with various audiences and found it to be meaningful to academics, students and practitioners in

the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. As we note in subsequent sections, placing

judgment in the middle of the framework is also borne out by the quantitative data we obtained.

We moved from a face-to-face Q-sort to an on-line Q-sort using the revised framework

shown in Figure 1. Definitions of the 11 character dimensions are provided in Table 1.

---------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

---------------------------------------

Step 3 – Pilot on-line Q-sort. We returned to the nine executives involved in the pilot

study to ensure that the translation from face-to-face to the on-line methodology captured the

essential elements and engagement of the face-to-face process. We expanded the on-line pilot

test with the executives to include 37 executive MBA students, representing diverse industry

backgrounds. The results from the on-line Q-sort suggested the task could be easily ported and

we obtained consistent results concerning the importance of the character elements. However, it

was clear that the rich insights such as the interpretation of the meaning of each character

element, and why it was deemed to be important, attained in the face-to-face approach could not

be captured with the on-line version. We accepted this limitation as the feedback we received

from the executives in the face-to-face sessions was that we were “tweaking” what they saw to

be a very sound set of dimensions, elements and approach.

In summary, phase 1 was instrumental in the engaged scholarship approach to address

both substantive and semantic issues associated with leader character. It provided an important

foundation to move forward to phase 2 and ensured that both the content and the approach

moving from face-to-face to the on-line Q-sort was sound.

Phase 2

Van de Ven (2007) describes one of the challenges of an engaged scholarship approach

as being able to actually engage practitioners. It is a testament to the importance of leader

character that we secured business organizations to participate with relative ease and a high

response rate (over 60 percent) of their leadership.

Q-sort. We conducted an initial on-line Q-sort with one organization to assess the

importance of the leader character elements. The organization is a large industrial, multi-

divisional conglomerate with operations mainly in Canada and the United States. We

approached this company because it is considered a leader in management development and

training, running its own executive MBA program. We received a 62 percent response rate with

502 responses from the pool of 800 leaders. There were missing responses to parts of the survey

with 364 respondents completing the entire survey. Respondents were between 35 and 54 years

of age. Thirty-four percent of the respondents were first-level leaders (e.g., supervisors and

managers); 60 percent were leaders of leaders (e.g., senior managers and directors); and 6

percent were identified as executive leaders (e.g., vice-president, senior vice-president, or

executive vice-president). Eighty-three percent of the respondents were male which reflects the

male composition in the managerial ranks of the organization.

We were given an opportunity to conduct a similar on-line Q-sort in a second

organization - a large, multi-line insurance company with operations across Canada. The results

showed that the differences in the assessment of the importance of the elements between the two

organizations were immaterial and hence we aggregated the data to increase the robustness of

our analysis. Given the large sample size, and the small absolute differences in scores on the

elements, the differences, although statistically significant, were not practically relevant as the

effect size was only small. The average Cohen’s d for all items was .18. For example, the two

scores for adaptable were 4.14 and 4.23, demonstrating the element’s importance to participants

from both organizations; Cohen’s d = .12. We received a 62 percent response rate with 372

responses from a pool of 600 leaders. There were missing responses to parts of the survey with

324 respondents completing the entire survey. Respondents were between 25 and 64 years of

age. Thirty percent of the respondents were first-level leaders (e.g., supervisors and managers);

59 percent were leaders of leaders (e.g., senior managers and directors); and 11 percent of

respondents were executive leaders (e.g., vice-president, senior vice-president, or executive vice-

president). Fifty-seven percent of the respondents were female.

Table 2 provides the results of the combined responses for the two organizations (N =

874) on the perceived importance of the elements. For ease of reference we aggregated the “very

important” and “extremely important” categories and ordered the elements by the percentage of

respondents in the combined category. The results reveal that there is a high degree of consensus

that the elements are important with minor exceptions. For example, at least five percent of

respondents felt that being appreciative, purposive, reflective, modest and magnanimous were

“not at all important”. Magnanimous at 9.27% was the highest in that category.

---------------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

---------------------------------------

The results from Phase 2 provided the foundation to move to Phase 3 where we examine

the dimensionality of the constructs in further detail.

Phase 3

The behavioral statements used to describe the character elements from phases 1 and 2

were the basis for a survey designed for a 360-degree feedback assessment. Behavioral

statements are the preferred method of assessment given that they measure what people actually

do on the job, are less susceptible to biases outside the control of the person being evaluated, and

typically show higher inter-rater reliability than trait-based measures (Latham & Wexley, 1994).

However, the behavioral statements embed within them important cognitive/emotional

components as consistent with the definition of character. For example, the dimension of

temperance requires significant self-regulation of emotion and cognition and the dimension of

humanity invokes empathy and compassion, which have both cognitive and emotional aspects.

As described by Crossan et al. (2013), character is shaped through a learning process that

involves important cognitive functions such as awareness, intent and reflection. Emotions are

certainly invoked because cognition is amplified by emotions (Russell, 2003). Hence character is

manifested in behavior but has embedded within it habits of cognition and emotion. As well, it

is important to keep in mind that all of these aspects of character are essential for behaviors to be

reflective of the virtuous form.

The survey was conducted in a large multinational organization that had expressed

interest in our work on leadership. And, like the industrial, multi-divisional conglomerate in

phase 2, the organization invests heavily in leadership development. The participants included

111 leaders (79 males and 32 females) identified by the senior leadership team as having high

potential for promotion to higher leadership levels. Age and gender were not collected for

confidentiality purposes. Given the importance of the initiative there was a 100 percent response

rate. Respondents assessed the likelihood they exhibit the behaviors associated with the

character elements. Scale scores ranged from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). We

augmented this process with ratings from supervisors (N = 73 raters providing 213 ratings

overall), peers (N = 194 raters providing 434 ratings overall), direct and indirect reports (N = 347

raters providing 407 ratings overall) and other source ratings (N = 108 raters providing 245

ratings overall) so that we had multi-rater assessments. Raters were asked to select the rating that

best represents their judgment of how likely the leader is to engage in the work behavior.

Whereas phases 1 and 2 allowed us to examine leader perspectives on the importance and

categorization of the character elements, this phase allowed us to tap into how leaders (or high

potentials as the organization labeled them) assessed themselves on these elements and how they

were assessed by others. In addition, we received performance ratings from supervisors that

allowed us to explore the predictive validity of the leader character dimensions.

The data captured from phase 3 allowed us to assess the reliability of the behavioral

measures associated with each of the 11 dimensions. All dimensions, regardless of rater, had

reliabilities above .7 with the majority above .8. In spite of the underlying theory suggesting

high correlations among the dimensions, 49 out of 55 inter-correlations were below the .85

threshold (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) for the supervisor assessments of subordinates. There were

multiple leadership perspectives on each individual with 73 supervisors providing 214 ratings on

the 111 leaders. This occurred because in some cases the leader operated in a matrix structure

with two managers and in other cases the leader opted to receive feedback from a former

supervisor as well as the current supervisor. We are using the term supervisor, however, these

were essentially leaders of the participants surveyed.

The dimensions with less discriminant validity were the pairings of collaboration with

both humanity and humility, and also humanity with humility. Accountability was closely

connected to both courage and drive, and courage and drive were also connected. These results

are not surprising since both humility and collaboration were derived from the virtue of

humanity; and drive was derived from courage (see Peterson & Seligman, 2004). However, it

was surprising that accountability was aligned with courage and drive as it was expected that it

might be more closely associated with justice.

Our revised model of leader character (see Figure 1) assumes that although each

character dimension is distinct from each other, the dimensions and their elements are inter-

connected, and thus form a complex network of correlated constructs. A novel approach is

required to disentangle such complexity embedded in the theory of leader character.

Network Theory and Concepts

Network theory, which is derived from graph theory in mathematics, is ideally suited to

investigate the interconnection between complex, correlated constructs in management research

(Borgatti & Halgin, 2011). Network theory, and particularly social network analysis as its main

application, has been steadily gaining traction across management disciplines (for a review on

the different theoretical approaches to network theory, see Borgatti & Halgin (2011)). At the

macro level, network theory has been applied to explain the effect of diversity on innovation

(Mors, 2010), corporate governance (Mcdonald, Khanna & Westphal, 2008), directorate

interlocks (Martin, Gözübüyük & Becerra, 2015), and to propose protection mechanisms by

which boards may prevent knowledge spillover to indirectly connected rival firms (Hernandez,

Sanders & Tuschke, 2015).

Network theory has been used at the micro level to predict individual and group

performance (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne & Kraimer, 2001), team viability and performance

(Balkundi & Harrison, 2006), and the emergence of a justice climate in self-managed teams

(Roberson & Williamson, 2012). It has also been used to predict leader emergence as well as

followers’ attributions of charisma (Balkundi, Kilduff & Harrison, 2011; Pastor, Meindl &

Mayo, 2002). Lastly, network theory has been applied by scholars to explore the theoretical

connections between mainstream leadership theories (Meuser et al., 2016).

A network consists of a set of entities together with relationships between those entities

(Butts, 2008). Entities may include individuals, groups, organizations, or constructs such as

leader character dimensions. Network theory requires that each entity, also referred to as a node,

be unique and separate from each other, so that they can be easily distinguished from other

entities, or nodes. Likewise, the set of potential relations to be studied within a network, further

referred to as ties, must be constrained not by content, but by their formal properties.

Specifically, relations must be defined on the basis of pairs of entities (i.e., a tie connects two

nodes) and must reveal a dichotomous qualitative distinction between relationships which are

present and those which are absent. In other words, there must be a clear way to determine

whether a tie between two nodes exists. A tie can be operationalized, for example, by calculating

a Pearson correlation coefficient between two nodes that systematically covary.

Network theory may be of service to understand leader character in three distinct ways.

First, by using a measure of association across its nodes (or, in our case, the character elements)

(e.g., Pearson’s r), an adjacency function can be used to determine which of the paths are

relevant to the network. Furthermore, researchers can conduct a modularity analysis in order to

identify modules (i.e., equivalent to latent or higher order constructs in traditional latent variable

approaches such as EFA or CFA) that emerge from the network configuration. In network

theory, modularity refers to the tendency of a network’s nodes to form modules. If such modules

appear, researchers can then explore the assortative mixing of those modules, understood as the

tendency of nodes to group together with similar nodes (or, in our case, whether the similar

character elements group together into the expected dimensions) (McPherson, Smith-Lovin &

Cook, 2001). This approach has a number of advantages over other latent-variable approaches to

scale construction and validation aimed at complex, intertwined systems. Some of its advantages

are: (a) similar to EFA, it is a data-driven approach, which does not force a pre-existing

theoretical model to fit the data; (b) since a network is an undirected cyclic graph, it does not

assume that observed variables are directed towards a latent construct; and (c) it is a more

efficient approach in terms of statistical power and sample sizes, allowing the testing of complex

intertwined models within relatively small samples, even when compared to CFA robust

estimation methods for ordinal data that use polychoric correlations and asymptotic covariance

matrixes such as robust weighted least squares (N < 300; Moshagen & Musch, 2014).

Second, unlike latent variable approaches, a network analysis allows researchers to

evaluate the relative position of each module (or, in our case, the dimension) vis-à-vis other

modules and hence the role they play within the network. For example, social network analysis

has shown that individuals who have a more central role within their groups tend to perform

better (Sparrowe at al., 2001). This is because they have more relationships to draw upon to

obtain resources and hence are less dependent on any single individual. In our research,

judgment plays a central role in the theory of leader character. It allows individuals to

consciously regulate the behavioral expression of the other character dimensions, which may act

as a resource that they can draw on.

A third feature of network analysis is that researchers can test the network centrality of a

module by weakening it (from 1.0 to 0) and examine its effect on the overall efficiency of the

network (or the ability of the module to connect to all other modules in the network). Typically,

the more central a module is, the higher the reduction in the network’s efficiency.

To explore the structure of leader character we employed the network approach. We

used R statistical software to run the analysis in two steps. First, we conducted a modularity

analysis taking each character element as a node. The tendency for a network’s nodes to attach

to others that are similar is called assortative mixing (Newman, 2002). Newman’s assortative

coefficient ranges from -1 to +1. A positive coefficient indicates a tendency towards the

clustering of similar elements. We chose this approach because we expected similar character

elements to be more strongly connected among themselves rather than other dissimilar yet

related elements. The assortative coefficient for the sample was .25 thus suggesting a modular

network as expected. That is, the 61 elements clustered into the expected character dimensions

(see Figure 2). Second, we ran a centrality analysis for each of the 11 dimensions. The results

showed that, as leader character theory suggests, judgment emerged as the most central

dimension in the network as it is the module with the highest betweenness score (see Figure 3).

This centrality score is obtained by counting the number of shortest paths (i.e., the most efficient

route to connect any two nodes in a network, or in our case, modules which act as higher-order

nodes, that go through a given node). The network’s efficiency, understood as the ability to

adequately connect its modules (Latora & Marchiori, 2001), decreased when we reduced the

centrality of judgment. The results in Figure 3 show that all character dimensions are connected

to judgment either directly or indirectly through other dimensions (all p’s < 01).

---------------------------------------

Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here

---------------------------------------

We replicated our network approach in a second sample, which was substantively

different from the first sample, to test the generalizability of our findings. The sample consisted

of 20 SME owners (mean age 40.57, SD = 9.94; 54.2% female) and 44 senior managers (mean

age 44.36, SD = 8.37; 52.5% female) of a public institution, both from Latin America. For the

SME owners, the mean tenure as leader was 12.09 years (SD = 10.52) and the average span of

control was 392.25 reports (SD = 738.54). The public institution was a large university which

has a strong local reputation for excellence in the technical disciplines (e.g., engineering

androbotics, etc.) and management education. The invitation to participate in the study was

extended to leaders who occupy a senior administrative position. The mean tenure as leader was

4.99 years (SD = 3.86) and the average span of control was 72.07 reports (SD = 236.65). All

participants completed the self-report measure of leader character.

The network analysis showed that the assortative coefficient was .35 and that the

elements grouped into the expected dimensions (see Figure 4). The centrality analyses revealed

that judgment emerged as the most central dimension in the network (see Figure 5). Finally, the

network’s efficiency decreased when we reduced the centrality of judgment. In sum, we

replicated the results we obtained with the large multinational organization.

---------------------------------------

Insert Figures 4 and 5 about here

---------------------------------------

We examined the correlations between the peer assessments of leader character and the

supervisor assessments of the various measures of leader performance as shown in Table 3. The

nine performance items were written specifically for this study. The results of an exploratory

factor-analysis showed that the items clearly loaded onto one factor. The Cronbach’s alpha of

the performance scale was .78.

---------------------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

---------------------------------------

The results showed that the correlation between courage and performance as well as the

correlation between transcendence and performance were not significant; the other character

dimensions correlated positively with performance. We draw from this analysis the general

predictive validity of the leader character framework, with caution that these are supervisor

assessments of likelihood of promotion and derailment, as opposed to actual assessments.

Importantly, these results in conjunction with those from the network analyses reveal strong

reliability and solid discriminant validity given the ontological nature of leader character.

Moreover, raters did differentiate between the subordinates and their leader character although

restriction of range remains an explanation for the non-significant correlations.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of our study was to leverage prior research on character to address

the two-pronged question: What are the essential dimensions and elements of leader character in

organizational contexts? And how do the dimensions and elements relate to one another? We

invoked an engaged scholarship approach to ensure the voice of practitioners was captured in the

study. We take as a given that research aims to be both rigorous by academic standards and

relevant to the practice of management. Emerging theory on leader character that does not take

into account managerial perspectives or practice fosters a stream of research that may be

compelling and interesting for academics but is irrelevant at best and dysfunctional at worst for

practitioners (Ghoshal, 2005). The 2008 financial and subsequent economic crisis and many

corporate scandals have put into question whether the theories leadership researchers have

conceptualized, tested and taught to students and executive audiences failed to prevent the crisis

and may have indeed contributed to it (Ashlander, Filos & Kaldis, 2011; Gandz, Crossan, Seijts

& Stephenson, 2010; Jones & Millar, 2010). This may be partially due to the notion that the solo

creation of theory by academics has resulted in many theories that remain idealistic yet

unrealistic at best (Hannah, Sumanth, Lester & Cavarretta, 2014). Thus the engaged scholarship

approach serves to shape theory in ways that are in concert with practice.

