Character and Authentic Transformational

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 62, No. 4, 251–269 1065-9293/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022104
CHARACTER AND AUTHENTIC

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
BEHAVIOR: EXPANDING THE ASCETIC
SELF TOWARD OTHERS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
John J. Sosik and John C. Cameron

The Pennsylvania State University
Character, or inherent moral beliefs, intentions, and predispositions, is often considered

to be a foundational element of outstanding leadership according to numerous theories
of leadership and positive psychology. Yet, a framework for understanding the complex
nature of character and the role it plays in determining who is able to display outstanding
leadership does not fully exist. We present a framework and propositions for examining
how the self-concept plays an integral role in the display of authentic transformational
leadership behavior given individual and situational characteristics. We propose that
leaders first create an ascetic self-construal that derives from character strengths and
virtues and then project this self-image through idealized influence, inspirational moti-
vation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration behavior. We identify
and discuss 23 specific character strengths reflecting 6 universal virtues in the model
(i.e., wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence), as well as
suggest ways for assessing and developing behavior consistent with virtue and trans-
formational leadership.
Keywords: character strength, virtue, ascetic self-construal, authentic transformational

leadership, leadership development and consulting
Character, an individual’s core moral beliefs, intentions, and predispositions, is frequently men-
tioned by psychology researchers and practitioners as a distinguishing feature of outstanding leaders
(Hollenbeck, 2009). Yet, a framework for understanding the complex nature of character and the
role it plays in determining who is able to display outstanding leadership does not fully exist. With
the exception of Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) and Sosik (2006), there has been little discussion on
how leaders can harness character strengths and virtues to produce outcomes associated with
transformational leadership, which several meta-analyses have linked to the highest levels of
individual, group, and organizational performance (e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam,
2003). In this article, we explain how the notion of character extends well beyond the common
parlance of “integrity” to include other virtues considered by philosophical and religious traditions
John J. Sosik and John C. Cameron, Department of Management, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional
Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John J. Sosik, Department of Management,
Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA 19355.
E-mail: jjs20@psu.edu
251
252 SOSIK AND CAMERON
that recently have been linked to individual and organizational prosperity through positive psychol-
ogy’s classification, theory, and empirical methods. We also suggest that outstanding leaders first
create an ascetic self-construal from character strengths and virtues and then project this self-image
through authentic transformational leadership behavior that is consistent with their self-concept.
Our thesis is based on theories of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985) and personality,
motivation, and leadership (Cropanzano, James, & Citera, 1992) that highlight the importance of
personal attributes and self-expression for leadership effectiveness. We build on Peterson and
Seligman’s (2004) values in action (VIA) model that identifies character strengths and virtues and
summarizes theoretical and empirical support for them from the field of psychology for several
reasons. The VIA model focuses on an issue that Weaver (2006) challenged future ethics research
to examine, namely, personal attributes rather than cognition or behavior. Although there are a
number of models of integrity, ethics, and character in the leadership literature (e.g., Brown &
Trevino, 2006; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003), these models do not fully address the role of
individual differences in transformational leadership processes and they lack the comprehensiveness
of the VIA’s classification of character strengths, a complexity that most consulting psychologists
recognize (Hollenbeck, 2009). In contrast to other leadership theories, the VIA classification is not
age or culturally bounded because its contents have been suggested throughout history and across
cultures by philosophers and theologians and in a wide variety of major psychological theories (see
Peterson & Seligman, 2004, for a detailed mapping of character strengths to constructs in these
theories). Most of these theories have established measures for their key constructs, as do the VIA
strengths (Park & Peterson, 2006). Cameron, Bright, and Caza (2004) reported that organizations
whose members possessed more such VIA strengths outperformed those who did not. Thus, the VIA
model is a robust character classification “using the scientific method to inform philosophical
pronouncements about the traits of a good person” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 89).
Our aim here is to present a prescriptive content model describing what happens to trigger
authentic transformational leadership behavior through the melding of character strengths and
virtues into the self-concept. Our model is grounded on the Cropanzano et al. (1992) model of
personality, motivation, and leadership that posits that dispositional and contextual variables directly
and indirectly (through values) influence self-identities that then shape behavior. Values can have
a direct and indirect (through self-identity) effect on behavior (Lord & Brown, 2001; Sosik, Jung,
& Dinger, 2009). As shown in Figure 1, we consider leader character strengths and personal
attributes as dispositional variables, leader ascetic self-construal as self-identity, authentic transfor-
mational leadership as behavior, and situational influences as contextual variables.
Figure 1. Conceptual model and summary of propositions.

SPECIAL ISSUE: CHARACTER AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 253
We propose that leaders who possess more character strengths and virtues, formed with certain
personal attributes in the right context, will be better able to display transformational leadership
behavior indirectly through the projection of an ascetic self-construal and directly through certain
personal attributes. Moreover, as depicted by the dotted line in Figure 1, we propose that the display
of authentic transformational leadership over successive periods of time can enhance the situational
influences on the ascetic self-construal and increase the leader’s awareness level of his or her
character strengths. We also show in Figure 1 the reciprocal relationship between leader character
strengths and personal attributes. For example, both genetics and life experiences may shape leaders’
character strengths, and character strengths may shape their values through the display of virtuous
behavior (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Sosik, 2006).
In this article, we first describe authentic transformational leadership behaviors and their relation
to character. We then delve into the character strengths proposed to be linked to transformational
leadership as described in Sosik (2006) and introduce the ascetic self-construal. Next, we review
personal and situational influences that shape this self-construal. We offer propositions to guide
future research, identify measurement issues and understudied research areas, and conclude with
some practical strategies to integrate character issues into consulting practices.
Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior
Burns (1978) suggested the notion of character when he defined transformational leadership as a
“relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may
convert leaders into moral agents” (p. 4). Bass (1985) recognized this moral component when he
identified four key behaviors of transformational leadership: idealized influence, the charismatic role
modeling of high ethical and performance standards; inspirational motivation, the articulation of a
future-oriented and meaningful vision that advocates excellence and making personal sacrifices for
the good of the group; intellectual stimulation, the challenging of underlying assumptions and
integration of multiple viewpoints to broaden perspectives on problems; and individualized consid-
eration, the selfless service to followers through recognizing and appreciating diversity and
providing coaching and mentoring. By demonstrating these behaviors, transformational leaders
promote changes in followers, groups, organizations, and nations (Bass, 2008; Burns, 1978).
In promoting change, transformational leaders use charisma based on their idealized influence
to attract committed followers and inspirational motivation to build a common purpose and sense of
community (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders use their charisma in a socialized (other-
oriented) or personalized (self-serving) manner. However, most leaders are not entirely socialized
or personalized and vary in the degree to which they use their charisma for socialized or person-
alized purposes. Some are often not what they appear to be. Publically, they may act one way and
utter words of support, but privately they may act and speak contrary for political or psychological
reasons. This difference reflects a lack of authenticity because their thoughts, words, and deeds are
not consistent. They represent what Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) called pseudotransformational
leaders because they put on a false impression of virtue or act contrary to their stated beliefs or
feelings. They only appear to be transformational leaders.
In contrast, authentic transformational leaders do not engage in such masquerades and are
transparent, moral, and consistent in their developmental and exemplary behavior. They display
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consider-
ation in ways that create a moral culture and reflect ethical standards (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) and
character strengths and virtues (Sosik, 2006). As May et al. (2003) pointed out, “leaders who are
transformational (by definition authentic) . . . exhibit all of these qualities” (p. 248). For Bass and
Steidlmeier (1999), their leadership stems from virtues and core values reflected in behaviors that
are consistent with their true self-concept. Transformational leaders empower followers to develop
into leaders in their own right, whereas pseudotransformational leaders attract and create followers
who depend on them to maintain their self-esteem.
Building on this stream of research (Bass, 1985; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Sosik, 2006), we
define authentic transformational leadership here as the display of the behaviors of idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration in a

