1. 1

2.  Investigate if six of the Character Strengths from
Peterson and Seligman’s classification (2004)
predicted any of the three leadership styles of
Transformational, Transactional or Laissez-Faire
(Bass & Avolio, 2004).
2

3. 3
Hope, Spirituality,
Humility,
Gratitude, Humor
Prudence
Transformational Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Laissez-Faire Leadership

4.  Quantitative
 Non-Experimental
 Cross-sectional
 3 Multiple Regression analyses
4

5.  Sampling frame- 8000 Norwegian leaders
 Union The Leaders
 N=173
5

6. 6
Category n %
Gender
Female 49 23.8
Male 124 71.7
Age
25-34 11 6.4
35-44 43 24.9
45-54 76 43.9
55+ 42 24.3
Org.size
0-20 35 20.2
50-100 20 11.6
100-200 19 11.0
200-499 24 13.9
500-9999 46 26.6
10 000+ 6 3.5
Tenure
4 years or less 71 41.1
5-10 years 49 28.4
10-20 years 23 13.3
20-30 years 7 4.0
30 + years 3 1.7
Educational level
9 years 5 2.9
12 years 39 22.5
Vocational education 51 29.5
Some college/University 23 13.3
Bachelor degree 36 20.8
Master degree 18 10.4

7.  The Values In Action classificiation of Strength
(VIA-IS) 72-item scale (Peterson & Seligman,
2004)
 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ-5X-Short) by Bass & Avolio
(Mindgarden, 2004)
7

8.  Independent variables; Hope, Spirituality,
Humility, Gratitude, Humor and Prudence
 Dependent variables;
› H1: Tranformational Leadership
› H2:Transactional Leadership
› H3: Laissez-faire Leadership
8

9.  H1: The six Character Strengths of Hope,
Spirituality, Humility, Gratitude, Humor and
Prudence predict Transformational leadership
style.
 F= (6,149)= 2.98, p< .01
 Hope was found to be a significant individual
contributor (β = .25, p< .05)
9

10.  H2; The six Character Strengths of Hope,
Spirituality, Humility, Gratitude, Humor and
Prudence predict Transactional Leadership style.
 F= (6,141) = 3.31, p< .005.
 Spirituality made a unique significant negative
contribution (β = .21, p < .02)
10

11.  H3; The six Character Strengths of Hope,
Spirituality, Humility, Gratitude, Humor and
Prudence predict Laissez-Faire leadership style.
 H3 not confirmed
 None of the 6 Character Strengths made any
significant contributions
11

12.  Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron & Myrowitz (2009)
found that the positive psychological traits of
Hope, Optimism and Resiliency was related to
Transformational Leadership in CEO’s in High-
Technology Firms
 Chaturvedi, Arvey, Zhang & Cristoforou (2011)
found that the genetic influence on
Transformational leadership was mediated by
dispositional hope.
12

13.  Jamaludin, Rahman, Makhbul & Idris (2011)
found that Spiritual leadership can be
distinguished from Transactional and
Transformational leadership.
 McKee, Driscoll, Kelloway & Kelley (2011)
found a relationship between the effects of
Transformational Leadership and employees
spiritual well-being in health care workers
13

14.  In a study done by Riggio, Zhu, Maroosis &
Reina (2010) Laissez-Faire leadership was found
to negatively correlate to Prudence (-.64).
 Avolio, Howell & Sosik (1999) found that
inactive, laissez-faire leadership was negatively
related to the use of humor.
14

15.  The higher Hope, the higher Transformational
leadership
 The more spiritual a leader is, the less
Transactional leader he is.
 Both TL and CS/Virtues can be developed
 can be used in leadership development programs
15

16.  Character Strengths and Virtues can be seen as
universally and religiously applicable across
many of the countries and world religions
(Seligman et al, 2004; 2006)
 Heightens CS/V’s value and importance for
universally accepted leadership
 Can contribute to an international
conceptualization of global leadership theory
16

17.  Using self-reporting;
› Consistency motif
› Implicit theories
› Social acceptability
 Length of questionnaire
 English versions
 Low response rate hinders generalization
 Sample limitation; 71.7% males, 28.3 % women
17

18.  Replicate among other Norwegian leaders
 Replicate among leaders in other nations and
continents
 Study other precursors to Transformational
leadership that can be developed
 Longitudinal experimental design research
18

19.  This research contributed to the overall
knowledge base of
› leadership and to the evolving research about
› Character Strengths/Virtues and positive psychology
 This research filled a gap in the literature
studying antencedents to TL that are not stable
inherent traits
19