Our research revealed there is support for the dimensions of leader character and

substantial support for most of the elements of leader character as essential for effective personal

leadership. Nonetheless, there are important semantic and experiential differences that need to

be taken into account in future research. For example, the results revealed that individuals tend

to view certain character dimensions such as integrity, accountability and drive as always

required, while others such as humility, humanity and justice are seen to be required in

moderation only. In part, this may be because many organizations tend to use the language of

integrity, accountability and drive in their value statements and communication to stakeholders;

far fewer emphasize, for example, humility, humanity and justice despite strong empirical

support that these dimensions too relate to individually and organizationally-relevant variables

(e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001; Ou et al., 2014; Ridge & Ingram, 2014; Skarlicki & Latham, 1997).

Future research could assess whether there is a correspondence between the respondents’

assessment of the importance of character elements and the visibility of the elements in publicly

available documentation. Individuals may simply respond more positively to elements with

which they are familiar (e.g., several of the elements may be embedded in performance

management, reward and other HR systems). Furthermore, it appears there are some behavioral

expressions of leader character that are more visible, such as drive and courage, leading to the

belief that they are required all or most of the time. Do we tend to celebrate leaders of a certain

character profile? Is there a lack of awareness of how one dimension relates to another, therefore

shortchanging the potential that a dimension such as humility might have for supporting courage,

for example? These are important questions to consider in more detail, in particular as the results

from phase 3 show that most of the leader character dimensions correlated with supervisor

assessments of leader performance.

We also sought to address the structure of leader character. The ontological and

phenomenological nature of leader character is such that its dimensions and elements should be

tightly inter-related. From a research standpoint the inter-related nature of the dimensions are

somewhat problematic. They will be more highly correlated than is customary in traditional

research that seeks to tease apart the various dimensions of theoretical constructs to enhance their

discriminant validity. Because typical research methods do not work well with highly correlated

constructs, there is a danger of force fitting theory to comply with methods, as opposed to

dealing with the inherent complexity of the phenomenon and finding methods that allow

researchers to investigate it. Thus, in the search for rigor, researchers will need to be mindful of

not distorting theory to fit available measurement methods. The network analysis we employed

in phase 3 allowed us to explore the interconnections between character elements and the

dimensions. The results shown in Table 2 and Figures 2 – 5 empirically support an integrated

framework that reinforces the inter-related nature of character dimensions connected through

judgment, which has important implications for research on character and leadership as we

describe below. However, we recognize the limitations of the representation of leader character

portrayed in Figure 1. While it is clear that judgment is central in the network, further research

will be required to understand the complex relationship amongst the dimensions including the

testable proposition that behaviors associated with character have embedded habits of cognition

and emotion.

Some practitioners cautioned about having a leader character framework with too many

dimensions. In our view and experience, significant meaning would be lost by aggregating

dimensions such as those that correlate around more common views of leadership attributes (e.g.,

integrity, courage, drive and accountability) and less common attributes (e.g., humanity and

humility). Nonetheless, there is merit in future research identifying whether there is a set of

alternative dimensions that serve both theory and practice. For example, our results showed

there was less discriminant validity between collaboration, humanity and humility. However, we

suggest it is premature to collapse these dimensions. We consider humility to be an important

dimension of character and indeed it was among the strongest predictors of performance and the

likelihood of derailment. Peterson and Seligman (2004) consider humility an element that

supports the dimension of temperance. However, temperance and humility had discriminant

validity in our study. There is a substantial literature on humility and its importance to

leadership (e.g., Morris, Brotheridge & Urbanski, 2005; Owens & Hekman, 2012). Thus, we

recommend that humility warrants further research as a dimension of leader character.

Furthermore, our addition of collaboration as a dimension of character was to reflect the

importance of teamwork in organizational contexts in the public, private and not-for-profit

sectors. Teamwork was listed alongside accountability and integrity in almost every leadership

profile we reviewed. Peterson and Seligman (2004) included teamwork as an element of justice

in their classification. The results of our study revealed that collaboration and justice showed

discriminant validity. Again, given the importance of collaboration in organizations, there is

reason to include it as a dimension of leader character. Future studies should examine its

connections to humanity and humility. We recommend a similar approach to investigating the

links between drive, courage and accountability. The results of our quantitative analyses showed

good reliability but may require greater discriminant validity among the character dimensions.

Future studies therefore should examine the merits of keeping these dimensions as separate, to

collapse them, or to include them as elements in other dimensions.

We also learned that bridging theory and practice requires researchers to be mindful of

the terms they use to describe a construct. In our research, the substitution of judgment for

wisdom is a prime example. We do not view the choice of terms as inconsequential or a

compromise, but rather as a thoughtful consideration for the essence of the theory and its

manifestation in practice. For example, as with the case of judgment, the substitution provides

an important connection to practice while providing critical links to the substantial literature on

judgment and decision making (JDM) in organizations (e.g., Bazerman & Moore, 2008;

Kahneman, 2003; Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky, 1982). The JDM literature does not entertain

the possibility of strengthening the agency of the individual through the development and

activation of character but rather focuses on how contextual or situational variables affect JDM.

Inserting leader character as a factor that may explain JDM has the potential to add significant

value to that large body of research. The act of bridging theory and practice thus serves to

strengthen both theory and practice.

Research on leader character tends to treat character in similar ways to personality

constructs where strengths and weaknesses are identified in a team context (e.g., the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator or the Personality Research Form). In contrast to research that focuses on

one’s strengths and complementing one’s weaknesses with other team members, the theory and

practice of leader character suggests that weaknesses in character may be the limiting factor in

leader effectiveness. The connectivity and inter-relationships among the character dimensions

(as shown in Figures 2 - 5) is a core premise that warrants further research. The arguments

supporting integration of the dimensions and elements are compelling in theory, however, future

research should examine the personal, team and organizational consequences of imbalances

among leader character dimensions. For example, is reckless behavior more likely to occur if

courage and drive are high yet temperance is low? Studies should also focus on whether and

how the leader character dimensions can be strengthened or deepened. For example, how can

leaders strengthen their transcendence, humanity or humility? What are the best developmental

approaches to activate these dimensions and associated elements? In addition, can we

distinguish behaviors that have no virtuous intent from those that do? For example, can a person

appear to be compassionate but with no underlying intent to be compassionate?

Aristotle indicated that practical wisdom (judgment) was required to exercise character in

context. The results from phase 3 showed that judgment was indeed the most central dimension

in the network of leader character dimensions. Future research should further examine the

construct of judgment as it may help resolve some issues about when and how individuals draw

on particular dimensions of character. For example, there is a substantial role for future research

that seeks to unpack the relationship between context and character through judgment, thereby

contributing to contingency and situational leadership theories. The character dimensions can be

thought of as a repository of resources that leaders can use to adjust their behavior across

situations, so that their leadership behaviors remain virtuous. Hence, pursuing sustained

organizational excellence requires character dimensions such as transcendence, courage and

drive, but also dimensions such as justice, humility and humanity. More importantly, character

elevates judgment into a central role in leadership to ensure the harmonic behavioral display of

these resources in ever-shifting contexts.

It also appeared that participants in our study did not always recognize that some vices

may masquerade as virtues. For example, the data revealed, and it was not uncommon to hear in

conversations with executives, that “you can never have too much integrity.” Yet, the

underlying theory suggests that integrity coupled with a weakness in humility can lead to

someone who is overly dogmatic and self-righteous, leading to potentially negative personal

outcomes. Moreover, leaders could stand on integrity to justify what are often very callous and

self-interested actions. Similarly, collaboration without courage and accountability may lead to

individuals who refrain from disagreeing with a colleague even when they should, resulting in

poor decision making due to groupthink (Janis, 1982). These reflections are important given the

recent discussions of the phenomenon of “too much of a good thing” in both social psychological

(Grant & Schwartz, 2011) and management (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) research. For example,

many managerial behaviors that are traditionally seen as having a positive and linear relationship

with performance and follower outcomes are being revisited with a more critical lens.

