Discriminate analysis gender public school principal servant leadership differences

Abstract

Purpose: This paper seeks to apply discriminate analysis to determine principal's leadership styles differences between genders in USA Midwest public schools. A distinction is to be made between “servant” (seen as aligned with emotional intelligence) and “traditional” (or top‐down) leadership. The debate between the traditional (or, top‐down) leadership approach, versus the servant (which is seen as aligned with emotional intelligence) leadership approach is ripe for investigation. Design/methodology/approach: E‐mail based surveys from 445 responding public school principals comprised of men (n=265) and women (n=180) were quantitatively analyzed. The self‐selected sample for the study was drawn from public schools in three Midwest states in the USA. The inventory contained 40 content items prepared on a five‐point Likert scale and one demographic question. Content and construct validity were evaluated and significant difference tests were performed. The study sought to clarify which cluster of items from the Servant‐leadership Styles Inventory (SSI) best described gender membership and, thereby, proffered possibly gender oriented servant‐leadership styles utilizing discriminant function analysis methods. Findings: This study has established that SSI items identified with Servant‐leadership dimension are reliable and valid; however items aligned with Traditional leadership dimensions were found to be less reliable and valid. Additionally these results have shown that Servant‐leadership items can be effective in differentiating between men and women principals. It is important to note that both men and women equally reported that they were reluctant to use Traditional leadership styles. No differences between genders in Traditional leadership styles usage were found. However, there were significant differences between men's and women's Servant‐leadership style usage. Research limitations/implications: Current research shows that men and women operate differently. What has been lacking, however, is an instrument that discriminated between male and female leadership styles. This study is bounded by the following limitations: by location, the study is restricted to USA Midwest practicing public school principals; to the gender based perceptions of principals in Midwest USA, other factors such a training, experience and longevity are unknown; and it is also unknown as to the instrument's cultural biases when applied to other countries and regions in the USA. However, the instrument may open opportunities for cultural and gender based leadership research studies when applied to new populations. Practical implications: This paper reports the development of a new research instrument, the SSI. The instrument utilizes 20 traditional leadership styles and 20 servant leadership styles to query subjects. The instrument was found to be reliable and valid, especially the servant leadership items. Originality/value: The paper shows that four Servant‐leadership styles lend understanding to the field, and help begin a discussion of feminine servant‐leadership style. These four newly identified styles are: daily reflection; consensus building; healing relationships; and drive sense of self worth. The feminine leader is more likely to hold and practice these values than male leaders.