way that is true to the self and others. By definition, these behaviors allow leaders to be transparent
through idealized influence, be future-oriented through inspirational motivation, reason at higher
levels of morality with intellectual stimulation, and develop the talents of others into strengths
through individualized consideration (May et al., 2003).
Virtues, Character Strengths, and Their Measurement
Virtues represent somewhat abstract exemplars of good character and moral excellence, whereas
character strengths are positive and measureable trait-like attributes and psychological processes
that reflect virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Philosophers, theologians, psychologists, and
others have a long history of interest in examining virtues and character strengths. As Palanski and
Yammarino (2007) pointed out, drawing on thousands of years of philosophical reflection to build
a sound theoretical framework can only benefit the fields of psychology and leadership.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) published a comprehensive classification of virtues and character
strengths. Their aim was to produce a catalog of character strengths grounded in previous psycho-
logical theory and measurement that could guide future research across disciplines. Character
strengths reflect a wide variety of positive rather than negative personality traits that can help
psychologists enhance what is “right” with people instead of following the tradition of only fixing
what is “wrong” with them. These authors reviewed the psychology, sociology, theology, and
philosophy literatures to identify what represents the absolutely best elements of humanity in terms
of virtues and character strengths that bring about prosperity of the self and others (see Peterson &
Seligman, 2004, for a detailed description of measures, correlates, and interventions for these
strengths). Their review resulted in the grouping of 24 character strengths into six virtues: wisdom
and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence, described below.
These strengths can be measured using the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS;
Park & Peterson, 2006). Preliminary research on this instrument demonstrates adequate psycho-
metric properties (e.g., Steger, Hicks, Kashdan, Krueger, & Bouchard, 2007), although the strengths
have been represented by structures of one, three, or four factors (Macdonald, Bore, & Munro, 2008;
Shryack, Steger, Krueger, & Kallie, 2010) as opposed to six proposed by Peterson and Seligman
(2004). An alternative approach is to use the wide variety of reliable and valid self-report measures
of traits/strengths from the psychology domain identified in the development of the VIA-IS (see
Peterson & Seligman, 2004, for a comprehensive description of these measures). Most of these
strengths can be assessed using this alternate approach, but there are exceptions (e.g., humility,
modesty, bravery) that can be measured with self- and adapted other-report forms of the VIA-IS.
Virtues, Character Strengths, and Authentic Transformational Leadership
Sosik (2006) proposed a set of practitioner-oriented principles linking character strengths and
virtues to the behaviors associated with transformational leadership. Building on this work, we now
describe the virtues and character strengths identified by Peterson and Seligman (2004) and offer
propositions shown in Figure 1 linking each of the six virtues to authentic transformational
leadership behavior based on empirical findings presented below.
Wisdom and Knowledge

Job knowledge and cognitive ability are often considered important antecedents to transformational
leadership effectiveness (Bass, 2008). The cognitive character strengths that make up this virtue
entail the acquisition and use of knowledge, and include creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love
of learning, and perspective.
Creativity. Individuals possess various levels of originality and ingenuity in what they
appreciate, say, and do. For Bass (2008), the wise leader collects and uses knowledge in creative
ways to address practical and uncertain aspects of work. Leaders who are creative are more likely
to encourage followers to try new approaches to perform tasks or solve problems during challenging
times. This form of intellectual stimulation can be used to encourage creativity and innovation in
groups and organizations and for solving strategic and tactical problems. Creativity may encourage
leaders to challenge the status quo and identify opportunities embedded in risks often seen in
inspirational motivation.
Curiosity. Curious individuals possess high levels of sensing (need to seek information and
evidence) and openness to experience. Leaders who are more curious about things possess what
Bass and Steidlmeier (1999, p. 188) called an “open architecture dynamic” into processes of
situation evaluation and vision formulation aimed at changing the status quo. This mechanism may
provide the foundation for intellectually stimulating and inspiring followers to wonder about
alternative states that transcend current challenges and difficulties. Empirical work reports positive
correlations between leaders’ sensing and inspirational motivation (Ross & Offerman, 1997) and
openness to experience and intellectual stimulation (Judge & Bono, 2000).
Open-mindedness. This character strength incorporates good judgment and critical thinking
into decision-making processes. Leaders who are open-minded are likely to be more flexible in their
perceiving and thinking and inclusive of alternative viewpoints of others. This argument is
supported by Clover’s (1988) findings of positive correlations between leader flexibility and
transformational leadership ratings of U.S. Air Force officers. Open-mindedness may assist leaders
in the display of individually considerate (e.g., appreciating followers for their unique skills and
abilities), inspiring (e.g., building an inclusive shared vision), and intellectually stimulating (e.g.,
examining issues from many angles) behaviors.
Love of learning. Enjoying the process of learning and mastering new skills is often
motivated by strong intrinsic aspects of jobs and tasks reflected in a learning goal orientation
(Button, Matieu, & Zajac, 1996). Leaders who possess learning goal orientation and intrinsic interest
are in the position to serve as role models of lifelong learning for followers and to challenge those
who need encouragement in mastering a skill or filling in gaps in their knowledge. Consistent with
this view, Sosik, Godshalk, and Yammarino (2004) reported a positive correlation between corpo-
rate managers’ learning goal orientation and followers’ ratings of their transformational leadership.
Perspective. Greater perspective-taking capacity involves a superior level of knowledge,
judgment, and ability to solve difficult problems in life. Hater and Bass (1988) reported positive
associations between managers’ good judgment and their transformational leadership ratings. Sosik
(2006) argued that wise leaders show followers what goals they should focus on (inspirational
motivation) and bring both feelings and experience to problems (intellectual stimulation). He also
proposed that they use their perspective-taking capacity by recognizing and appreciating the diverse
knowledge, skills, and abilities of followers, thereby demonstrating individualized consideration.
Based on these arguments, we expect that character strengths reflecting the virtue of wisdom to
be positively related to authentic transformational leadership behavior (Proposition 1).
Courage
Courage entails emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face
of danger, uncertainty, risk, adversity, and includes the character strengths of bravery, persistence,
integrity, and vitality.
Bravery. Brave individuals demonstrate valor, boldness, and heroism in the face of danger,
risk, and adversity. Bravery is correlated with self-efficacy, self-confidence, and internal locus of
control (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), each of which has been shown to be held by leaders who
display transformational leadership behavior (Gibbons, 1986). Bravery in thoughts and actions may
support calculated risk-taking associated with idealized influence and intellectual stimulation.
Bravery also may lead to inspirational motivation when followers see their leader acting on
convictions for the good of the organization during events of exceptional danger to them (Sosik,
2005, 2006).
Persistence. To be persistent means to persevere in the face of setbacks and difficulties and
to be industrious in working doggedly toward a goal. Given that transformational leaders tend to be
intrinsically motivated (Bass, 2008), they are likely to be persistent, as Avolio et al. (1994) found
in their study of cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. A persistent but realistic adherence to
ideals, values, and strategies may allow leaders to win trust and loyalty from followers. Persistence
demonstrates resilience and commitment to goals, and when viewed by followers, allows leaders to
be perceived as displaying idealized influence and inspirational motivation (Sosik, 2000, 2006).
Integrity. Popular notions of character often focus exclusively on integrity. For Bass (2008),
integrity is at the core of character. Palanski and Yammarino (2007) reviewed the integrity literature
and concluded that integrity means many things (e.g., word/action consistency, being true to oneself,
being honest). For Sosik (2006), “integrity involves telling the truth, being guided by a code of
conduct of socially accepted values, and following through on commitments. It also includes being
authentic by being true to oneself, genuine with others, and being open and honest with one’s
feelings” (p. 92). These practices may promote trust, ethical policies, procedures, and practices in
organizations, and support the display of idealized influence (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), as
evidenced by perceived integrity of managers in New Zealand accounting for 35% of the variance
in their transformational leadership ratings (Parry & Proctor-Thompson, 2002).
Vitality. Being full of zest, enthusiasm, and contagious energy may be necessary for leaders
to deal with the high stress, uncertainty, and challenges facing them daily. Transformational leaders
have been shown to be physically fit (Avolio et al., 1994) and energetic (Gibbons, 1986). Vitality
helps leaders be more dynamic and set high standards for emulation (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). A
leader’s vitality is often contagious and may energize followers to produce extraordinary results,
thereby enhancing ratings of idealized influence and inspirational motivation.
Based on these arguments, we expect character strengths reflecting the virtue of courage to be
positively related to authentic transformational leadership behavior (Proposition 2).
Humanity
Transformational leadership is widely recognized as a developmental process that underscores the
necessity of compassion, altruism, and social influence (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), reflected in the
character strengths associated with humanity: love, kindness, and social intelligence.
Love. The character strength of love entails an altruistic and service-oriented approach in
which caring and sharing provide ways to be compassionate and considerate of others. Love
comprises three component parts: attachment, caring, and intimacy. “Attachment is the desire to be
in one’s presence, to be approved by another and to be cared for” (Sosik, 2006, p. 110).
Psychological attachment of the follower to the leader is a common outcome of charismatic
leadership and identification processes associated with idealized influence (Bass, 1985). Caring
involves a genuine concern for others’ pain, looking out for the best interests of others, and a
willingness to make personal sacrifices for the sake of others, often based on altruistic motives
(Sosik et al., 2009). Authentic transformational leaders are concerned about developing followers
and show compassion through individualized consideration (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), as evi-
denced by positive correlations between compassion of U.S. Air Force Academy officers and ratings
of their transformational leadership (Clover, 1988). Sosik (2006) viewed intimacy as agreement on
important beliefs and values that produce very close relationships often stemming from idealized
influence and compassionate care.
Kindness. To be kind is to be generous, to nurture and care for others, and to show
compassion. We suggest that the level of kindness a leader possesses is directly associated with the
amount of idealized influence and individualized consideration attributed to the leader by followers.
When leaders sacrifice self-gain for the good of others, they set a very positive example and are seen
as role models by their followers (Bass, 1985). Empirical research has shown transformational
leaders to be compassionate (Clover, 1988) and nurturing (Ross & Offerman, 1997). When they
shower care and concern on followers through coaching, mentoring, and growth opportunities, they
can demonstrate individually considerate behavior (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
Social intelligence. Transformational leaders require emotional and personal intelligence to
navigate the complex personal, interpersonal, and political challenges of the day (Sosik & Megerian,
1999). Emotional intelligence is “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion;
the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand
emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and
intellectual growth” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10), and has been empirically linked to transfor-
mational leadership (e.g., Sosik & Megerian). Personal intelligence entails knowing how well one
performs tasks, understands one’s own thought processes, reacts to feedback from one’s environ-
ment, and develops an independent and complex self-concept (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Wofford and Goodwin (1994) pointed out that these cognitive abilities distinguish transformational
from transactional leaders. Personal intelligence may help authentic transformational leaders be
more self-aware of their surroundings and the way they present themselves to others. Leaders who
possess such self-awareness are associated with positive leadership outcomes such as career
advancement, promotions, managerial effectiveness, and garnering high levels of followers’ trust
(Sosik & Jung, 2010).

Because leadership is a social influence process, we suggest that authentic transformational

leaders who “tune in” to their own (and followers’) emotions, motives, and behaviors, and
respond to the feedback provided by them are more likely to be effective. Understanding the
history and politics of the organization also can help these leaders act as role models through
their idealized influence, inspire followers to focus on collective goals through inspirational
motivation, and identify and develop followers’ talents into strengths with individualized
consideration.
Based on these arguments, we expect character strengths reflecting the virtue of humanity to be
Justice
The virtue of justice includes civic strengths that underlie healthy and prosperous community life:
citizenship, fairness, and leadership. We do not examine Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) notion of
leadership as a character strength here because linking it with transformational leadership behavior
would be tautological.
Citizenship. Authentic transformational leaders who value dutiful citizenship and commit-
ment to the common good through the consistency of their words and deeds build followers’ trust,
emotional attachment, and dedication to the leader (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). They are also more
likely to gain increased attributions of idealized influence from followers who see them as role
models (Sosik & Jung, 2010), as evidenced by positive correlations between corporate managers’
organizational citizenship behavior and their subordinates’ and superiors’ ratings of their idealized
influence and inspirational motivation (Sosik, Juzbasich, & Chun, in press). We suggest that by
being good organizational citizens, these leaders achieve a satisfying sense of consistency between
their thoughts, words, and deeds. Palanski and Yammarino (2007) pointed out that consistency
between words and actions is one definition of integrity, and that integrity is positively related to
civic and social aspects of a leader’s job performance. To the extent that integrity involves aspects
of interpersonal cooperation, self-sacrificial duty to others, and justice and fairness, we expect
citizenship to be positively related to ratings of idealized influence.
Fairness. Being fair means treating all individuals according to the same rules or principles
and not letting personal preferences or emotion get in the way of coming to a just decision. “Fairness
has been linked to the development of a strong moral identity where being a ‘nice person’ becomes
part of the self-concept . . . and higher levels of moral reasoning” (Sosik, 2006, p. 48). Increasing
amounts of fairness parallel progression in levels of an individual’s moral reasoning (Kohlberg,
1976). The highest level of moral reasoning (i.e., postconventional) has been empirically linked to
follower ratings of transformational leadership (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner,
2002). Postconventional moral reasoners tend to display high levels of ethical and performance
standards reflected in idealized influence. Their holistic and broad perspective focuses on social
contracts and a shifting of interest from the self to the collective. Such reasoning underlies the role
modeling of self-sacrifice seen in the idealized influence displayed by leaders who persuade
followers to make personal sacrifices for the good of the group. This type of reasoning also is
required for leaders to display inspirational motivation aimed at building collective efficacy and
esprit de corps; intellectual stimulation that questions basic assumptions, laws, and traditions; and
individualized consideration that appreciates the unique differences among followers (Bass, 1985).
Based on these arguments, we expect character strengths reflecting the virtue of justice to be
Temperance
The virtue of temperance includes character strengths that protect against excesses and place
reasonable boundaries or limitations on personal desires and aspirations: forgiveness and mercy,
prudence, humility/modesty, and self-regulation/control.
Forgiveness and mercy. Forgiveness involves granting pardon to those who have harmed or
wronged us, whereas mercy entails lenient or compassionate behavior directed toward an offender
or one in distress (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Bass (2008, p. 229) pointed out that forgiveness is
associated with better health and feelings of empowerment, hope, and self-esteem, which have been
shown to be positively associated with the transformational leadership ratings of military cadets
(Atwater & Yammarino, 1993). Authentic transformational leaders focus on the best in people and
on maintaining and restoring harmony in relationships (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). According to
Sosik (2006), “the transformational leader demonstrates idealized influence when she helps the
errant follower to learn from the experience, works to restore the relationship, and removes any
residuals of negativity from her psyche” (p. 155). We suggest that forgiveness offers authentic
transformational leaders a way to restore damaged relationships with followers.
Prudence. To be prudent is to be careful about the choices we make, to avoid unnecessary
risks, and to be conscientious. Prudence can be framed within theoretical considerations of
conscientiousness and practical intelligence because prudent individuals take care in planning for
and anticipating the future. Whereas ratings of transformational leadership are associated with
leaders’ good judgment (Hater & Bass, 1988), we found mixed support for positive correlations
between conscientiousness and transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000; Judge, Ilies,
Bono, & Gerhardt, 2002). Authentic transformational leaders carefully examine problems fully by
integrating alternative viewpoints and various perspectives through intellectual stimulation (Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999). We expect prudent leaders to be guided by a disciplined purposefulness and
more likely to display inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation.
Humility/modesty. Excessive pride, hubris, and narcissism cause other people to react
negatively (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and are cited as causes of leadership failure in reviews of
the leadership literature (e.g., Bass, 2008). In contrast, research on authentic leadership (e.g., May
et al., 2003) highlights the importance of having a more modest opinion of oneself. Leaders who
underestimate their transformational leadership are rated as the most effective mentors (Sosik &
Godshalk, 2004) and are associated with the highest levels of trust (Sosik, 2001). To the extent that
mentoring is part of individualized consideration and trust is associated with idealized influence
(Bass, 1985), humility and modesty may support these two transformational leadership behaviors.
Self-regulation/control. This character strength entails “regulating what one feels and does;
being disciplined; controlling one’s appetites and emotions” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 30).
Cadets rated highly on transformational leadership were shown to possess self-discipline and
emotional control (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993). Self-discipline and emotional control are pre-
requisites for authentic behavior (May et al., 2003), which may enable leaders to serve as role
models displaying idealized influence, inspire followers to work toward a noble vision through
inspirational motivation, and use intellectual stimulation while working toward the vision.
Based on these arguments, we expect character strengths reflecting the virtue of temperance to be
Transcendence
The virtue of transcendence is reflected in strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and
provide meaning for the self and others: appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope,
humor, and spirituality.
Appreciation of beauty and excellence. When individuals are filled with a sense of joy,
wonder, and elevation of spirit when recognizing extraordinary people or things, they possess an
appreciation of beauty and excellence as described in discussions of peak experience and self-
actualization (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Transformational leaders aim to achieve performance
beyond expectations (Bass & Avolio, 1999) and are highly self-actualized as demonstrated in Jung
and Sosik’s (2006) study of corporate managers. Leaders who appreciate beauty and excellence in
others collect examples and information for setting high standards of excellence (e.g., continuous
personal improvement) for others to emulate within their organizations. When they praise and
reward others for such displays, they clarify what is valued by the organization and required for
performance excellence. Pointing out these examples sets high standards for emulation, which we
suggest can inspire, guide, and challenge followers to work toward ideals of excellence, and support
the display of idealized influence and inspirational motivation.

Gratitude. Being aware of and appreciative of a benefit that one has or will receive shifts
one’s focus from the self to others and sustains one’s reciprocal obligations in relationships. Such
implicit psychological contracting is transformational when intrinsic rewards (e.g., praise for good
work) are given by leaders (Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001). Gratitude is a way for leaders
to recognize followers for their achievements and provide evidence that the high performance
standards espoused through idealized influence and inspirational motivation can be achieved.
Gratitude also may allow leaders to role model dedication to the organization and its members and
show individualized consideration by appreciating their unique talents and skills that contribute to
the success of the organization. Followers have strong needs for affiliation, esteem, and self-
actualization (Burns, 1978), and gratitude may allow leaders to meet these needs through idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration.
Hope. Expecting the best in others, being optimistic, and looking to the future with a brighter
vision of a situation than the status quo are intrinsically satisfying motivational forces for leaders and
followers (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Hope correlates with high achievement and performance
and promotes future-oriented and problem-solving mindsets (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Atwater
and Yammarino (1993) reported positive correlations between military cadets’ optimism and
positive thinking and their ratings of transformational leadership. We suggest that hope can help
leaders shape appealing and evocative visions of the future through inspirational motivation, design
creative pathways to achieve the vision through intellectual stimulation, and influence followers to
share and work toward the vision through idealized influence.
Humor. The ability to be playful, and to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing reflects
humor that allows individuals to transcend stressful situations, hardships, and peoples’ imperfec-
tions (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). For Bass (2008), humor not only enhances creativity and
divergent thinking, but also morale, cohesiveness, and productivity in leader–follower relationships.
Avolio, Howell, and Sosik (1999) reported that Canadian bank managers who displayed transfor-
mational leadership were seen by their followers as more humorous than those displaying transac-
tional or laissez-faire leadership and achieved the highest levels of business unit performance.
We suspect that the association between transformational leadership and humor is explained, in
part, by intellectual stimulation. From a cognitive theoretical perspective, humor involves the
juxtaposition of seemingly incongruent ideas in novel ways that present a solution to a problem.
Such juxtaposition of ideas many enact cognitive processes leading to solutions. From an affective
and emotional theoretical perspective, humor can reflect a leader’s motivation to poke fun at a
challenging situation and shift followers’ attention to an evocative vision (Martin, 2007).
Spirituality. Peterson and Seligman (2004) define spirituality as “having coherent beliefs
about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe; knowing where one fits within the larger
scheme; having beliefs about the meaning of life that shape life and provide comfort” (p. 53). Most
spiritual traditions provide personal meaning and encourage a shift of focus from the self to others,
from self-aggrandizement and self-promotion to care, concern and rights protection of others and the
larger community, similar to collection actions advocated by transformational leaders (Sosik, 2000).
Authentic transformational leaders’ inspirational vision provides followers with meaning and
purpose for making sense out of uncertainty and coping with crises and difficult circumstances (Bass
& Steidlmeier, 1999), as evidenced by positive correlations between self-aware managers’ purpose
in life and their ratings of transformational leadership (Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Spirituality may
also be related to a code of idealized behavior for role modeling, and a shift of attention from the
self toward others for individualized consideration.
Based on these arguments, we expect character strengths reflecting the virtue of transcendence to
be positively related to authentic transformational leadership behavior (Proposition 6).
Ascetic Self-Construal
Personality psychology seeks to explain how behavior emerges from traits and how disparate traits
are melded in the self-concept. The self-concept represents one’s overall understanding of the self
in relation to others that is derived from the “compository of life span experiences, motivational
states, and action orientations” (Cross & Markus, 1991, p. 230). The self provides modes of being
that Markus and Kitayama (2003) call self-construals, which provide patterns for past, present, and
future behavior that may be important for reflecting character strengths and displaying authentic
leadership behavior. The number of different aspects of the self and the semantic differences among
them refer to self-complexity (Niedenthal, Setturlund, & Wherry, 1992). Greater self-complexity
provides more psychological resources for dealing with challenges because a negative event may be
confined to a smaller portion of the self. Other aspects of the self can be tapped for cognitive
information to meet challenges. Self-complexity has been linked to personal meaning and expres-
sion of values through behavior for charismatic/transformational leaders (Sosik, 2000; Sosik et al.,
2009).
We suggest that authentic transformational leaders, who are self-aware of their character
strengths, are likely to develop an ascetic self-construal. Jones (1995) described the ascetic
personality as being predisposed to live to bring out the best in the self and others, and a character
ethic that is shaped and controlled by the power of an inner call to moral excellence reflected in
character strengths. For Jones, “the ascetic, in short, lives from within. He or she is a person who
regards life as the occasion for commitment to ends higher than one’s own immediate happiness and
well-being” (p. 869). Given that the self-concept can integrate several aspects of personality
(Markus & Kitayama, 2003), we propose that when the content of a leader’s self-concept contains
an array of character strengths, it reflects an ascetic self-construal.
To the extent that leaders are self-expressive, an ascetic self-construal provides a powerful
motivational force for displaying transformational leadership behaviors that reflect personal beliefs,
values, and aspects of the self-concept (Sosik, Avolio, & Jung, 2002; Sosik et al., 2009). Jones
(1995) argued that the impact of an ascetic leader’s self-concept is reflected in his or her behavior
and in the culture of the organization and its performance.
Consistent with Murtha, Kanfer, and Ackerman’s (1996) view that certain traits emerge to
influence behavior under some situations, we suggest that transformational leadership behavior can
be best promoted and developed through the expansion of an ascetic self-construal (Proposition 7).
Leader Personal Attributes
We now focus on examining some key personal attributes of leaders that we propose are reciprocally
related to leaders’ character strengths and influence both leaders’ ascetic self-concept and their
display of authentic transformational leadership behavior.
The Role of Genetics