Specifically, behaviors such as assertiveness (Ames & Flynn, 2007), conscientiousness (Hogan

& Hogan, 2001) and positive affect (Baron, Hmieleski, & Henry, 2012) that are not exemplary of

the virtuous mean as proposed by Aristotle (Grant & Schwartz, 2011) have led to poor decision

making and worsening performance. This reinforces the important inter-relationship between the

dimensions of character which is currently an underdeveloped are in leadership research.

Practical Implications

Leaders have told us that what they need is a contemporary, practice-focused vocabulary

with which to address character in the workplace. This vocabulary needs to be expressed in the

language used in today’s organizations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.

Providing behavioral descriptors is of critical importance to ensure that the character dimensions

and elements are understood, accepted and enacted in practice. A framework of leader character

that can be employed in organizations has important practical implications. First, it not only

brings clarity to something that has been somewhat of a mystery to practitioners, but also

provides the foundation for subsequent leadership development. We see this as essential for

successful implementation of character alongside competencies in leadership profiles that are

used in HR systems. Second, individuals in the workplace need to be able to observe individuals

who model the character dimensions and supporting elements. This means that senior leaders

should lead by example and affirm, through what they say and what they reward, those who

exhibit the requisite behaviors and explain how these contributed to personal and organizational

success. Our framework of leader character provides those leaders who have capacity for self-

reflection with a “check-list” for doing this. Third, character needs to be embedded in

organizational systems and processes such as recruitment and selection, performance

management, leadership development, promotion, and so on to ensure that it receives as high a

profile as competencies in organizations. The results from phase 3 showed that leaders’

character dimensions as rated by peers correlated with performance assessments of their

supervisors. Thus, there is opportunity for future research to empirically examine the role of

character in recruitment, selection, performance management and leadership development and

the effects on performance across multiple levels.

We see the opportunity that wherever competencies reside in organizations, character can

and should be considered alongside. Additionally, there is opportunity to take a character based

approach to organizational practices and initiatives that extend beyond HR. For example, future

research should explore the impact that a character based approach might have on organizational

regulators. Regulators could incorporate character when engaging in risk management and

compliance, bringing attention to the strength of character for sound judgment within

organizations. Future research could also explore the impact that character can have on both

strategic and organizational change. Strength of character helps to ensure that leaders have the

courage to speak up or to take action, the temperance to know when to exercise patience and

calm, the humanity to deeply understand the needs and concerns of organization members, yet

the sense of accountability and justice that helps leaders sort out what are often competing issues

to name just a few examples. It is perhaps the foundation for much of what has been missing in

leadership and other aspects of organizational practices.

Limitations and Generalizability

While our research has been robust employing a three phase multi-method approach

engaging almost 2000 leaders in five organizations, the findings are limited to these five

organizations from North and Latin America. An opportunity exists to assess the generalizability

of our findings across organizations and cultures. Given the subsequent qualitative work we

have done across sectors (e.g., different industries in the private sector) and cultures (e.g., in

North America, Asia and Europe), early indications suggest the framework appears to be

promising in terms of its generalizability. However, there is significant opportunity to

empirically examine the generalizability of our findings and whether there are underlying

differences across organizations and country cultures. We anticipate this will be particularly

important in understanding the structure and development of leader character.

Our framework focuses on leader character, and we have not presented a model that

anticipates how different contextual pressures affect leader character, nor how leader character

may affect context. This remains an opportunity for future research and the more that we and

others can do this, the more this framework will become useful to practitioners.

CONCLUSION

Our initial attempt to forge theory and practice around leader character has revealed that

there is sound foundation on which to move forward in both theory and practice. We caution

against the danger of sacrificing rigor for relevance, or conversely, relevance for rigor. This

study reveals that through an engaged scholarship approach, we can enhance both rigor and

relevance. In conducting this research we sought to provide a leader character framework that

would help to bring leader character into mainstream management theory and practice. We have

identified many opportunities for future research and would like to conclude with what we see as

the most important agenda – to elevate character alongside competencies in leadership research

and practice. The business world continues to be mired in scandal – from Takata airbags to

Volkswagen’s diesel emissions, from Allied Irish Banks, to Enron, to Barclays Libor fixing, to

Bank of America’s London Whale and Wells Fargo’s unauthorized account openings. We

believe that corporate malfeasance, including unethical, socially irresponsible and sometimes

illegal and criminal decisions and behaviors cannot be deterred through laws, rules, policies and

procedures alone. Nor do we accept that systemic factors or influences necessarily result in such

behaviors. Much anecdotal evidence and some business examples have shown that these

situations involve character deficiencies that induce, influence or propel decisions and judgments

or the acceptance and tolerance of such when done by others. On a more positive note, we also

hold that the achievement of sustainable corporate excellence requires leaders who demonstrate

well-developed character in good times and bad, faced with opportunities, external pressures,

temptations and challenges, and that the elevation of leader character considerations will provide

a way to do this.

REFERENCES

Ames, D. R. and Flynn, F. J. (2007). ‘What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between

assertiveness and leadership’. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92, 307-24.

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). ‘Modern moral philosophy’. Philosophy, 33, 1-19.

Aristotle, T. Irwin. (1999). Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Publishing.

Ashlander, M., Filos, J. and Kaldis, B. (2011). ‘Foreword: Pathos for ethics, business excellence,

leadership and quest for sustainability’. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 1-2.

Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. L. (2005). ‘Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root

of positive forms of leadership’. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–38.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). ‘Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building’.

American Psychologist, 62, 25–33.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O. and Weber, T. J. (2009). ‘Leadership: current theories, research,

and future directions’. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–49.

Balkundi, P. and Harrison, D. A. (2006). ‘Ties, Leaders, And Time In Teams: Strong Inference

About Network Structure’s Effects On Team Viability And Performance’. Academy of

Management Journal, 49, 49–68.

Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M. and Harrison, D. A. (2011). ‘Centrality and charisma: Comparing how

leader networks and attributions affect team performance’. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96, 1209–22.

Baltes, P. B. and Staudinger, U. M. (2000). ‘Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate

mind and virtue toward excellence’. American Psychologist, 55, 122-36.

Baron, R. A., Hmieleski, K. M. and Henry, R. A. (2012). ‘Entrepreneurs’ dispositional affect:

The potential benefits – and potential costs – of being “up”’. Journal of Business

Venturing, 27, 310-24.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free press.

Bass, B. M. (1995). ‘Theory of transformational leadership redux’. Leadership Quarterly, 6,

463–78.

Bass, B. M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999). ‘Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior’. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.

Bauman, D. C. (2013). ‘Leadership and the three faces of integrity’. Leadership Quarterly, 24,

414-26.

Bazerman, M. H. and Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

Beadle, R., Sison A. J. G. and Fontrodona, J. (2015). ‘Introduction-virtue and virtuousness: when

will the twain ever meet?’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, 67-77.

Bird, F. B. and Waters, J. A. (1989). The moral muteness of managers. California Management

Review, 32, 73-88.

Bono, J. E. and Judge, T. A. (2004). ‘Personality and transformational and transactional

leadership: a meta-analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–10.

Borgatti, S. P. and Halgin, D. S. (2011). ‘On Network Theory’. Organization Science, 22, 1168-

81.

Bright, D. S., Cameron, K. S. and Caza, A. (2006). ‘The amplifying and buffering effects of

virtuousness in downsized organizations’. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 249-69.

Brown, M. E. and Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.

Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

Butts, C. T. (2008). ‘Social network analysis: A methodological introduction’. Asian Journal of

Social Psychology, 11, 13–41.

Cameron, K. (2011). ‘Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership’. Journal of Business

Ethics, 98, 25-35.

Cameron, K., Bright, D. and Caza, A. (2004). ‘Exploring the Relationships Between

Organizational Virtuousness and Performance’. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 1-24.

Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959). ‘Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix’. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., Morse, L. and Kim, Y. (2014). ‘Moral character in the

workplace’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 943-63.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H. and Ng, K. Y. (2001). ‘Justice

at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research’.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-45.

Conger, J. and Hollenbeck, G. P. (2010). ‘What is the character of research on leadership

character?’ Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 311-16.

Crossan, M., Seijts, G. and Gandz, J. (2015). Developing leadership character. Routledge.

