LP762-L2 WEEK 7

BRIEF REPORT

Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Character and Perceptions of Leader Effectiveness During the COVID-19 Crisis

Gerard H. Seijts1, Cristine de Clercy2, and Gouri Mohan1 1 Ivey Business School, Western University

2 Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Science, Western University

Character is a leadership quality that is often scrutinized yet poorly understood. Our research focuses on several questions relating to character and perceived leader effectiveness during the COVID-19 crisis. First, does the character of the prime minister matter to voters during major crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic? Second, are all dimensions that comprise the leader character framework we examined considered essential for political leadership in times of crisis? Third, is character related to perceptions of leadership effectiveness? Fourth, what role does identification-based trust play in the relationship between character and perceptions of leadership effectiveness in times of crisis? The results of our survey taken during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic reveal that character is considered among Canadians of voting age as an important ingredient of political leadership. We also found that there is a significant gap between the perceived importance of the dimensions that comprise character and the belief that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lives up to the expectations. The congruence between the perceived importance of the character dimensions and the belief that Trudeau demonstrated these dimensions predicted leadership effectiveness, and this relationship was mediated by trust. Our results are based on perceptions of leadership effectiveness; that is, we do not have objective measures of performance.

Public Significance Statement This study advances our understanding of the importance of character in political leadership during crisis situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings explicate the behaviors associated with leader character. Additionally, the study reveals that trust helps to explain the effect of character on perceived effectiveness of leaders.

Keywords: leadership, character, trust, crisis

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000214.supp

Scholars have long pondered what leadership qualities people consider essential for effective political leadership. Perceptions of leadership qualities are associated with voting intentions and voting behavior (Davis & Gardner, 2012; Pillai et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2012). Character is a key leadership quality that is often scrutinized, with a longstanding tradition of emphasizing the role of character in presidential leadership (Barber, 1972; Greenstein, 1968). In the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the term

character has been used frequently because a leader’s character is considered essential to allay fear and reduce uncertainty, as well as to

galvanize and move people forward toward a common goal. Wehner (2020) wrote about the challenges of presidential leadership during the pandemic, noting that “it’s reasonable to expect that a president will face an unexpected crisis—and at that point, the president’s judgment and discernment, his character and leadership ability, will really matter.”

Sergent and Stajkovic (2020) empirically demonstrated the impor- tance of character during the COVID-19 crisis. They found that female governors who issued early stay-at-home orders had fewer COVID-19 deaths in their states than male governors who issued the same orders. Analyses revealed that female governors cultivatedmore empathy (as part of humanity; see Figure 1) and confidence (as part of courage; see Figure 1) through their COVID-19 briefings than did male governors. The female governors were able to connect with their constituents by exhibiting empathy through an outward emotional response that revealed concern and care for citizens’ welfare. Simi- larly, when female governors twinned their confidence with empathy, they were not perceived as exhibiting bravado but rather demonstrat- ing an ability to do what was needed to manage and endure the crisis.

This article was published Online First March 18, 2021.

Gerard H. Seijts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-0646

Cristine de Clercy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6800-6001

Gouri Mohan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4668-3519 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gerard

H. Seijts, Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7. Phone: 519 661 3968. Email: [email protected]

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement

ISSN: 0008-400X 2021, Vol. 53, No. 3, 358–364 © 2021 Canadian Psychological Association https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000214

358

However, despite common use of the concept of character, social scientists do not share a consistent understanding of the term. This is problematic because character is considered an indispensable com- ponent of leadership (Hannah & Jennings, 2013; Laustsen & Bor, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to address that gap by highlighting a comprehensive framework of leader character that has been devel- oped and validated in the organizational sciences and applied to political leadership. We first explore whether Canadians believe character is impor-

tant in political leadership. Then we examine voters’ perceptions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s character and whether the con- gruence between the perceived importance of the character dimen- sions and the belief that Trudeau demonstrated these dimensions predicted leadership effectiveness during the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis. We further explore whether this relationship is mediated by identification-based trust. We believe that exploring variables that mediate the relationship between character and perceptions of leader effectiveness will shed light on voter sense- making and subsequent voter behavior. Examining trust toward politicians (and government) is especially important because trust contributes to adherence to health guidelines, reduces the spread of misinformation, and facilitates a greater sense of community (Sibley et al., 2020).

