This study explores the relation between indicators of moral behavior and peer ratings of leadership behavior in Norwegian naval officer cadets (N = 172). Moral reasoning (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999b Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999b). A Neo-Kohlbergian approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 291–324.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002 Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) were used as predictor variables, and peer rating of leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1995 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]) was used as the primary outcome measure. The results indicated that postconventional moral reasoning and moral identity were positively correlated with transactional and transformational leadership behavior, and they were negatively correlated with passive–avoidant leadership behavior. A stepwise hierarchical regression analysis revealed that indicators of moral behavior explained 10% to 14% of the variance in passive–avoidant, transactional, and transformational leader behavior. Furthermore, indicators of moral behavior emerged as significant predictor variables for the transformational facets of idealized influence (17%), inspirational motivation (12%), and individualized consideration (16%). Finally, indicators of moral behavior also predicted the transactional facet of contingent reward (11%), the passive–avoidant facets of management-by-exception–passive (8%), and laissez-faire (9%). Taken together these data indicate that individual differences in moral reasoning and moral identity significantly affect leadership behavior, and may have implications for training and selection of military personnel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olsen et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: