The Relationship Between The Personality Characters of School Managers and Their Leadership Styles

Year 2006, Volume: 46 Issue: 46, 199 - 226, 01.07.2006

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mehmet Korkmaz

Abstract

This study was done to find out the relationship between the basic characteristics of personality and leadership behaviours shown in educational instutitions.More openly,whether the manager's managerial behaviours towards problem solving mediates in the relationship between school managers'personal chracteristics and leathership styles.The study was done by collecting data in 35 high schoos and 62 primary school managers and 375 teachers working in these schools in the central towns of the province of Ankara.The data was obtained by applying three different questionnaires MLQ,KAI and NEO-PI.First,after investigating personality variables by using a correlational approach,hierarchical K-means Cluster Analysis was done by using standart scores obtained from total scores ,five factors in NEO-PI and preference scores obtained from bipolar preference scores.Four distinct groups were obtained: 1.Inventors 2.Managers 3.Implementors 4.Motivators ANOVA tests done by using these groups revealed significant differences about managers'perceptions of leadership behaviours.More generally, it was found that school managers who are in the inventors-motivators group showed more transformational leadership features more than the school managers who are in the managers-implementors group. Summary Introduction According to organizational behaviour scientists,leadership is formed according to the role of an individual who is in a group and the role he plays in the group.and the iteraction process based on the formation of the other group members' expectations.These behaviours shown in the group can be said as the manifastation or the reflection of an individuals' personailty chracters.Individuals with different personaity chracters may exhibit different behaviours in different situations (Burke and Litwin, 1992). The Problem Data of the studies done on personality and organizational behaviour put forth personality is the most important factor that gives direction to the individul's behaviour and in this context is also related to both organizational performance and and the attitude of the workers) Barrick, Day and Lord, 1991). In the studies done on personality and organizational behaviour consentrated on leadership dimention.The topic to what extent the personailty has an effect on leadership styles became of secondary importance.To understand a humanbeing who is considered to be an inscrutable person is a complex and a difficult process. For these reasons,the aim of this study is to assist this field by focusing on the links between school managers'individual personality preferences and their leadership styles. In the light of these explanations,the problem of this study is whether in the relationship between managers'individual personality chracters and their leadership styles,managers'managerial behaviours about problem solving mediate or not.The hypothesis developed are appropriate to the aim of the study and they were tested individually. 1.Different personality characteristics have a significant effect on leadership behaviours. 2.There is a significant relationship between managers' personailty behaviours and their problem solving style preferences. 3.There is a significant relationship between managers'individual problem solving style preferences and leadership behaviours. Method The sample of this study is the 35 high schools and 62 primary schools,their managers and 375 teachers working in these schools which are in the central towns of the province of Ankara. To get data three different questionnaires, MLQ (Bass and Avalio,1985); KAI (Kirton,1992) and NEO-PI (McCrae and Costa, 1985), were applied to these school managers and teachers.Correlation matrix among the variables were computed.Later,the data was analized by using a two-dimentional approach To find out the differences ANOVA test modal was used..Whenever there are differences,Scheffe test was used. Findings As can be seen in Table 1,school managers'problem solving style preferences are sigificantly related to extraversion (r=.45), responsibility (r=.37) and open to experience personality chracters (r=.38<.001). School managers who took part in the study were seen as inventors more than implementors in solving the problems they meet in the school. The school managers based on 5- NEO-PI preference score averages and in this study described themselves as active, social, reliable, have the conscious of their responsibility and respectful to different ideas. The managers who have such personality characteristics also seem to have decide based on the logical and rational analyisis of the data.These managers are also against making a decision as a result of feelings and emotions. The preferred personality of these managers when they commucinate with their environment seem to based on responsibility (determined, reliable, deliberate, have the conscious of their responsibility, well planned and programmed) rather than emotional stability (nervoys, bashful, anxious, insufficiency in self-confidence).The KAI score for this measurement is 107.41,which is over 96,which is the standart norm for this measurement. As a result of it, the school managers in our study are inventors more than implementers while they are solving the problems the managers face inside the school. These correlation coefficients are similar to the ones of the study done by Church and Waclawski (1998) on 253 managers in the same subject. Table 2 gives a brief scores among the leadership variables (both the evaluation of the managers about themselves and the evaluation about the managers by the teachers), subscores and detailed explanations for mutual relations. As can be seen in the Table, there is a significant difference in the perception of managers' behaviours they are showing inside the school and the perception scores of the teachers about the behaviour of their managers. Namely, while school managers say that they are showing transformational behaviours inside the school (x=87.50),the teachers rated their managers as showing more transactional behaviours (x=55.06).The same results were also reflected to the five subscores. It is not suprising for us that the results have emerged like this because there is not a strong correlation between a person's evaluation averages of him/herself and the averages of the others' evaluation. Furnham and Stringfield (1993) also found similar results in their study. First of all, according to the total score of MLQ the members of the group 1 and 4 which are called as inventors-motivators are perceived more transformational in terms of their leadership styles than the group members belonging to group 2 and 3, who are named as managers-implementors. Discussion and Suggestions The findings of the results of the analysis showed that school managers who are in the group called inventors-motivators showed more transformational leadership styles than the ones who are in the group called managers-implementors (in terms of their own perceptions and the perceptions by the teachers). The managers belonging to inventors are oriented to thought while the managers belonging to motivators are oriented to humanbeing. Both of the groups characterize leadership style which creates vision and mission for active change rather than a stable organization,in other words,a leadership style which focusus on organizational change (Fullam, 2001; Kirby and others). School managers belonging to managers-implementors (Table 4) determine the necassary strategies in accomplishing organizational goals and forces workers to reach these goals.This compulsion can be in the form of a punishment or a reward. As a result of these characteristics these managers are named as transactional leaders.(Bass and Avolio, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1990; McClelland and Boyatsiz, 1982)The result of the study put forth the importance of leaders'personnal characteristicsIn this context,Atwater and Yammarino (1993, p.646) stated that: ‘We not only need what leaders are doing but also who the leaders are'. The result of this study and the results of all sudies done in this field showed that while assining managers to different positions it is important for us to know not only their personality characteristics but also their problem solving tendencies..Especially,these results must be accepted by the Ministry of National Education and its top executives because the saying by Schein (1992) ‘the most important source that affects the organizational culture is the leader 'is significant.