In their review of born versus made arguments for leader development, Avolio and Hannah (2008)
concluded that genetics or heritability accounts for no more than 30% of leader emergence, with
environmental factors accounting for the majority of leader development. Their conclusion raises an
interesting question regarding the degree to which character strengths are heritable versus forged
through life experiences. Consistent with the notion of situational–-dispositional traits (Murtha et al.,
1996), Peterson and Seligman (2004) concluded that character strengths are relatively stable
trait-like characteristics, but are also somewhat malleable through specific situations, life experi-
ence, and deliberate interventions.
Research on behavioral genetics and genetic sociology indicates that up to 50% of personality
is genetically determined (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and the VIA strengths show significant
genetic influence (Steger et al., 2007). The self-concept rests within the personality system, and
personalities act according to the way they perceive themselves and the social situation (Markus &
Kitayma, 2003). This stream of research suggests a genetic foundation for character expressed in the
ascetic self-construal as displayed through authentic transformational leadership behavior. In addi-
tion, Avolio and Gibbons’ (1988) review of developmental psychology and leadership literatures
indicated that transformational leaders are likely to come from families with parents predisposed to
transformational leadership, which suggests a direct link between genetics and transformational
leadership.
Thus, we propose that leader genetics are associated with authentic transformational leadership
behavior (a) directly and (b) indirectly through the leader ascetic self-construal (Proposition 8).
Life Experiences
Compared to genetics, a leader’s life experiences are likely to provide more significant influence on
character strengths and virtues, ascetic self-construals, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior. As leaders progress through life, they experience trigger events that represent important
learning experiences and fundamental shifts in how they see themselves and others and how they
understand their leadership roles (May et al., 2003). These experiences may allow for self-reflection
on how they live according to virtue or vice and for greater self-awareness of opportunities to
display authentic transformational leadership behavior that reflects personal character strengths.
Transformational leaders tend to overcome personal challenges in life, were challenged and
supported by parents, have prior leadership experiences, and attended leadership and personal
development training (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988).
Leaders’ life experiences become essential elements for recognizing character strengths they
possess or need to develop (Steger et al., 2007). They also provide important information regarding
self-knowledge, self-identity, and self-standards for leaders to better understand who they are
(Avolio & Hannah, 2008) and vital knowledge for elaborating a virtuous self-construal (Markus &
Kitayama, 2003). This multifaceted self-construal reflects what Palanski and Yammarino (2007)
noted as a whole view of a person’s character, in contrast to isolated aspects of the person.
Thus, we propose that leader life experiences will affect authentic transformational leadership
behavior (a) directly and (b) indirectly through the leader ascetic self-concept (Proposition 9).
Values
As guideposts for behavior, values are beliefs about desirable end states that guide selection or
evaluation of one’s behavior and are ranked by relative importance or intensity (Schwartz, 1992).
Values may be other-oriented (e.g., benevolence) or self-centered (e.g., hedonism). They differ from
virtues and character strengths because values may be espoused but not necessarily enacted or
habitual. Values become virtues when they are prosocial, habitually put into action, or become a trait
of the person (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). High-ranking and intense values help shape a leader’s
self-construal (Sosik et al., 2009) and have been empirically linked to followers’ ratings of leaders’
idealized influence and inspirational motivation behavior (Sosik, 2005). For Bass and Steidlmeier
(1999), a requirement for authentic transformational leadership is a central core of moral values.
Based on prior theoretical work on personality, motivation, and leadership (e.g., Cropanzano et
al., 1992), we propose that leader moral and prosocial values are positively related to authentic
transformational leadership behavior (a) directly and (b) indirectly through the leader ascetic
self-construal (Proposition 10).
Situational Influences
We now turn our attention to three important situational influences on the construction of a leader’s
ascetic self-construal, and how these influences can be modified over time by authentic transfor-
mational leadership behavior that is role modeled by leaders and socialized into the organization’s
culture, policies, and practices.
Ethical Context
Authentic transformational leaders create an organizational context that is strengths-based and
ethical (May et al., 2003). An ethical context is an organizational setting with an ethics code and an
ethical culture that is shaped through leadership, reward systems, and support for ethical behavior.
Followers learn about ethical contexts by observing and emulating the behavior of leaders and others
in their work environments (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Research in social psychology indicates that
sociocultural environments influence aspects of an individual’s personality (Cropanzano et al.,
1992). Individuals embedded in such environments assimilate their interpersonal experiences into
self-construals through socially meaningful interactions (Markus & Kitayama, 2003), and in ethical
contexts, aspects of the ethical self are internalized (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
Based on this line of reasoning, we propose that an ethical context that supports character
strengths and virtues is positively related to the leader ascetic self-construal (Proposition 11).
Culture
Societal culture represents another potential form of influence on the ascetic self-construal’s
elaboration through character strengths and virtues, and is defined as “commonly experienced
language, ideological belief systems (including religion and political belief systems), ethnic heri-
tage, and history” (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004, p. 15). Societies create
cultures with rules, roles, and norms that cultivate and sustain character strengths and virtues. Some
societies value certain strengths more than others, such as collectivistic societies favoring citizenship
and humanity more than individualistic societies, which celebrate competition and individual
achievement. Also, some character strengths are situation-specific (Peterson & Seligman, 2004);
therefore, their appropriateness depends on the culture that embeds leaders and followers.
According to mutual constitution theory (Markus & Kitayama, 2003), individuals want to fit
into their context so that they become who their cultural surroundings expect them to be. They
perpetuate their surroundings through expressions of their self-construals that are then observed and
emulated by others. To illustrate how culture shapes the self-concept, consider collectivistic versus
individualistic cultures. For Knights and O’Leary (2006), the rash of contemporary corporate
scandals can be traced to the dominance of individualism that “derives from the preoccupation with
the self that drives individuals to seek wealth, fame, and success regardless of moral considerations”
(p. 126). In individualistic Western cultures, an independent self-construal that values one’s own
repertoire of self-focused needs, thoughts, feelings, and action is not likely to support an elaborated
ascetic self-construal reflecting all six virtues described in this article. But in collectivistic Japanese
cultures, an interdependent self-construal that values social relationships and other-oriented behav-
ior is more likely to facilitate the construction and maintenance of an ascetic self-construal through
integration of virtues of humanity, temperance, and justice (Markus & Kitayama, 2003). In support
of these ideas, Sosik et al. (2009) examined relationships among values, self-construals, and
behaviors of managers in U.S. high-tech firms. These authors reported positive associations between
managers’ interdependent (collective) self-construal and their altruistic behavior as rated by fol-
lowers and negative associations between managers’ independent self-construal and their altruistic
behavior. Collectivistic cultures are more conducive to the display of transformational leadership
behaviors than individualistic cultures because collectivistic followers have a strong attachment to
their organization, subordinate their individual goals to group goals, and have a high level of trust
and loyalty to the leader (Bass, 2008).
Therefore, we propose that a collectivistic culture is more positively related to elaboration of the
leader ascetic self-construal than an individualistic culture (Proposition 12).
Socioeconomic Conditions
Socioeconomic research suggests that fundamental long-term shifts in self-construal and behaviors
away from conspicuous consumption, extravagance, and narcissism toward frugality, conservation,
and providing service to others typically occur after economic collapses or crises (Campbell &
Twenge, 2009). These shifts have been attributed largely to recognition that the virtue of temperance
provides protection against excess (Steger et al., 2007) and our innate need to forge interpersonal
connections and commonalities for protection and social order during difficult times (Markus &
Kitayama, 2003). Crises and challenging socioeconomic times also are preconditions for transfor-
mational leadership emergence and effectiveness (Bass, 2008; Sosik & Jung, 2010).
The prevailing socioeconomic conditions also work for or against the appropriateness of a
specific strength to be melded into one’s self-identity. For example, the events of 9/11 prompted
calls for bravery against the Al Qaeda perpetrators and resulted in increases in spirituality, hope,
gratitude, kindness, love, and citizenship (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Cases of corruption on Wall
Street and among politicians and clergy triggered calls for self-regulation/control and fairness
among leaders. Moreover, research indicates that individuals who grew up during the Great
Depression were set on a life path of temperance including prudence and self-control in their
consumer behavior. In contrast, during prosperous economic times, when easy credit and hedonistic
cultural factors promote a fixation on material wealth, societies reward those who project an
egocentric rather than ascetic self-construal through attention-seeking and self-promotion (Campbell
& Twenge, 2009).
Based on these arguments, we expect challenging socioeconomic conditions to be positively
related to the leader ascetic self-construal (Proposition 13).
Measurement Implications
Our model suggests at least three measurement implications. First, our model is based on several
assumptions that require future testing. The VIA strengths are purportedly universal across culture
and history (Steger et al., 2007), yet it would seem that they are not evenly endorsed in all contexts.
In the selection of the most salient virtues and strengths, users of our model may need to consider
the situation (e.g., virtues of humanity and temperance seem important in Asian contexts). Also, we
assume that character strengths are formative indicators of the ascetic self-construal where posses-
sion of more of the strengths, when summed across the various dimensions, results in a higher level
of self-construal. Whether VIA-IS measures serve as formative (measures converge to create a
construct) or reflective (measures are determined by a construct) indicators of the ascetic self-
construal is a topic for empirical research.
Our model also assumes that “nobody’s perfect,” that is, leaders need not possess the full array
of VIA strengths to demonstrate authentic transformational leadership. History provides several
examples of leaders who excelled in one area of character, yet possessed vices that inhibited their
effectiveness (e.g., Winston Churchill, Bill Clinton, Carly Fiorina). Thus, our model assumes that
it is not necessary to measure each of the VIA strengths every time one wants to assess character
in leadership. Instead, some strengths may be more appropriate in certain situations or environments
(Murtha et al., 1996; Steger et al., 2007), and measuring at least one theoretically or contextually
appropriate character strength within each of the six virtues may be adequate. Deciding on which
strengths are most relevant involves reviewing leadership literature and assessing the leader’s
genetic and environmental influences, life and career history, and task/situational demands. For
example, the strengths of perspective, integrity, bravery, and social intelligence may be most
relevant for assessing character for selection and appraisal of top executives (Hollenbeck, 2009).
Second, valid and reliable measures described in Table 1 exist to operationalize the constructs
in our model. Character strengths can be measured using the VIA-IS or alternative measures noted
above. For measuring the ascetic self-construal, we recommend content analysis of possible selves
(Cross & Markus, 1991) to examine the type and complexity of the selves reflecting the virtues
presented in our model, following prior research assessing possible selves of leaders (e.g., Sosik et
Table 1
Description and Comments Regarding Measures of Constructs in the Conceptual Model
Construct Suggested measure Description/comment
Virtues of wisdom, courage, Values in Action Survey (VIA-IS; 24 scales measuring character strengths
humanity, justice, Park & Peterson, 2006; reflecting each virtue; typically 8–10
temperance, and Peterson & Seligman, 2004) items per scale; use self- and adapted
transcendence other reports
Ascetic self-construal Hoped-for and feared possible 4 open-ended items for listing possible
selves (Cross & Markus, 1991) selves and their probable realization;
qualitative coding and analysis is
required (cf. Sosik et al., 2002)
Authentic transformational Multifactor Leadership Scales measure idealized influence,
leadership behavior Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass inspirational motivation, intellectual