Leader Character

Our research is aligned with the work of Crossan et al. (2016, 2017) on virtuous character. They explained that character is a combination of virtues, personality traits, and values that enable excellence. Virtues are situationally appropriate behaviors, such as justice and humanity, which are widely considered as emblematic of good leadership in that they contribute to the well-being of individuals and societies. Some of these virtuous behaviors reflect the activation of personality traits, such as conscientiousness and resiliency, which are relatively stable dispositional variables. Some of the virtues are expressed as values, such as being equitable. Values act as deep- seated beliefs people hold about what is morally right or wrong. Character is, in short, a habit of being—a set of observable behaviors —anchored in a set of virtues, personality traits, and values that facilitate human excellence and produce personal and social better- ment (Crossan et al., 2017; Seijts & de Clercy, 2020). There are numerous studies on the relationship between personality

traits (e.g., need for achievement or openness to experience) and success in public office (George & George, 2019; Simonton, 1988). Character, however, is distinct from personality traits. First, character is anchored in virtuous behaviors and can be developed (e.g., through deliberate practice or as a result of crucible experiences) as opposed to many personality traits, which are relatively stable (Crossan et al., 2016). Second, many personality traits are agnostic to virtue. Char- acter is not simply a set of desirable personality traits; it encompasses only those personality traits that are virtuous in nature (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Wright & Lauer, 2013). Character also differs from competencies. Studies have found that

competence-related impressions of political candidates contribute to voting behavior (Kinder, 1986; Laustsen&Bor, 2017). Competencies reflect what a leader can do (e.g., think strategically, communicate persuasively, and build high-performance teams) as a result of natural talent,developedskill,orboth(Seijtset al.,2018).Incontrast,character arises from habitual behaviors anchored in virtues, personality traits,

and values. Character influences not only how competencies are activated, but whether they are exercised at all (Sturm et al., 2017). For example, does a person have the courage to speak up and bring a different perspective to the discussion especially in the face of strong opposition in the team?

Crossan et al. (2017) developed and validated the leader character framework shown in Figure 1. Their qualitative and quantitative research studies with over 2,500 leaders from the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors identified 11 dimensions of character. The framework also highlights 60-plus character elements, or behavioral descriptors, that are illustrative of the character dimensions.

Crossan et al. (2016, 2017) explained that the ontology of character is such that the dimensions are interrelated and constitute a network of correlated constructs that—independently and interac- tively—contribute to sustained excellence. By sustained excellence, they suggest that individuals perform at the highest levels, both in the short and long term, through the activation of dimensions of character that support good judgment. The interconnectedness among the dimensions is an essential feature of the framework because a dimension that might seem to be inherently virtuous may actually operate as a vice when not connected to other dimensions. For example, an excess of drive or confidence may be interpreted as hubris or insensitivity in the absence of compassion.

A second feature of the framework is the positioning of judgment in the centre. Leadership is always context dependent. Hence, consistent with Aristotelian thinking, practical wisdom—or judg- ment—is the outcome of the application of the dimensions of character in situationally appropriate ways (Crossan et al., 2017; Schwartz & Sharpe, 2010). For example, the wise leader under- stands when to encourage collaboration and foster engagement and when to be more directive.

Crossan et al. (2017) provided a theory-driven, multi-dimen- sional, and integrated framework of leader character. Other scholars such as Bittner (2011) and Johnston (2002) who examine political leadership and national elections use only partial representations of the concept of leader character in their studies. They employed a limited assortment of indicators of character (e.g., honesty and compassion) that were extracted from past national election studies.

Seijts et al. (2020) demonstrated that using this holistic perspec- tive of character when selecting individuals for senior leadership positions had a positive financial impact in a manufacturing organization.