Crossan, M., Mazutis, D. and Seijts, G. (2013). ‘In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values

and character strengths in ethical decision making’. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 567-

81.

Crossan, M., Vera, D. and Nanjad, L. (2008). ‘Transcendent Leadership: Strategic Leadership in

Dynamic Environments’. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 569-81.

Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J. and Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). ‘Supervisory guidance and behavioral

integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior’. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91, 622-35.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C. and Hu, J. (2013).

‘Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and

changing perspectives’. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–62.

Dyck, B. and Wong, K. (2010). ‘Corporate spiritual disciplines and the quest for organizational

virtue’. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 7, 7-29.

Gandz, J., Crossan, M., Seijts, G. and Stephenson, C. (2010). Leadership on Trial: A manifesto

for leadership development. London, ON: Richard Ivey School of Business.

Gentry, W. A., Cullen, K. L., Sosik, J., Chun, J. U., Leupold, C. R. and Tonidandel, S. (2013).

‘Integrity's place among the character strengths of middle-level managers and top-level

executives’. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 395-404.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). ‘Bad management theories are destroying good management practices’.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 75-91.

Grant, A. M. and Schwartz, B. (2011). ‘Too much of a good thing: The challenge and

opportunity of the Inverted U’. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 61-76.

Hackett, R. and Wang, G. (2012). ‘Virtues and leadership: An integrating conceptual framework

founded in Aristotelian and Confucian perspectives on virtues. Management Decision,

50, 868-99.

Hannah, S. T. and Avolio, B. J. (2011a). ‘The locus of leader character’. Leadership Quarterly,

22, 979-83.

Hannah, S. T. and Avolio, B. J. (2011b). ‘Leader character, ethos, and virtue: Individual and

collective considerations’. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 989-94.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J. and May, D. R. (2011). ‘Moral maturation and moral conation: A

capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action’. Academy of Management

Review, 36, 663-85.

Hannah, S. T., Sumanth, J. J., Lester, P. and Cavarretta, F. (2014). ‘Debunking the false

dichotomy of leadership idealism and pragmatism: Critical evaluation and support of

newer genre leadership theories’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 598-621.

Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J. and Johnson, M. D. (2011). ‘The loci and

mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory’.

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165–85.

Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (2001). ‘Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side’.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.

Hursthouse, R. (2001). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Janis, I. (1982). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and

Fiascos. Boston, MA: Houghton - Miffli.

Jennings, P. L., Mitchell, M. S. and Hannah, S. T. (2015). ‘The moral self: A review and

integration of the literature’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, S104-S168.

Jones, M. T. and Millar, C. C. J. M. (2010). ‘About global leadership and global ethics, and a

possible moral compass: An introduction to the special issue’. Journal of Business Ethics,

93, 1-8.

Kahneman, D. (2003). ‘A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded

rationality’. American psychologist, 58, 697-720.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and

biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kupperman, J. (1995). Character. New York: Oxford University Press.

Latham, G. P. and Wexley, K. N. (1994). Increasing Productivity through Performance

Appraisal (2nd ed). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Latora, V. and Marchiori, M. (2001). ‘Efficient behavior of small-world networks’. Physical

Review Letters, 87, 198701.

Lehnert, K., Park, Y. and Singh, N. (2015). ‘Research Note and Review of the Empirical Ethical

Decision-Making Literature: Boundary Conditions and Extensions’. Journal of Business

Ethics, 129, 195–219

MacIntyre, A. (1966). A short history of ethics. New York: Collier Books.

MacIntyre, A. (2007) After virtue. (3rd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Martin, G., Gözübüyük, R. and Becerra, M. (2015). ‘Interlocks and firm performance: The role

of uncertainty in the directorate interlock-performance relationship’. Strategic

Management Journal, 36, 235–53.

Mcdonald, M. L., Khanna, P. and Westphal, J. D. (2008). ‘Getting Them to Think Outside the

Circle: Corporate Governance, Ceos’ External Advice Networks, and Firm Performance’.

Academy of Management Journal, 51, 453–75.

McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988). ‘Q methodology’. Sage University Paper Series on

Quantitative Applications, 07-066, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. M. (2001). ‘Birds of a Feather: Homophily in

Social Networks’. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–44.

Mele, D. (2010). ‘Practical wisdom in managerial decision making’. Journal of Management

Development, 29, 637-45.

Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C. and Lord, R. G. (2016). 'A

network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration'. Journal of

Management, 42, 1374-403.

Moore, G. (2005). ‘Corporate character: modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation’.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 659-85.

Moorman, R. H., Darnold, T. C. and Priesemuth, M. (2013). ‘Perceived leader integrity:

Supporting the construct validity and utility of a multi-dimensional measure in two

samples’. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 427-44.

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M. and Urbanski, J. C. (2005). ‘Bringing humility to leadership:

Antecedents and consequences of leader humility’. Human Relations, 58, 1323-50.

Mors, M. L. (2010). ‘Innovation in a global consulting firm: when the problem is too much

diversity’. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 841–72.

Moshagen, M. and Musch, J. (2014). ‘Sample Size Requirements of the Robust Weighted Least

Squares Estimator’. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences, 10, 60–70.

Müller, J. (2015). ‘Aristotle on Vice’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23, 459-77.

Newman, M. E. J. (2002). ‘Assortative mixing in networks’. Physical Review Letters, 89,

208701.

Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z. and Song, L. J. (2014). ‘Humble

chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle

managers’ responses’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 34-72.

Owens, B. P. and Hekman, D. R. (2012). ‘Enacting humble leadership: An inductive

examination of humble leader behaviors, outcomes, and contingencies’. Academy of

Management Journal, 55, 787-818.

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D. and Mitchell, T. R. (2013). ‘Expressed humility in organizations:

Implications for performance, teams, and leadership’. Organization Science, 24, 1517-38.

Palanski, M. E. and Yammarino, F. J. (2007). ‘Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual

confusion’. European Management Journal, 25, 171-84.

Palanski, M. E. and Yammarino, F. J. (2011). ‘Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job

performance: A three-study examination’. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 765-86.

Pastor, J.-C., Meindl, J. R. and Mayo, M. C. (2002). ‘A Network Effects Model of Charisma

Attributions’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 410–20.

Peterson, C. and Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Pierce, J. R. and Aguinis, H. (2013). ‘The too-much-of-a-good thing effect in management’.

Journal of Management, 39, 313-38.

Price, T. L. (2000). Explaining ethical failures of leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 21, 177–84.

Quick, J. C. and Wright, T. A. (2011). ‘Character-based leadership, context and consequences’.

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 984-88.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger

Publishers.

Rest, J. R. (Ed.). (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics.

Psychology Press.

Roberson, Q. M. and Williamson, I. O. (2012). ‘Justice in Self-Managing Teams: The Role of

Social Networks in the Emergence of Procedural Justice Climates’. Academy of

Management Journal, 55, 685–701.

Roca, E. (2008). Introducing practical wisdom in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics,

82, 607-20.

Ridge, J. W. and Ingram, A. (2014). ‘Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction

and performance implications’. Journal of Management, 1-24.

Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C. and Maroosis, J. A. (2010). ‘Virtue-based measurement of

ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire’. Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 235-50.

Russell, J. A. (2003). ‘Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion’. Psychological

Review, 110, 145-72.

Seijts, G., Gandz, J., Crossan, M. and Reno, M. (2015). ‘Character matters: Character

dimensions' impact on leader performance and outcomes’. Organizational Dynamics, 44,

65-74.

Shotter, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2014). ‘In search of phronesis: Leadership and the art of judgment’.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 224-43.

Skarlicki, D. P. and Latham, G. P. (1997). ‘Leadership training in organizational justice to

increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication’. Personnel Psychology,

50, 617-33.

Solomon, R. C. (1992). ‘Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotelean approach to business

ethics’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 317–39.

Sison, A. J. G. and Ferrero, I. (2015). ‘How different is neo-Aristotelian virtue from positive

organizational virtuousness?’. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, 78-98.

Sison, A. J. G., Hartman, E. M. and Fontrodona, J. (2012) ‘Reviving tradition: Virtue and the

common good in business and management’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 207-10.

Smith, J. and Dubbink, W. (2011). ‘Understanding the role of moral principles in business ethics:

A Kantian perspective’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 205-331.

Sosik, J. J. (2006). Leading with Character. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Sosik, J. J., Gentry, W. A. and Chun, J. U. (2012). ‘The value of virtue in the upper echelons: A

multisource examination of executive character strengths and performance’. Leadership

Quarterly, 23, 367-82.

Sosik, J. J. and Cameron, J. C. (2010). ‘Character and authentic transformational leadership

behavior: Expanding the ascetic self toward others’. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 62, 251-69.

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. and Kraimer, M. L. (2001). ‘Social networks and the

performance of individuals and groups’. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–25.

Sternberg, J. (1998). ‘A balance theory of wisdom’. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347-65.

Sternberg, J. (2008). ‘The WICS approach to leadership: Stories of leadership and the structures

and processes that support them’. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 360-71.

Surendra, A. (2010). ‘Aristotelian-Thomistic virtue ethics, emotional intelligence and decision-

making’. Advances in Management, 3.

Tangney, J. P. (2000). ‘Humility: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Findings and Directions

for Future Research’. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70-82.

Thompson, A. D., Grahek, M., Phillips, R. E. and Fay, C. L. (2008). ‘The search for worthy

leadership’. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 366-82.

Tichy, N. M. and Bennis, W. (2007). ‘Making judgment calls’. Harvard Business Review, 85,

94-102.

Tsui, A. S. (2013). ‘Making research engaged: Implications for HRD scholarship’. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 137-43.

Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37, 1228–61.

van Exel, J. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. Rotterdam, NL: Erasmus MC, Institute for

Medical Technology Assessment.

Wright, T. A. and Huang, C.-C. (2008). ‘Character in organizational research: Past directions and

future prospects’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 981-87.

Wright, T. A. and Quick, J. C. (2011). ‘The role of character in ethical leadership research’.

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 975-78.

FIGURE 1- Initial Framework

Revised Framework

FIGURE 2 – Modularity Analysis

FIGURE 3 – Centrality Analysis

FIGURE 4 – Modularity Analysis (Replication Study)

FIGURE 5 – Centrality Analysis (Replication Study)

TABLE I – Definitions for Dimensions of Leader Character

DIMENSION DEFINITION

Judgment Makes sound decisions in a timely manner based on relevant information and critical analysis

of facts. Appreciates the broader context when reaching decisions. Shows flexibility when

confronted with new information or situations. Has an implicit sense of the best way to

proceed. Sees into the heart of challenging issues. Reasons effectively in uncertain or

ambiguous situations.

Courage Does the right thing even though it may be unpopular, actively discouraged, and/or result in a

negative outcome for him/her. Shows an unrelenting determination, confidence, and

perseverance in confronting difficult situations. Rebounds quickly from setbacks.

Drive Strives for excellence. Has a strong desire to succeed. Tackles problems with a sense of

urgency. Approaches challenges with energy and passion.

Collaboration Values and actively supports development and maintenance of positive relationships among

people. Encourages open dialogue and does not react defensively when challenged. Is able to

connect with others at a fundamental level, in a way that fosters the productive sharing of

ideas. Recognizes that what happens to someone, somewhere, can affect all.

Integrity Holds oneself to a high moral standard and behaves consistently with ethical standards, even in

difficult situations. Is seen by others as behaving in a way that is consistent with their personal

values and beliefs. Behaves consistently with organizational policies and practices.

Temperance Conducts oneself in a calm, composed manner. Maintains the ability to think clearly and

responds reasonably in tense situations. Completes work and solves problems in a thoughtful,

careful manner. Resists excesses and stays grounded.

Accountability Willingly accepts responsibility for decisions and actions. Is willing to step up and take

ownership of challenging issues. Reliably delivers on expectations. Can be counted on in tough

situations.

Justice Strives to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and that consequences (positive or negative)

are commensurate with contributions. Remains objective and keeps personal biases to a

minimum when making decisions. Provides others with the opportunity to voice their opinions

on processes and procedures. Provides timely, specific, and candid explanations for decisions.

Seeks to redress wrongdoings inside and outside the organization.

Humility Lets accomplishments speak for themselves. Acknowledges limitations. Understands the

importance of thoughtful examination of one's own opinions and ideas. Embraces

opportunities for personal growth and development. Does not consider oneself to be more

important or special than others. Is respectful of others. Understands and appreciates others’

strengths and contributions.

Humanity Demonstrates genuine concern and care for others. Appreciates and identifies with others’

values, feelings, and beliefs. Has a capacity to forgive and not hold grudges. Understands that

people are fallible and offers opportunities for individuals to learn from their mistakes.

Transcendence Draws inspiration from excellence or appreciation of beauty in such areas as sports, music,

arts, and design. Sees possibility where others do not. Has an expansive view of things both in

terms of taking into account the long term and broad factors. Demonstrates a sense of purpose

in life.

TABLE II: Frequency of importance ratings of leader character elements ranked by

average importance (N=874)

Element

(1)

Not At All

Important

(2)

Somewhat

Important

(3)

Moderately

Important

(4)

Very

Important

(5) Extremely

Important

(4) & (5)