& Avolio, 1999) stimulation, and individualized

consideration behaviors, each with 4
items; use self- and other reports
Genetics Personality-based indicators of Until genetic marker tests are developed
genetic influence (Steger et al., for personality traits, consider using
2007) personality measures from surveys such
as BFI, MMPI, CPI, or NEO available
online at http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/
Life experiences Critical life stories/incidents Collect via open-ended surveying or
(Avolio & Gibbons, 1988; structured interview techniques and
Shamir & Eilam, 2005) develop theoretically grounded coding
scheme; use multiple raters
Values Universal Values Survey 40 items measuring 10 values:
(Schwartz, 1992) achievement, benevolence, conformity,
hedonism, power, security, self-
direction, stimulation, tradition, and
universalism
Ethical context Ethical Climate Questionnaire 36 items total measuring 9 dimensions:
(Victor & Cullen, 1993) self-interest, company profit, efficiency,
friendship, team interest, social
responsibility, personal morality,
company rules and procedure, and laws
and professional codes
Culture Cultural Values Survey (House et 9 variable-item length scales measuring
al., 2004) performance orientation, assertiveness,
future orientation, humane orientation,
institutional collectivism, ingroup
collectivism, power distance, gender
egalitarianism, and uncertainty
avoidance; compare values with actual
practices
Socioeconomic conditions Income, education, occupation, Collect via survey or interview; economic
wealth, and economic indicator data can be accessed from
indicators (Kraus & Keltner, online sources such as http://
2008) data.worldbank.org/data-catalog
Note. BFI ⫽ Big Five Inventory; MMPI ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; CPI ⫽ California
Psychological Inventory.
al., 2002, 2009). Transformational leadership behavior can be measured with the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 1999), which has demonstrated good psycho-
metric properties and is used by leader developers worldwide.
Although collecting genetic data may be quite challenging, markers of genetic endowments
identified by behavioral geneticists (Steger et al., 2007) may be adapted through research to assess
the role genetics play in our model. Life experience data can be collected through biographies,
critical incidents (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988), or life stories (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Leaders’ values
content and intensity can be assessed with Schwartz’s (1992) measure of universal values.
Situational variables shown in our model include ethical context, culture, and socioeconomic
conditions. The extent to which the leader is embedded within an ethical context can be measured
with Victor and Cullen’s (1993) Ethical Climate Questionnaire. Cultural dimensions may be
assessed using surveys validated in the GLOBE studies (House et al., 2004). Socioeconomic status
is typically measured by income, education, occupation, and wealth at the individual level of
analysis, and broader economic indicators such as gross domestic product and international trade in
goods and services may also be useful (Kraus & Keltner, 2008).
Third, several measurement issues require consideration before testing and using our model.
Evidence exists for convergent and discriminant validity of the VIA strengths from normal
personality measures (Park & Peterson, 2006; Steger et al., 2007), but the factor structure of the
VIA-IS should be carefully examined given the range of configurations of higher order virtue factors
shown in prior research (e.g., Macdonald et al., 2008; Steger et al., 2007). Based on these results and
the relatively large number of strengths, we expect probable multicollinearity within and between
the virtues measured by the VIA-IS. This potential issue can be addressed by limiting analysis to the
most theoretically appropriate VIA strength, centering the data, or using data analytic techniques
such as partial least squares analysis (Wold, 1985) that adjust for multicollinearity. Also, to the
extent that several of the relationships shown in our model are reciprocal and emerge over time,
longitudinal data collection and analysis are recommended for testing or applying our model.
Research Implications
Our literature review in the development of Propositions 1– 6 indicates general theoretical and
empirical support for these predictions. However, it also suggests several understudied areas
requiring additional empirical research. For example, prior research indicates that transformational
leadership has positive effects on the creativity of followers and groups, but much less is known
about the creativity of transformational leaders (Bass, 2008). In terms of bravery, the extent to which
transformational leaders possess moral courage (May et al., 2003) may be explored by future
research. Integrity can mean different things to people (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007), so measures
beyond perceived and behavioral integrity should be empirically tested and validated.
Whereas prior research has linked emotional intelligence to transformational leaders (e.g., Sosik
& Megerian, 1999), future research can explore the personal intelligence of transformational leaders
building on the work of Wofford and Goodwin (1994). Regarding fairness, additional work is
needed to replicate the Turner et al. (2002) findings that transformational leaders in university and
hospital contexts are postconventional moral reasoners given the Sosik et al. (in press) findings that
charismatic corporate leaders are preconventional moral reasoners.
A virtually untapped empirical research domain involves forgiveness/mercy and spirituality
given increased attention paid to spirituality in the workplace and cases of abuse of followers by
clergy. A related future research issue is the gratitude displayed by church and other leaders given
the apparent importance of gratitude displayed by pastors described by Sosik and Jung (2010, p.
219). Determining the extent to which gratitude is related to implicit contracting through transfor-
mational leadership versus explicit contracting through transactional contingent reward behavior
(Goodwin et al., 2001) is an additional research topic for future study.
Beyond a primary recommendation to empirically test and validate the linkages in our model,
another important issue for future research is the extent of conceptual and empirical distinction or
overlap between character strengths and their analogous constructs from the mainstream leadership
literature. For example, is the character strength of kindness reflected in the virtue of humanity
empirically distinct from the traditional notions of consideration and individually considerate
behavior? A valid concern is that the character strengths in the VIA model are simply relabelings
of previously studied constructs. Positive language relabelings of old ideas may advance the field by
prompting new theoretical and empirical work across domains that consulting psychologists and
other practitioners consider relevant. Yet, practice must be grounded in rigorous science if it is to
be effective, and it appears that the developers of the VIA model have sought to do so.
Practical Implications
We suggest that consultants and leader developers consider the following key points as they
construct interventions that promote the display of authentic transformational leadership
behavior.
Given the strong genetic component for some character strengths noted above, consultants can
use the VIA-IS to aid in the selection of leaders after considering task demands and organizational-
level factors that may suggest character strengths most appropriate for the situation (e.g., integrity,
perspective, bravery, and social intelligence for executives). Consultants providing executive
coaching services can use interviews, critical incidents, values clarification, and life story analysis
to gauge leader personal attributes associated with character strengths related to the display of
authentic transformational leadership.
Once a baseline awareness of character strengths is provided through survey assessments,
consultants can design training intervention techniques to influence the leaders’ ascetic self-concept
and display of authentic transformational leadership behavior. We recommend the use of journaling,
self-reflection, and role plays, which allow the leader to work through character issues and apply
character strengths and virtues. Other forms of intervention may include the use of leadership
development plans based on VIA-IS and MLQ-5X feedback, executive coaching, social collabora-
tion on projects, and experiential learning exercises.
The content of training interventions can include leader scenarios and case studies depicting the
VIA strengths, comparison of self- and adapted other ratings of the VIA-IS and MLQ-5X measures
to assess self-awareness, exploration of hoped-for and feared possible selves reflecting VIA
strengths to understand the content of leader ascetic self-construal, and an independent assessment
of situational influences conducted by consulting psychologists. Role-modeling exercises with
feedback and applications of behaviors that reflect character strengths to actual organizational
problems may also be powerful forms of intervention.
Our model’s focus on the humanity and justice virtues can aid in individual and group process
consultation for conflict resolution to address interdepartmental and interpersonal differences among