Identification-Based Trust

There is limited research on how character affects leader effec- tiveness. We explored the possibility that trust mediates the rela- tionship between character and effectiveness. Trust is essential in political leadership; without citizens’ trust, leaders are unlikely to build commitment to ideas and plans (Hetherington, 1998; Williams et al., 2009). We were particularly interested in the role of identifi- cation-based trust, which emphasizes an emotional connection between leaders and followers (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008). Identification-based trust may be especially important during crises as leaders seek to motivate followers to initiate broad-based action and as followers seek leaders for hope and support.

Voters who consider character to be important to leadership and believe their leaders are of high character through deploying virtuous

COVID-19 AND LEADER CHARACTER 359

behaviors (e.g., demonstrating transcendence, humanity, temper- ance, and judgment) are likely to develop faith or trust in the leaders. They effectively understand and agreewith the leader’s decisions and subsequent actions, and they begin to empathize with the leader. Increased identificationwith a leadermanifests itself in sharedvalues, ideas, and objectives (Lewicki et al., 1997; Williams et al., 2009). Identification-based trust, in other words, allows citizens to be confi- dent that their interests will be protected and, as such, facilitates confidence in the leader to emerge. This idea is consistent with Sison (2006) who articulated that virtue is the source of trust on which effective leadership is founded.

Research Questions

We focus on four questions. First, does character matter to Canadian voters during major crises such as the COVID-19 pan- demic? Second, are all dimensions that comprise the leader character framework considered essential for political leadership in a time of crisis? Third, is character related to perceptions of leadership effec- tiveness? And fourth, what role does identification-based trust play in explaining the relationship between character (perceived importance,

character demonstrated) and perceptions of leadership effectiveness in times of crisis? Our research is both descriptive and explanatory.

Method

Sample and Procedures

We relied on the AskingCanadians organization to administer an online survey. The respondents (N = 653) were sourced from a well-established online market research panel community. The data were collected in April 2020. The sample was measured against interlocking age, gender, and regional quota structures that resemble the demographic distribution of Canada. The percentage of males and females was 50.5 and 49.5, respectively. The median age group was 34–54 years. Fifty-one percent of respondents were employed full-time; 26% were retired. The self-described current support was 38% Liberal; 31% Conservative; 14% New Democrat; 6% Green; and 11% other.

We collected similar data in October 2016 (N = 506) and September 2019 (N = 1,202) as part of an ongoing research pro- gram investigating how citizens of voting age assess the character of

Figure 1 Framework of Leader Character

Note. Leader character dimensions and associated character elements (Crossan et al., 2017).

360 SEIJTS, DE CLERCY, AND MOHAN

political leaders. These data too were collected by the AskingCa- nadians organization (see supplemental Table 1).

Measures

Character

We used the character framework developed by Crossan et al. (2017) as the foundation for measuring the perceived importance of the character dimensions for political leadership and to judge the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau. Specifically, we asked the respondents: “Please rate each of the following leadership dimen- sions according to how strongly you agree or disagree that it is an essential aspect for fulfilling the role of prime minister.” We provided the illustrative behaviors—that is, the character elements—in parentheses (see Figure 1) (e.g., accountability (takes ownership; accepts consequences; conscientious)) to enhance the transparency of the dimension. The scores ranged from not at all (1) to a great extent (5); the midpoint of the scale was somewhat (3). Further, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they perceived Trudeau demonstrated each of the dimensions of charac- ter during the COVID-19 pandemic. Again, a description of each dimension was provided to create a common frame of reference for the respondents. The response options ranged from not at all (1) to a great extent (5); the midpoint of the scale was somewhat (3). These measures are similar to those used by Seijts and de Clercy (2020); Seijts et al. (2018). All items we used in this study are shown in supplemental Table 2.

Identification-Based Trust

We adapted four items taken from the identification-based trust scale developed by Lewicki et al. (1997). A sample item is “Justin Trudeau and I have the same basic values.” The scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5); the midpoint of the scale was neither disagree nor agree (3). The Cronbach α of the scale was .94.

Perceived Effectiveness as a Leader

The perceived effectiveness of Trudeau as prime minister was measured using a single item: “How effective do you consider Justin Trudeau to be in fulfilling the roles and responsibilities associated with the role of prime minister?” The scores ranged from very ineffective (1) to very effective (5); the midpoint of the scale was neutral (3). We adopted this operationalization of perceived effec- tiveness as a leader since approval ratings reflect the electorate’s opinions and appraisal of the prime minister’s (or president’s) leadership (Davis & Gardner, 2012).