Combined

AVG

1-5

Responsible 0.11% 0.80% 7.21% 31.81% 60.07% 91.88% 4.51

Respectful 0.23% 1.37% 9.04% 33.75% 55.61% 89.36% 4.43

Takes Ownership 0.11% 2.06% 9.15% 35.01% 53.66% 88.67% 4.40

Principled 0.46% 2.75% 9.61% 30.78% 56.41% 87.19% 4.40

Strives for Excellence 0.23% 1.95% 8.81% 41.76% 47.25% 89.02% 4.34

Consistent 0.00% 3.32% 10.30% 39.02% 47.37% 86.38% 4.30

Accepts Consequences 0.11% 3.09% 10.64% 39.70% 46.45% 86.16% 4.29

Decisive 0.11% 2.86% 10.53% 43.36% 43.14% 86.50% 4.27

Future-Oriented 0.57% 3.32% 14.30% 34.21% 47.60% 81.81% 4.25

Results-Oriented 0.23% 3.78% 11.67% 40.05% 44.28% 84.32% 4.24

Authentic 0.92% 4.00% 13.62% 33.41% 48.05% 81.46% 4.24

Situationally Aware 0.11% 3.32% 14.65% 37.07% 44.85% 81.92% 4.23

Adaptable 0.11% 2.40% 14.42% 45.88% 37.19% 83.07% 4.18

Determined 0.11% 3.09% 15.33% 44.74% 36.73% 81.46% 4.15

Resilient 0.34% 4.46% 14.76% 41.76% 38.67% 80.43% 4.14

Open-Minded 0.23% 3.43% 15.56% 47.71% 33.07% 80.78% 4.10

Demonstrates Initiative 0.11% 2.40% 17.05% 48.40% 32.04% 80. 43% 4.10

Critical Thinker 0.46% 4.12% 16.25% 44.05% 35.13% 79.18% 4.09

Cooperative 0.11% 3.66% 17.85% 45.42% 32.95% 78.38% 4.07

Confident 0.34% 3.66% 17.39% 46.00% 32.61% 78.60% 4.07

Flexible 0.34% 3.66% 19.57% 44.05% 32.38% 76.43% 4.04

Composed 0.11% 6.06% 17.85% 44.39% 31. 58% 75.97% 4.01

Fair 0.00% 5.61% 18.99% 44.74% 30.66% 75.40% 4.00

Self-Controlled 0.23% 4.81% 19.22% 47.25% 28.49% 75.74% 3.99

Transparent 1.26% 6.86% 17.39% 41.19% 33.30% 74.49% 3.98

Conscientious 0.11% 5.38% 21.62% 47.83% 25.06% 72.88% 3.92

Tenacious 0.46% 7.78% 19.11% 44.28% 28.38% 72.65% 3.92

Candid 1.03% 7.55% 19.45% 42.56% 29.41% 71.97% 3.92

Optimistic 0.92% 7.44% 23.34% 41.76% 26.54% 68.31% 3.86

Insightful 0.34% 6.98% 23.91% 45.08% 23.68% 68.76% 3.85

Passionate 1.03% 7.78% 23.91% 43.48% 23.80% 67.28% 3.81

Cognitively Complex 0.69% 9.15% 24.83% 41.08% 24.26% 65.33% 3.79

Continuous Learner 0.80% 9.27% 24.37% 42.11% 23.46% 65.56% 3.78

Even-Handed 0.92% 9.84% 24.26% 40.27% 24.71% 64.99% 3.78

Equitable 0.34% 10.41% 24.49% 43.94% 20.82% 64.76% 3.74

Pragmatic 0.80% 7.78% 25.63% 48.51% 17.28% 65.79% 3.74

Considerate 0.46% 10.07% 27.23% 43.25% 18.99% 62.24% 3.70

Self-Aware 1.26% 10.87% 26.20% 40.73% 20.94% 61.67% 3.69

Analytical 0.80% 11.44% 29.98% 40.62% 17.16% 57.78% 3.62

Vigorous 1.03% 14.07% 25.74% 40.50% 18.65% 59.15% 3.62

Calm 1.26% 11.56% 30.09% 38.67% 18.42% 57.09% 3.61

Brave 3.66% 14.19% 24.14% 33.41% 24.60% 58.01% 3.61

Prudent 1.49% 12.13% 28.60% 44.51% 13.27% 57.78% 3.56

Grateful 2.63% 13.39% 27.69% 38.22% 18.08% 56.29% 3.56

Compassionate 1.14% 12.81% 31.24% 38.90% 15.90% 54.81% 3.56

Patient 0.92% 14.30% 29.86% 38.22% 16.70% 54.92% 3.55

Forgiving 1.14% 13.27% 30.89% 39.13% 15.56% 54.69% 3.55

Empathetic 1.49% 13.96% 31.69% 36.73% 16. 13% 52.86% 3.52

Creative 1.03% 16.13% 35.70% 34.21% 12.93% 47.14% 3.42

Inspired 2.63% 16.59% 34.21% 32.04% 14.53% 46.57% 3.39

Proportionate 2.06% 16.13% 37.64% 35.93% 8.24% 44.16% 3.32

Socially Responsible 3.32% 21.05% 29.63% 32.61% 13.39% 46.00% 3.32

Intuitive 3.78% 17.16% 34.44% 33.30% 11.33% 44.62% 3.31

Collegial 2.63% 18.42% 35.47% 33.75% 9.73% 43.48% 3.30

Appreciative 5.26% 20.37% 29.86% 31.35% 13.16% 44.51% 3.27

Interconnected 4.23% 22.54% 33.87% 29.52% 9.84% 39.36% 3.18

Purposive 8.12% 24.83% 31.58% 23.23% 12.24% 35.47% 3.07

Reflective 5.61% 24.26% 36.38% 25.86% 7.89% 33.75% 3.06

Modest 6.06% 24.83% 37.19% 24.60% 7.32% 31.92% 3.02

Magnanimous 9.27% 31.46% 32.49% 21.17% 5.61% 26.77% 2.82

TABLE 3 - Peer Character Assessment and Supervisor’s Performance Assessment (N=111)

Overall

Accountability .263

Collaboration .238

Courage .147

Drive .334

Humanity .233

Humility .303

Integrity .240

Judgment .258

Justice .233

Temperance .201

Transcendence .129

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Aggregate of Performance/Potential items as follows:

1. How effectively would this person handle being promoted into a familiar line of

business?

2. How effectively would this person handle being promoted in the same function or

division (moving a level up)?

3. How effectively would this person handle being promoted two or more levels?

4. How effective would this person be as a member of a structured cross-functional team?

5. How effective would this person be as a leader of a structured cross-functional team?

6. How would you rate this person’s performance in his/her present job?

7. How effective is this leader relative to other leaders inside and outside of your

organization?

8. What is the likelihood that this person will derail (i.e., plateau, be demoted, be fired) in

the next five years as a result of his/her actions or behaviors as a manager?

9. How effectively does this person liaise with other sites/locations of your business?

Developing Leader Character: Finding a Way Forward

Article

Nov 2024

From competencies to strengths: exploring the role of character strengths in developing twenty-first century-ready leaders: a strengths-based approach

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024

A substantial amount of research, resources, and effort has been invested in the search for a 'holy grail' of twenty-first century leadership competencies. Ironically, despite the increasing significance of leadership and the substantial investments in uncovering the attributes of successful leaders, concerns persist regarding the quality of leadership worldwide. While the literature extensively outlines 'what' twenty-first century-ready leaders should embody, there remains a gap in outlining 'how' to nurture such leaders. We contrast existing practices that have focused on teaching functional content and relying on retrospective and deficit-based competency models by advocating for a strengths-based perspective. While there has been an increasing interest in positive psychology, which promotes a shift away from prevalent deficit correction approaches towards a framework that emphasises social-emotional and meta-cognitive strengths, character strengths have received little attention in corporate leader development programmes. We argue that nurturing character strengths offers a more sustainable, self-reinforcing process for twenty-first century leader development to overcome the limitations of short-lived leadership training results that fade over time. The Values in Action Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues provides a robust framework for identifying and nurturing these strengths. However, character strengths have traditionally been viewed as personal attributes, rather than leadership competencies. We challenge traditional views on leader development by arguing that character strengths reflect the competencies required of twenty-first century-ready leaders, as these more 'humane' characteristics remain relevant over time and valued across cultures because they represent qualities that are universally appreciated in defining 'what makes a good person'.

The Effect of Character on Stress Coping Responses Through Motivation to Lead

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024

There have been calls to elevate character alongside competencies and commitment in leadership research. Given the potential importance of character in leadership, it is surprising that the construct has not been more fully integrated into the nuanced nomological network of leadership processes. We built out the nomological network and, specifically, examined the relationship between character and stress coping responses in two field studies involving law enforcement officers. The results of our structural equation models revealed that character had both direct and indirect effects on coping responses through motivation to lead. Furthermore, our results indicated that character was discriminably different from related, empirically validated constructs of personality traits and psychological capital. The correlation between character and psychological capital was positive and significant, and they both predicted stress coping responses.

Family Function and Academic Achievement: The Mediating Role of Noble Character

Article

Dec 2024

Academic achievement reflects the level of success students achieve in college studies. Based on observation, a prominent factor that typically influence this metric is family roles, particularly through the mediation of noble character. Therefore, this research aims to examine the mediating role of noble character on the relationship between family roles and student academic achievement. In order to achieve the stated objective, 201 college students were selected using cluster stratified random sampling, which served as the sample in this explanatory quantitative research. Accordingly, three key variables observed during the course of the exploration include family function, noble character scales, and student cumulative achievement index. A mediation test was also carried out using Jamovi statistical software 2.0.0 to determine the relationship between the key variables. The obtained results from the test showed that family function did not directly influence educational achievement. Instead, it only determined academic achievement through the instillation of noble character in students. Based on this result, an inference was made that noble character significantly mediated the relationship between family function and academic achievement.

Indonesian mental revolution movement as a key-drive for accelerating the quality of public services: from idea to implementation

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024

This research aims to find out the implementation of a mental revolution that encourages the acceleration of innovation and digitalization of public services through the implementation of e-government to build a clean, effective, democratic and trusted government. The research design uses descriptive qualitative research by analyzing policy documents. This article examines the evolution of public service innovation policies in Indonesia related to the mental revolution initiative. The documents reviewed are laws, government regulations, ministerial regulations, and policy documents related to public service innovation and transformation, as well as e-government from January 2014 to May 2024. The results showed that since the launch of the National Movement for Mental Revolution, through the Indonesia Serves program, there has been an acceleration of the process of developing public service digitization innovations. This initiative encourages the acceleration of changes in the quality of public services by accelerating changes in the mindset, attitudes, and behavior of state civil apparatus to produce service innovations that improve the quality of public services. The acceleration of innovation development through e-government and public service digitalization can be realized with budget support, human resource readiness, sustainable policy commitment, and strong leadership in supporting the sustainability of holistic public service innovation.

The Impact of Vulnerable Leadership on Employee Empowerment

Article

Jan 2025

Justice McAdoo

Moral Character Development: The “Moral Moments” Model

Article

Nov 2024

Developing leader character: implications and lessons for HRD

Article

Nov 2024

Katie Willocks

Participatory Action in Optimizing the Operational Curriculum of Educational Units containing the Profile of Pancasila and Rahmatan lil Alamin

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

The essential need for character education development in the Operational Curriculum of Educational Units (KOSP) at SDN 3 Pagentan and SDN 2 Wonorejo is evident. However, the existing KOSP documents, initially adapted from another school due to a lack of knowledge in KOSP development, do not fully align with the characteristics and needs of the school community. This service empowers teachers in both schools to enhance their understanding of KOSP and develop documents enriched with the Strengthening Project for the Profile of Pancasila-Rahmatan lil Alamin Students (P5-RA), considering each school's unique characteristics and needs. Using a participatory action research (PAR) approach, the service involves problem identification, analysis, action preparation, program socialisation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. The instruments include tests and assessment rubrics, revealing a significant improvement in teachers' knowledge of KOSP, with scores increasing from 71 to 80 in the moderate category. The service activities also produce a grand design of character integrated into KOSP documents enriched with P5-RA, developed by teachers in both schools based on their unique characteristics and needs. In summary, this service positively impacts teachers' knowledge and optimises the availability of KOSP documents enriched with P5-RA as guidelines for strengthening character education in schools.

Exploración de la Influencia de la Predominancia Cerebral del empleado en la Percepción del Liderazgo y las Habilidades Directivas en el Contexto Laboral Mexicano Exploring the Influence of Employee Brain Predominance on the Perception of Leadership and Managerial Skills in the Mexican Labor Context

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Gerardo Leija González

Este estudio examina cómo la predominancia cerebral de los empleados influye en la percepción del liderazgo de sus superiores y su evaluación de las habilidades directivas. También, se analizó las implicaciones que tienen las percepciones y evaluaciones de los empleados sobre los directivos en el mercado laboral mexicano. Se utilizó un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales con una muestra representativa de empleados de diversas empresas. Los resultados muestran correlaciones significativas entre la predominancia cerebral, las habilidades directivas y el liderazgo virtuoso de los administradores. En el mismo tenor, se identificaron conexiones específicas entre los cuadrantes cerebrales y las virtudes del liderazgo. Estos hallazgos ofrecen perspectivas valiosas tanto teóricas como prácticas para comprender mejor cómo las preferencias cognitivas influyen en la percepción del liderazgo y las habilidades directivas. Reconocer esta diversidad cognitiva puede ayudar a promover entornos laborales más inclusivos, éticos y productivos en México, contribuyendo así a un mercado laboral más equitativo, competitivo y dinámico. Abstract This study examines how employees' brain dominance influences their perception of their superiors' leadership and their evaluation of managerial skills. We also analyze the implications of employees' perceptions and evaluations of managers in the Mexican labor market. A structural equation model was used with a representative sample of employees from different companies. The results show significant correlations between brain dominance, managerial skills and virtuous leadership of managers. In the same vein, specific connections between brain quadrants and leadership virtues were identified. These findings offer valuable theoretical and practical insights to better understand how cognitive preferences influence the perception of leadership and managerial skills. Acknowledging this cognitive diversity can help promote more inclusive, ethical and productive work environments in Mexico, thereby contributing to a more equitable, competitive and dynamic labor market. Palabras Clave Predominancia cerebral, Liderazgo virtuoso, Habilidades directivas, Percepción del liderazgo, Mercado laboral mexicano.

Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2003

James A Russell

At the heart of emotion, mood, and any other emotionally charged event are states experienced as simply feeling good or bad, energized or enervated. These states - called core affect - influence reflexes, perception, cognition, and behavior and are influenced by many causes internal and external, but people have no direct access to these causal connections. Core affect can therefore be experienced as free-floating (mood) or can be attributed to some cause (and thereby begin an emotional episode). These basic processes spawn a broad framework that includes perception of the core-affect-altering properties of stimuli, motives, empathy, emotional meta-experience, and affect versus emotion regulation; it accounts for prototypical emotional episodes, such as fear and anger, as core affect attributed to something plus various nonemotional processes.

Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2001

The field of organizational justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice.

Efficient Behavior of Small-World Networks

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2001

Too Much of a Good Thing: The Challenge and Opportunity of the Inverted U

Article

Jan 2011

Aristotle proposed that to achieve happiness and success, people should cultivate virtues at mean or intermediate levels between deficiencies and excesses. In stark contrast to this assertion that virtues have costs at high levels, a wealth of psychological research has focused on demonstrating the well-being and performance benefits of positive traits, states, and experiences. This focus has obscured the prevalence and importance of nonmonotonic inverted-U-shaped effects, whereby positive phenomena reach inflection points at which their effects turn negative. We trace the evidence for nonmonotonic effects in psychology and provide recommendations for conceptual and empirical progress. We conclude that for psychology in general and positive psychology in particular, Aristotle’s idea of the mean may serve as a useful guide for developing both a descriptive and a prescriptive account of happiness and success.

On Virtue Ethics

Book

Sep 2001

Rosalind Hursthouse

On Virtue Ethics is an exposition and defence of neo‐Aristotelian virtue ethics. The first part discusses the ways in which it can provide action guidance and action assessment, which are usually given by the v‐rules—rules generated from the names of the virtues and vices such as ‘Do what is honest’, ‘Do not do what is dishonest’. That such rules may (apparently) conflict, leads to an exploration of the virtue ethics approach to resolvable, irresolvable, and tragic dilemmas. The second part is about the role of the emotions in virtue and vice, since it examines the inculcation of racism through the miseducation of the emotions. Kant and Aristotle are compared on the question of moral motivation, and a virtue ethics’ account of acting ‘from a sense of duty’ provided. The third part is on ‘the rationality of morality’ in relation to virtue ethics, the question of whether there is any ‘objective’ criterion for a certain character trait being a virtue. The standard neo‐Aristotelian premise that ‘A virtue is a character trait a human being needs for eudaimonia, to flourish or live well’ should be regarded as encapsulating two interrelated claims, namely, that the virtues benefit their possessor, and that the virtues make their possessor good qua human being (human beings need the virtues in order to live a characteristically good human life.) The second claim is defended in terms of a form of ethical naturalism—the enterprise of basing ethics in some way on considerations of human nature—but a form that explicitly disavows any pretensions to being purely scientific.

Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups

Article

Apr 2001

After Virtue

Article

Sep 1983
Socio Anal

Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgement and choice

Article

Jan 2002

D. Kahneman

Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases

Article

Apr 1982

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory: The Infancy of Integration

Article

May 2016

We investigated the status of leadership theory integration by reviewing 14 years of published research (2000 through 2013) in 10 top journals (864 articles). The authors of these articles examined 49 leadership approaches/theories, and in 293 articles, 3 or more of these leadership approaches were included in their investigations. Focusing on these articles that reflected relatively extensive integration, we applied an inductive approach and used graphic network analysis as a guide for drawing conclusions about the status of leadership theory integration. All 293 articles included in the analysis identified 1 focal theory that was integrated with 2 or more supporting leadership theories. The 6 leadership approaches most often appearing as the focal theory were transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, strategic leadership, leadership and diversity, participative/shared leadership, and the trait approach to leadership. On the basis of inductive reflections on our analysis, we make two key observations. First, the 49 focal leadership theories qualify as middle-range theories that are ripe for integration. Second, drawing from social network theory, we introduce the term “theoretical neighborhood” to describe the focal theoretical networks. Our graphical inductive analyses reveal potential connections among neighboring middle-range leadership theories that merit investigation and, hence, identify promising future directions for achieving greater theoretical integration. We provide an online supplement with 10 additional leadership theory graphs and analyses: leadership in teams and decision groups, ethical leadership, leader and follower cognitions, leadership emergence, leadership development, emotions and leadership, implicit leadership, leader-member exchange, authentic leadership, and identity and identification process theories of leadership.

Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations

Abstract

Recommended publications

Organisational project management as a function within the organisation

VIII—Hegel's Manifold Response to Scepticism in The Phenomenology of Spirit

Drawing and intellectualism: Contested paradigms of knowledge

Doctrinal Knowledge, Legal Doctrines and Legal Doctrinal Scholarship