The Relationship of Personality and School Leadership: A Comparison of Literatures - Article Example

? The Relationship of Personality and School Leadership: A Comparison of Literatures Number) of Submission) The Relationship of Personality and School Leadership: A Comparison of Literatures Introduction Leadership is perhaps among the most explored aspects of the individual as a member of the society. Indeed, the way by which man utilized his resources and influences others is a significant area of inquiry to help better understand the manner by which improvement can be achieved. This is especially true in the field of education, wherein new information worthy of being taught are continuously being discovered, and some old data are either being debunked or shelved as obsolete. Leadership is also a significant aspect of education, since students and the school are in need of managing, as well as the faculty, or else learning may not be as effective (Northouse, 2010). Leadership also ensures that teaching and education are on the right track. However, a lot of things and factors affect a person’s leadership and management. In the earliest days of the study of leadership and management, scholars used to believe that leadership was dictated by a person’s noble lineage, as evidenced by the existence of the Great Man Theory of Leadership (Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009). Still, recent years have proven that leadership is not solely dictated by parentage, but rather, it is affected by numerous factors that all interplay to create the most suitable individual for leadership. Indeed, one of the said factors affecting and dictating leadership is the individual’s personality. Personality affects the way a person thinks and behaves, which then affect the way leaders handle people. In relation, this paper will look into the relationship between personality and leadership, by comparing three articles that explore different aspects of leadership in the educational setting. The first article deals specifically with personality and leadership, while the other two articles discuss leadership from a different, but related, point of view. These studies are all significant in the field of education because they look into the different factors that affect the educator’s management, especially since leadership affects the way by which students learn and develop not only as students, but also as individuals. The first article, written by van Woerkom and de Reuver (2009), is entitled “Predicting Excellent Management Performance in an Intercultural Context: A Study of the Influence of Multicultural Personality on Transformational Leadership and Performance”. From the title alone, it can be understood that the first article looked into the influence of the different aspects of multicultural personality on leadership (transformational leadership), which was measured through the respondents’ performance. On the other hand, the second study, authored by Lizzio, Demptser, and Neumann (2011), explored the different factors that affect the motivation of students in high school to become formal and/or informal leaders. Moreover, the third article was written by Hallinger and Heck (2010), and it explores the different findings of a series of empirical analyses which evaluated the effects of collaborative leadership on student learning and school capacity. The first article was chosen because of its subject matter, since it was able to successfully relate personality to leadership. This article was chosen because it was also able to demonstrate that good personality is needed for successful management. In addition, the second article was chosen because it presented another point of view for leadership, wherein the students’ motivation to be leaders can be affected by their relationship with their instructors and their peers. Moreover, the third article was chosen because it provided a strong scientific support to the principle that leadership is a process for students where they can learn while experiencing that school capacity is molded by the institution’s overall leadership. The three studies all provide valuable insights into the different aspects of leadership and management in education. This paper will first compare the research questions of the three studies, followed by an exploration of the three studies’ sample and methodology. Afterwards, the results and limitations of the three studies will be compared as well. A general comparison of the three studies will then follow in this paper. Most importantly, this paper will attempt to discuss that different factors interplay to affect leadership, and that personality is but one of these factors. Comparison of Articles Research Question The first article, written by van Woerkom and de Reuver (2009), focuses on the idea of transformational leadership as a strong indicator of the quality performance by managers in the international arena. More specifically, the study also looked into the different reasons why some leaders are transformational, while others are not; and a possible answer could involve the individual’s personality. Thus, overall, the study aimed to explore if personality has an effect on the individual’s success as a leader. In contrast, the study by Lizzio, Demptser, and Neumann (2011) no longer just focused on personality and leadership. The scope of this study is broader, since it aimed to explore the factors affecting the schools’ student leadership capacities. More specifically, the said study aimed to look into the differences of student leadership motivations between formal and informal student leaders. Still, more importantly, this study aimed to answer the research question on what influence do cultural factors (school identification and relationships) have on the students’ motivation to become leaders. In another light, the third article, the one written by Hallinger and Heck (2010), aimed to answer the research question on how leadership adds to student learning and the school’s capacity for improvement. In all, it can be seen that in terms of research question, the three articles had different focal points, all of which are related to leadership. The first article was perhaps the narrowest in scope, since it was specifically focused on personality and leadership, while the second article had a broader focus since the factors affecting the schools’ student leadership capacities can actually encompass personality. Finally, the third study is perhaps the one with the broadest scope since student learning and school capacity can also cover personality and the schools’ student leadership capacities. Sample Population In terms of sample population, the study by Hallinger and Heck (2010) had the greatest number of sample respondents, wherein the authors were able to gather around 198 elementary schools from which data was taken. The study by Lizzio, Demptser, and Neumann (2011) has the second highest number of sample population among the three studies, with the author successfully including in their study 167 Grade 11 students. The main article, the one by van Woerkom and de Reuver (2009), had the smallest number of respondents (N = 138). Still, the number of respondents for all studies is high, providing a greater diversity among the respondents, which greatly helps in possibly increasing the accuracy of the results. Methodology In comparing the three studies, it is apparent that it is perhaps in their methodologies that they showed the most variations. In their study, van Woerkom and de Reuver (2009) utilized the survey method wherein the help of a Dutch multinational was solicited. Questionnaires were sent to the sample population via the mentioned company’s internal email. For the study of Lizzio, Demptser, and Neumann (2011), although the survey method was also used, the form of the study instrument was different and more elaborate. In this study, the authors used six three-item scales to explore the six constructs of the study. For the last study (Hallinger and Heck, 2010), the method used was also the survey method, although this study’s design was longitudinal, ranging over a period of four years. Also, unlike the other two studies, this last one also included information on the achievements of students as part of the raw data of the study. Therefore, although all three studies utilized the survey method, all their instruments were different, as well as their actual procedures and implementation. Results Since the three studies all looked into different aspects of leadership, it can be somehow expected that the outcomes of the three studies would be different as well. Indeed, when viewed literally, the results of the three studies are different. However, if one is to take the essence of the studies’ findings, one would observe that the results are rather close to each other: several factors affect leadership, such as personality, motivation, and school capacity and student learning. Certainly, van Woerkom and de Reuver (2009) found that all of the parameters of personality (Big Five Traits) were positively and directly related to transformational leadership and that transformational leadership was also directly related to positive performance. In a similar light, Lizzio, Demptser, and Neumann (2011) found that entering into leadership roles is motivated by a sense of positive feelings and views towards relationships with co-students and teachers. These authors also found that leadership is affected by emotions and views, wherein positive views of leadership motivations, stronger school citizenship, and stronger connections or identifications with the educational institution promote leadership and membership with other school organizations. Also, the findings of Hallinger and Heck (2010) revealed that leadership is directly related to change in school capacity, and improvements in school capacity led to improvements in learning and student growth. Although some of the hypotheses of this last study were negated, the main theme that still emerged is that leadership and the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on several factors including personality, student motivation, school capacity, and others. Limitations One of the greatest observable limitations in the study of van Woerkom and de Reuver (2009) is that the data came from only one multinational company. Although the respondents came from different countries and regions, they still belonged to a single company, which brings to question the heterogeneity of the sample population. This could then lead to possible bias issues. Also, assessment of the managers was solely based on their achievements, which leaves a lot of areas in the assessment aspects wanting. For the article by Lizzio, Demptser, and Neumann (2011), a major limitation of the study is that like those in Woerkom and de Reuver’s (2009) study, only one group or area served as the source of the sample population. Therefore, more bias issues regarding the study may be raised. For the study of Hallinger and Heck (2010), no major limitations have been observed, except that the authors somehow undermined the value of leadership in promoting change within the school. Conclusion Leadership is indeed a significant aspect of man and of the society. Still, leadership is affected by numerous factors that either develop or hamper it. As demonstrated by the three articles reviewed in this paper, leadership can involve and be affected by numerous factors, including personality, student motivation, student learning, school capacity, and others. Indeed, the three studies, especially the first one showed that personality is a significant indicator of leadership, although it is not the sole modifying or affecting factor of leadership. Nevertheless, the comparison of the three articles in this paper revealed that different factors interplay to affect leadership, and that personality is one of these factors. References Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Organizational Change and Characteristics of Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 16 (1), 38-47. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management , 30 (2), 95-110. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5, 184-200. Lizzio, A., Demptser, N., & Neumann, R. (2011). Pathways to formal and informal student leadership: the influence of peer and teacher–student relationships and level of school identification on students’ motivations. Int. Journal Leadership in Education , 14 (1), 85–102. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ. van Woerkom, M., & de Reuver, R. S. (2009). Predicting excellent management performance in an intercultural context: a study of the influence of multicultural personality on transformational leadership and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 20 (10), 2013–2029. Read More