Analytical Approach

We used polynomial regression and response surface methodol- ogy (Edwards, 1994; Edwards & Parry, 1993; Shanock et al., 2010) to better understand how the congruence/incongruence between the perceived importance of character and the perceived demonstration of character by Prime Minister Trudeau affected trust and perceived effectiveness. The polynomial regression and response surface methodology provide a three-dimensional view of the relationship between combinations of two predictor variables and an outcome

variable, whereas a traditional regression analysis provides a two- dimensional view of these relationships.

The polynomial regression was followed by a block mediation approach to test the indirect effect of the difference measure (perceived importance, character demonstrated) on perceived lead- ership effectiveness via identification-based trust, the mediator. As recommended by Edwards and Cable (2009), we first constructed a block variable, which is a weighted linear composite of the five polynomial terms (X, Y, X2, XY, Y2) where X = importance of character and Y = demonstration of character. The respective weights were the estimated regression coefficients in the polynomial regression. We then regressed the mediator on the block variable to obtain a single parameter to be used as the first stage in the model when testing for the indirect effects of the five polynomial terms on perceived leadership effectiveness. We then used causal mediation analysis with non-parametric bootstrapping in R to assess the indirect effect of the block variable on perceived leadership effec- tiveness via identification-based trust.

Results

We asked the respondents to rank order the importance of competencies, character, and commitment to the leadership role as they relate to fulfilling the role of primeminister. The respondents were provided with a brief description of competencies (skills, knowledge), character (virtues, personality traits, values), and com- mitment (aspiration, engagement, sacrifice). Thirty percent ranked character as their number one choice, and 52% ranked competencies as the most important facet of leadership.

We employed the leader character framework to assess specific aspects of character for the role of prime minister. The respondents found all dimensions to be essential (scores ≥ 4.0). Further, as the results in Table 1 reveal, the data are remarkably stable across time. For example, the perceived importance of the dimensions either remained the same (accountability, courage, drive, integrity, judg- ment, justice, and transcendence) or slightly yet significantly increased (collaboration, humanity, humility, and temperance) from 2016 to 2020.

We then asked respondents to employ the leader character frame- work to appraise the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau (see Table 1). The gap between the perceived importance of the character dimensions and the belief that Trudeau lives up to the expectations is appreciable. For example, all the gaps across the dimensions for the April 2020 data collection are significant at the .001 level. The patterns for the 2016 and 2019 data sets are the same.

Table 1 reveals that Trudeau’s scores for each of the dimensions of character has significantly increased since the 2019 election (all p < .001). Canadians generally rated his character highly in the 2016 sample, about a year after the Liberals formed government. His 2019 scores across all dimensions showed a significant deterioration (all p < .001), likely owing to the effects of the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the blackface photos that appeared just prior to the 2019 federal election. Our results thus suggest that voter evaluation of leader character is somewhat malleable, something we return to in the Discussion.

Table 1 also lists the average score for Trudeau across the 11 character dimensions. For example, his average 2020 score for demonstrating the dimensions was 3.62 (SD = .98). We conducted a factor analysis to support the aggregation. We performed a

COVID-19 AND LEADER CHARACTER 361

principal component analysis on the 11 dimensions using a Promax rotation because it was assumed that the dimensions would be highly correlated. The results revealed a single extracted factor (λ = 8.32) that explained 75.60% of the variance. The Cronbach α for the attribution of character was .96. The results of the polynomial regression and response surface

methodology are shown in supplemental Tables 3 and 4 as well as supplemental Figures 1 and 2. First, as shown in supplemental Table 3 and Figure 1, the slope of the fit line for identification-based trust was positive and significant (slope = .86, p < .01). This result indicates that trust in Prime Minister Trudeau increased when both the per- ceived importance of the character dimensions as well as the belief that Trudeau demonstrated these dimensions increased. Second, as shown in supplemental Table 4 and Figure 2, the slope of the fit line for perceived effectiveness as a leader was positive and significant (slope = .96, p < .01). This result indicates that leadership effective- ness also increased as the perceived importance of the character dimensions and the belief that Trudeau demonstrated these dimen- sions increased. Third, our block mediation analysis revealed that there was a significant indirect effect between the congruence mea- sure of character (perceived importance, character demonstrated) and leadership effectiveness via trust (βindirect = .25, p < .01). Our results also revealed that the slope of the misfit line was

positive and significant in the case of identification-based trust (slope = .63, p < .01) and perceived leadership effectiveness (slope = .78, p < .01) (see supplemental Tables 3 and 4). This implies that trust and perceived leadership effectiveness were higher when leader character demonstrated exceeded the perceived impor- tance of character rather than perceptions of the importance of leader character exceeding evaluations of actual character demonstrated.

Discussion

A cursory examination of the literature shows that both political scientists and leadership scholars from fields such as psychology, sociology, and organizational sciences agree that character is impor- tant to political leaders. Character is considered an antecedent of trust; and trust is seen as foundational to effective leadership because it facilitates followers’ endorsement of the leader’s intentions.

Citizens want to invest their trust in leaders to guide them forward, especially in times of crisis, which often involve uncertainty, ambiguity, and anxiety. We tested this set of assumptions during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic using a newly devel- oped character framework from the organizational sciences to assess the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Our results revealed that character in political leaders matters greatly to Canadians of voting age. Further, Canadians rated all dimensions of the leader character framework as an important aspect for fulfilling the role of prime minister. And, most importantly, congruence between the perceived importance of the character dimensions and the belief that Trudeau demonstrated these dimen- sions predicted leadership effectiveness; and this relationship was mediated by identification-based trust. Findings also showed that trust and leadership effectiveness are higher for Trudeau when the ratings for demonstrated leader character exceeded the perceived importance of character.

What makes our research unique is that character is an under- researched attribute of leadership and yet, as our results suggest, character contributes to perceptions of leadership effectiveness. We used a character framework that is based on systematic research to assess the effect of character on trust and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. An additional strength of the framework is that it clarifies the construct of character by explicating the behaviors associated with character. However, we acknowledge that the perception of the character of a leader is not independent of how effective that leader is perceived to be. A more robust conclusion regarding the relationship between character and leader effective- ness is possible when objective performance (e.g., the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths) is assessed.

Our results also demonstrated that voter evaluations of leader character are highly malleable. For example, it is not unreasonable to assume that the 2019 SNC Lavalin affair deeply affected voter perceptions of Trudeau’s character; for example, his behaviors revealed a lot about his lack of accountability, justice, and judgment (all scored < 3.0). This finding suggests that tracking perceptions of character, identification-based trust, and effectiveness of leaders over time is important. Crises are typically unpredictable and involve many defining moments where character is needed to

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Perceived Importance of Dimensions of Character for Political Leadership and the Extent to Which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Demonstrates the Dimensions of Character

Perceived importance Dimensions demonstrated

2016 2019 2020 2016 2019 2020

Accountability 4.44a (.92) 4.52a (.84) 4.47a (.91) 3.43a (1.11) 2.73b (1.40) 3.35a (1.25) Collaboration 4.13a (.87) 4.19ab (.86) 4.25b (.86) 3.72a (1.07) 3.15b (1.30) 3.76a (1.09) Courage 3.98a (.90) 4.08b (.89) 4.14b (.85) 3.62a (1.03) 3.23b (1.31) 3.43c (1.15) Drive 4.16a (.90) 4.21a (.86) 4.22a (.84) 3.68a (1.02) 3.32b (1.25) 3.54c (1.08) Humanity 3.99a (.92) 4.10b (.91) 4.20c (.89) 3.84a (1.03) 3.32b (1.32) 3.88a (1.12) Humility 3.97a (.91) 4.06a (.93) 4.16b (.90) 3.59a (1.11) 2.87b (1.36) 3.61a (1.19) Integrity 4.40a (.91) 4.51b (.84) 4.45ab (.86) 3.57a (1.07) 2.67b (1.31) 3.44a (1.22) Judgment 4.36a (.94) 4.44a (.83) 4.41a (.88) 3.49a (1.09) 2.97b (1.29) 3.55a (1.15) Justice 4.29a (.91) 4.40b (.87) 4.34ab (.91) 3.66a (1.05) 2.92b (1.33) 3.62a (1.17) Temperance 4.12a (.83) 4.11a (.90) 4.25b (.82) 3.88a (1.01) 3.41b (1.23) 4.05c (1.05) Transcendence 3.93a (.85) 4.01a (.87) 3.99a (.87) 3.68a (1.02) 3.22b (1.28) 3.55a (1.09) Total score 4.16a (.71) 4.24a (.68) 4.26a (.68) 3.65a (.90) 3.07b (1.14) 3.62a (.98)