organizational teams, team members, and peers. It also can be used to advise institutional clients on
team building within the organization to enhance interaction of peers and put virtue and authentic
transformational leadership concepts into practice.
Consultants should work with organizations to design evaluation and reward systems that
reinforce the projection of the ascetic self through the display of authentic transformational
leadership. These systems should be aligned with the organization’s mission, vision, and core
values. Evaluation can involve 360-degree assessments of the leader’s character strengths, values,
and behaviors and gauging his or her decision making and judgment using appropriate character
strengths and virtues as appraisal criteria (Hollenbeck, 2009).
Finally, consultants engaged in change management or organizational development work can
use our model to help clients better understand organizational culture in terms of character strengths
and identify strengths and weaknesses of relational processes within the organization reflected in the
culture’s collective character. Reconciliation of organizational values with data collected on char-
acter strengths within and between departments or functional areas can aid in such change
initiatives. Aligning results of assessment of an organization’s ethical context and culture with
individual-level assessments of leader character strengths and ascetic self-construal not only can
strengthen shared practices and beliefs, but also lead to development of better performance
outcomes.
Conclusion
We have presented a conceptual model and propositions covering a wide range of character
strengths that can influence the construction, elaboration, and projection of an ascetic self-construal
and authentic transformational leadership behavior that brings out the best in self and others.
Leadership researchers can expand our model and test its propositions to learn more about the role
of character strengths in authentic transformational leadership processes. Consulting psychologists
can use our model to assist leaders to explore and appreciate character strengths, which we believe
can serve as a moral beacon shining forth for others to see and pursue.
References
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the
nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14, 261–295.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’
perceptions of military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645– 667.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Atwater, L. E., Lau, A. W., Dionne, S. D., Camembreco, J., & Whitmore, N. (1994).
Antecedent predictors of the “full range” of leadership and management styles (Contract MDA-903–91-
0131). Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies, SUNY Binghamton.
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span approach. In J. A.
Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness
(pp. 276 –308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 331–347.
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor
as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219 –227.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (4th ed.).
New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Training full range leadership: A resource guide for training with the MLQ.
Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 595– 616.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual
and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26 – 48.
Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness
and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 766 –790.
Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York:
Free Press.
Clover, W. H. (1988, May). Personality attributes of transformational AOCs. Paper presented to the U.S. Air
Force Academy, Colorado Springs.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Citera, M. (1992). A goal hierarchy model of personality, motivation, and
leadership. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 267–322.
Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the lifespan. Human Development, 34, 230 –255.
Gibbons, T. C. (1986). Revisiting the question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of development of
transformational leaders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.
Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. L. (2001). A theoretical and empirical extension of the
transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 759 –774.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.
Hollenbeck, G. P. (2009). Executive selection—What’s right . . . and what’s wrong. Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 2, 130 –143.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, H. B. (1995). The ethical leader: An ascetic construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 867– 874.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.
Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., Bono, J. E., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2006). Who are the spellbinders? Identifying personal attributes of charismatic leaders.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(4), 12–26.
Knights, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, ethics and responsibility to the other. Journal of Business
Ethics, 67, 125–137.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive– developmental approach. In T. Lickona
(Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2008). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological
Science, 20, 99 –106.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 133–152.
Macdonald, C., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An empirical indication
of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 787–799.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Culture, self, and the reality of the social. Psychological Inquiry, 14,
277–283.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humour: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic
Press.
May, D. R., Chan, A. D. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional
development and emotional intelligence: Educational applications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of personality and
situations: An integrative situational– dispositional representation of personality traits. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 193–207.
Niedenthal, P. M., Setterlund, M. C., & Wherry, M. B. (1992). Possible self-complexity and affective reactions
to goal-relevant evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 5–16.
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing up the conceptual confusion.
European Management Journal, 25(3), 171–184.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Methodological issues in positive psychology and the assessment of character
strengths. In A. D. Ong & M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp.
292–305). New York: Oxford University Press.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thompson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity and transformational leadership in
organizational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75–96.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths before and after September 11. Psychological
Science, 14, 381–384.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New
York: Oxford/American Psychological Association.
Ross, S. M., & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and
work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078 –1086.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20
countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1– 65). New York:
Academic Press.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership develop-
ment. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395– 417.
Shryack, J., Steger, M. F., Krueger, R. F., & Kallie, C. S. (2010). The structure of virtue: An empirical
investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48, 714 –719.
Sosik, J. J. (2000). Meaning from within: Possible selves and personal meaning of charismatic and noncharis-
matic leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 7(2), 3–17.
Sosik, J. J. (2001). Self– other agreement on charismatic leadership: Relationships with work attitudes and
managerial performance. Group & Organization Management, 26, 484 –511.
Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and
preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 221–244.
Sosik, J. J. (2006). Leading with character: Stories of valor and virtue and the principles they teach. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Beneath the mask: Examining the relationship of self-presentation
attributes and impression management to charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 217–242.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2004). Self– other rating agreement in mentoring: Meeting protégé expectations
for development and career advancement. Group & Organization Management, 29, 442– 469.
Sosik, J. J., Godshalk, V. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). Transformational leadership, learning goal orientation,
and expectations for career success in mentor–protégé relationships: A multiple levels of analysis perspec-
tive. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 241–261.
Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. (2010). Full range leadership development: Pathways for people, profit and planet.
New York: Routledge.

Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Dinger, S. L. (2009). Values in authentic action: Examining the roots and rewards of
altruistic leadership. Group & Organization Management, 34, 395– 431.
Sosik, J. J., Juzbasich, J., & Chun, J. U. (in press). Effects of moral reasoning and management level on ratings
of charismatic leadership, in-role and extra-role performance of managers: A multisource examination. The
Leadership Quarterly.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role
of self– other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Manage-
ment, 24, 367–390.
Steger, M. F., Hicks, B. M., Kashdan, T. B., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Genetic and environmental
influences on the positive traits of the values in action classification, and biometric covariance with normal
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 524 –539.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral
reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 304 –311.
Victor, J. B., & Cullen, B. (1993). The Ethical Climate Questionnaire: An assessment of its development and
validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667– 674.
Weaver, G. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organizational
Studies, 27, 341–368.
Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161–186.
Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences
(Vol. 6, pp. 581–591). New York: Wiley.
Received May 4, 2010

Latest revision received October 18, 2010
Accepted October 27, 2010 䡲
Showcase your work in APA’s newest database.
Make your tests available to other researchers and students; get wider recognition for your work.
“PsycTESTS is going to be an outstanding resource for psychology,” said Ronald F. Levant,
PhD. “I was among the first to provide some of my tests and was happy to do so. They will be
available for others to use—and will relieve me of the administrative tasks of providing them to
individuals.”
Visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psyctests/call-for-tests.aspx
to learn more about PsycTESTS and how you can participate.
Questions? Call 1-800-374-2722 or write to tests@apa.org.
Not since PsycARTICLES has a database been so eagerly anticipated!

Character and Authentic Transformational

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Character and Authentic Transformational

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 62, No. 4, 251–269 1065-9293/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022104

CHARACTER AND AUTHENTIC

John J. Sosik and John C. Cameron

Character, or inherent moral beliefs, intentions, and predispositions, is often considered

Keywords: character strength, virtue, ascetic self-construal, authentic transformational

Figure 1. Conceptual model and summary of propositions.

Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration in a

Virtues, Character Strengths, and Their Measurement

Virtues, Character Strengths, and Authentic Transformational Leadership

Wisdom and Knowledge

(Sosik & Jung, 2010).

Because leadership is a social influence process, we suggest that authentic transformational

the display of idealized influence and inspirational motivation.

Leader Personal Attributes

The Role of Genetics

leadership behavior Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass inspirational motivation, intellectual

& Avolio, 1999) stimulation, and individualized

New York: Routledge.

Received May 4, 2010

Showcase your work in APA’s newest database.

You might also like