Keywords

leadership style , personality , managerial behaviour

Okul Yöneticilerinin Kişilik Özellikleri ile Liderlik Stilleri Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Bu çalışma, kişiliğin temel özellikleri ile eğitim kurumlarında gösterilen liderlik davranışları arasındaki ilişkiyi bulmak için yapıldı. Daha açık olarak, okul yöneticilerinin bireysel kişilik özellikleri ile liderlik stilleri arasındaki ilişkide, yöneticinin problem çözmeye ait yönetsel davranışlarının aracılık edip etmediğidir. Araştırma, Ankara ili Merkez İlçelerinde bulunan 35 lise ve 62 ilköğretim okulu yöneticisi ile bu okullarda görev yapan 375 öğretmenden veri toplanarak yapılmıştır. Veriler 3 farklı anket “MLQ, KAI ve NEO-PI” uygulanarak elde edilmiştir. İlk önce, korelasyonel bir yaklaşım kullanılarak kişilik değişkenlerinin incelenmesinden sonra, KAI deki toplam skorları ile NEO-PI deki beş faktör ve bu faktörlere ilişkin iki kutuplu tercih skorlarından elde edilen standart puanlar kullanılarak, hiyerarşik K-Ortalamaları Cluster analizi yapıldı. Analiz de 4 ayırıcı grup elde edildi. 1. Yenilikçiler, 2. Yöneticiler, 3. Gelenekçiler ve 4. Güdüleyiciler. Bu gruplar kullanılarak yapılan ANOVA testleri yöneticilerin liderlik davranışlarının algılanması konusunda manidar farklılıklar ortaya çıkarttı. Daha genel olarak, Yenilikçi ve Güdüleyici grupta yer alan okul yöneticileri Gelenekçi ve Yönetici grupta yer alan okul yöneticilerine göre daha fazla dönüşümsel liderlik özelliği gösterdikleri bulunmuştur.

Keywords

liderlik stili , kişilik , yönetsel davranış

References

• Atkinson, J.W. (1987). Strength of motivation and efficiency of performance. In JW Atkinson & J.O. Raynor (Eds), Motivation and Achievement (pp.117- 42). New York: Winston.
• Atwater, L.E. Yammarino, F.J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645-668.
• Barrick, M.R., Day, D.V. & Lord, R.G. (1991). Assessing the utility of executive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 0-22.
• Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1988). Transformational Leadership Charisma and Beyond, Edit. J.g. Hunt & diğ. Emerging Leadership Vistas, MA: Lexington Books.
• Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21-27.
• Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team and organizational development in R.W. Woodman &W.A.Passmore (Eds), Reseacrh in Organizational change and development. Greenwich, CT: JA1 Press.
• Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ-Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, California 94306.
• Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3 rd ed. New York: Free Press.
• Bass. B.M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industry, millitary, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence – Erlbaum.
• Burke, W.J. & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523-545.
• Bushe, G.R. & Gibbs, B.W. (1990). Predicting organization development consulting competence from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and stage of ego development. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 26, 337-357.
• Champoux, J.E. (2000). Organizational behavior: Essential tenets for a new millennium.
• Church, A.H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high performing individuals in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281-292.
• Church, A.H. ve Waclawski, J. (1998). The relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behaviour. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71, Issue 2.
• Costa P.T;Jr, ve Mc Crae R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL. Psychological Assesment Resources, Inc.
• Daniel, T.L. (1985). Managerial behaviors: Their relationship to perceived organizational climate in a high-technology company. Group and Organization Studies, 10, 413-428.
• Dubinsky, A.J. & diğerleri (1995). An Examination of Linkages Between Personal Characteristics and Dimensions of Tranformational Leadersihp, Journal of Bruness and Psychology, Vol. 9.
• Dubinsky, A.J; Yammarino, F.J.; Jolson, M.A; & Spangler, W.D.(1995). Transformational leadership: an initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal selling and sales management, 15, 17-29.
• Erdoğan, İ. (1994). İşletmelerde Davranış. 4.b. İstanbul: Beta yayınevi.
• Erdoğan, İ.(1991). İşletmelerde Davranış. İstanbul Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi, Yayın No: 242.
• Foxall, G.R. & Hackett, P.M. (1992). The factor structure and construct validity of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 967-975.
• Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Furnham, A. & Stringfield, P. (1993). Personality and work performance: Myers-Briggs ype Indicator correlates of managerial performance in two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 145-153.
• Gardner, J.W. (1990). On Leadership: New York: Free Press.
• Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
• Hirsh, S.K. & Kummerow, J.M. (1990). Introduction to Type in Organizations, 2 nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycoholgists Press.
• Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Self – monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 83-91.
• Keirsey, D. (1984). Please Understand me: Character and temperament typse. Del Mar, CA: Gnosology Boks, Prometheas Memesis. Call Number: BF698 K357.
• Kirby, P.C.; Paradise, L.V. & King, M.I. (1992). Extraordinary Leaders in Education: Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5), 303-311.
• Kirton, M.J. (1991). KAI Response Sheet. Highlands. UK: Occupational Research Centre.
• Kuhnert, K.W. & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive / developmental analysis. Academyh of Management Review, 12, 648-657.
• Manion, J. (2000). Retaining Current Leaders. Health Forum Journal, 43 (5), 24- 27.
• McClelland, D.C. & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The leadership motive pattern and long trem success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737- 743.
• McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T.J. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.
• McCrae, R.R. ve Costa, P.JR. (1990). Personality in Adulthood, New York: The Guilford Press.
• Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myres-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Myers, İ.B. ve Meyers, P.B. (1984). Grifts Differing, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Nadler, D.A. & Tushman, M.L. (1992). Designing organizations that have good fit: A framework for understanding new architectures. In D.A. Nadler, M.S. Gerstein, R.B. Shaw & Associates (Eds), Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing, Organizations, pp. 39-59. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.
• Pillai, R; Williams, E.A. & Lowe, K.B; Jung, D.I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership trust and the 2000 U.S. Presidential vote, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161-192.
• Roush, P.E. & Atwater, L.E. (1992). Using the MBTI to understand transforational leadership and self perception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4, 17-34.
• Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Schmitt, N; Gooding, R.Z; Neo, R.A. & Kirsch, M.P. (1984) Meta-analysis of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407-422.
• Sergiovanni,T.J. (1992). Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement: Jossey –Bass Pub; san Francisco.
• Shamir, B; House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A Self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577-94.
• Somer, O. (1998). Türkçe’de Kişilik Özelliğini Tanımlayan Sıfatların Yapısı ve Beş Faktör Modeli. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 13 (42) 17-32.
• Şimşek, Ş; Akgemci, T. Ve Çelik, A. (2001). Davranış Bilimlerine Giriş ve Örgütlerde Davranış, Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Tabachnik, B.G. Fidel, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, 8 nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
• Thomas, A. (1996). The evidence remains stable: the MBTİ predicts attraction and attrition in an engineering program. Journal of Psychological Type 55: 35- 42.
• Van Etton, A.M. &Burke, W.W. 81992). The transformational/transactional leadership model: A study of critical components. In K.E. Clark, M.B. Clark &D.P. Cambell (Eds), Impact of Leadership, pp. 149-167. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
• Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
• Zel, U.N. (2002). Kişilik ve Liderlik. Seçkin Yayınevi. Ankara