Note. Means without a common superscript differ (p ranges from p < .001 to p < .05).

362 SEIJTS, DE CLERCY, AND MOHAN

successfully navigate challenges. Crises reveal a leader’s character, for good and bad. How leaders behave and respond to crisis situations and the trust

they invoke in their followers ultimately influences leaders’ success. We are reminded of a powerful quote byWarren Buffett—American investor, business tycoon, philanthropist, and the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway—who observed that “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and 5 min to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” This statement implies that character and trust serve as an important starting point for the next episode of influence and, as such, are important resources that can be leveraged (Ammeter et al., 2002). The salience of this conclusion is magnified given the results

presented in Table 1, which illustrate that in almost every situation, Canadians ranked the perceived importance of the character dimen- sions higher than they ranked their assessment of Prime Minister Trudeau’s demonstration of those dimensions. It is important to note, however, that the measures for Trudeau were contrasted with an ideal leader. We don’t know how Trudeau scores in comparison to a “typical” leader of a nation. Further, both Trudeau’s identifica- tion-based trust (M = 2.99, SD = 1.08) and perceived leadership effectiveness (M = 3.31, SD = 1.26) scores were at the midpoint of the scale. We can only imagine how perceived leader effectiveness would improve if leaders consistently demonstrate the full set of behaviors associated with character. Therefore, as Hannah and Jennings (2013) articulated, far from being optional or nice-to- have, character is fundamental to leadership. The question is not really why character matters, but why it does not always get the attention it warrants. Finally, we acknowledge that tracking the interrelationships

between character, identification-based trust, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness is important because our study was cross-sectional in nature and, hence, we cannot establish the exis- tence of causal relationships. For example, it is entirely possible that the actions that leaders take (and evaluations of leader effectiveness) influence people’s assessment of leader character and trust. The relationships among the constructs can be expected to be dynamic and reciprocally related, which offers important opportunities for future research. Nevertheless, as the results of our study indicate, leader character and identification-based trust appear to be critically important resources for any leader to have to be effective in his or her role during a crisis.

Résumé

Le caractère est une qualité de leadership qui est souvent examinée, mais mal comprise. Notre recherche porte sur plusieurs questions relatives au caractère et à la perception de l’efficacité des leaders pendant la crise de la COVID-19. Premièrement, le caractère du premier ministre a-t-il de l’importance pour les électeurs lors de crises majeures telles que la pandémie de COVID-19? Deuxième- ment, toutes les dimensions qui composent le cadre du caractère du leader que nous avons examiné sont-elles jugées essentielles pour le leadership politique en temps de crise? Troisièmement, le caractère est-il lié aux perceptions de l’efficacité du leadership? Quatrième- ment, quel rôle joue la confiance basée sur l’identification dans la relation entre le caractère et les perceptions de l’efficacité du leadership en temps de crise? Les résultats de notre enquête menée

au cours des premières semaines de la pandémie de COVID-19 révèlent que le caractère est considéré par les Canadiens en âge de voter comme un ingrédient important du leadership politique. Nous avons également constaté qu’il existe un écart significatif entre l’importance perçue des dimensions qui composent le caractère et la conviction que le premier ministre Justin Trudeau est à la hauteur des attentes. La congruence entre l’importance perçue des dimen- sions du caractère et la croyance que Trudeau démontre ces dimen- sions prédit l’efficacité du leadership, et cette relation a été arbitrée par la confiance. Nos résultats sont basés sur les perceptions de l’efficacité du leadership, c’est-à-dire que nous ne disposons pas de mesures objectives de la performance.

Mots-clés : leadership, caractère, confiance, crise

References

Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2002). Toward a political theory of leadership. The Leadership Quar- terly, 13(6), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00157-1

Barber, J. D. (1972). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House. Prentice Hall.

Bittner, A. (2011). Platform or personality? The role of party leaders in elections. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199595365.001.0001

Crossan, M., Byrne, A., Seijts, G., Reno, M., Monzani, L., & Gandz, J. (2017). Toward a framework of leader character in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7), 986–1018. https://doi.org/10 .1111/joms.12254

Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2016). Developing leadership character. Routledge.

Davis, K. M., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). Charisma under crisis revisited: Presidential leadership, perceived leader effectiveness, and contextual influences. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 918–933. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.06.001

Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/ obhd.1994.1029

Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0014891

Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613.

George, A. L., & George, J. L. (2019). Presidential personality and performance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429302961

Greenstein, F. I. (1968). The need for the systematic inquiry into personality and politics: Introduction and overview. Journal of Social Issues, 24(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb02303.x

Hannah, S. T., & Jennings, P. L. (2013). Leader ethos and big-C character. Organizational Dynamics, 42(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn .2012.12.002

Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808. https://doi.org/10 .2307/2586304

Johnston, R. (2002). Prime ministerial contenders in Canada. In A. King (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 158–193). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ 0199253137.003.0006

Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 233–255). Lawrence Erlbaum.

COVID-19 AND LEADER CHARACTER 363

Laustsen, L., & Bor, A. (2017). The relative weight of character traits in political candidate evaluations: Warmth is more important than compe- tence, leadership and integrity. Electoral Studies, 49, 96–107. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.08.001

Lewicki, R. J., Stevenson, M. A., & Bunker, B. B. (1997). The three components of interpersonal trust: Instrument development and differ- ences across relationships. [Paper presentation] The International Asso- ciation of Conflict Management, Bonn, Germany.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.

Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 US presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 161–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(03)00008-0

Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader—member exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organiza- tional Studies, 15(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808320986

Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom: The right way to do the right thing. Penguin.

Seijts, G., & de Clercy, C. (2020). How do populist voters rate their political leaders? Comparing citizen assessments in three jurisdictions. Politics and Governance, 8(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2540

Seijts, G., De Clercy, C., & Nguyen, B. (2018). Exploring how Canadian voters evaluate leader character in three cases: Justin Trudeau, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. Journal of Canadian Studies. Revue d’Etudes Canadiennes, 52(2), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.2017-0055.r1

Seijts, G., Espinoza, J., & Carswell, J. (2020). Utility analysis of character assessment in employee placement. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 41, 5, 703–720.

Sergent, K., & Stajkovic, A. D. (2020). Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualita- tive analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000577

Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations

of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4

Sibley, C. G., Greaves, L. M., Satherley, N., Wilson, M. S., Overall, N. C., Lee, C. H., : : : Houkamau, C. A. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward govern- ment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 75(5), 618–630. https:// doi.org/10.1037/amp0000662

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 928–936. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.928

Sison, A. J. G. (2006). Leadership, character and virtues from an Aristotelian viewpoint. In T. Maak & N. M. Pless (Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 128–141). Routledge.

Sturm, R. E., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2017). The entanglement of leader character and leader competence and its impact on performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua .2016.11.007

Wehner, P. (2020). The Trump presidency is over. The Atlantic, March 13. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/peter-wehner-trump- presidency-over/607969/

Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B., & Lowe, K. B. (2012). The effects of crisis, cynicism about change, and value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed charisma in the 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.003

Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Lowe, K. B., Jung, D., & Herst, D. (2009). Crisis, charisma, values, and voting behavior in the 2004 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua .2009.01.002

Wright, T. A., & Lauer, T. L. (2013).What is character and why it really does matter. Organizational Dynamics, 42(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .orgdyn.2012.12.004

Received May 7, 2020 Revision received December 21, 2020

Accepted January 5, 2021 ▪

364 SEIJTS, DE CLERCY, AND MOHAN