Personality Types And Leadership Styles

The present research looks at the teacher and how their personality leads them to prefer a specific type of manager. The leadership styles focused on were the instructional and the non-instructional styles with satisficers and maximizers for teacher personality types (Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, &Lehman, 2002). The leadership styles and personality types were combined to measure level of personal happiness, loyalty to the boss, stress, and overall liking of the boss. One hundred and eighty-five teachers (147 women, 38 men) were instructed to complete a personality test, evaluate a description of a potential boss, then rate different aspects of the leadership style presented.

A general linear model and a median split were used to analyze the data. I hypothesized that those who are satisficers working for non-instructional principals would experience the highest level of personal happiness, however, this was not significant. I also predicted that satisficers working for non-instructional bosses would experience the least amount of stress and this was found to be significant.

Since the instructional principals would stress their employees out less than instructional principals, I hypothesized that they would be more loyal and like the non-instructional boss more than the instructional and the exact opposite was found to be significant. Since the instructional boss is more likely to motivate the teachers and help them improve their performance, the teachers as employees expressed being more loyal to him and liked him more than the non-instructional boss type.

The leader of an organization sets the environment for the employees. Minor differences between leaders could impact the employees and the organization greatly.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Leadership

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Previous research has focused on differentiating between several leadership styles. There are six types of leadership styles which are coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. One leadership style may be too specific because people change based on the situation presented. A manager will not take the same actions for every problem they face. Leadership styles can be flexible, and managers may find themselves alternating between the six leadership styles.

I have created a “Me, Myself, and My Boss” study to further investigate leadership styles and how those styles impact employees in an organization. I created the challenger leader by combining the authoritative, pacesetting, and coaching leadership styles. The challenger leader is future-focused, continually challenges his employees, trains individuals on his team to hold leadership positions themselves and insists that all work submitted must be near perfect. The other leadership style I created was the Cheerleader by combining affiliative, democratic, and pacesetting leadership styles. The cheerleader manager is present-focused, satisfied with the employees’ average work, worries about the emotional bonds, and does not reflect on the work that is completed or how it was accomplished.

One hundred and eighty-five corporate employees (147 women, 38 men) were instructed to complete a personality test, evaluate a description of a potential boss, then rate different aspects of the leadership style presented. A general linear model and a median split were used to analyze the data. Since the cheerleader bosses would stress their employees out less than challenger bosses, I hypothesized that employees would be more loyal and like the cheerleader boss more than the challenger and the exact opposite was found to be significant. Since the challenger boss is more likely to motivate the employees and help them improve their performance, the employees expressed being more loyal to him and liked him more than the cheerleader boss.

“Me, Myself, and My Boss” was conducted at the corporate level and it was crucial to bring the research questions to academia investigate the possible outcomes. The first step is always to investigate previous research in the field on this specific topic before conducting more research. It was discovered that strong successful principals are committed to academic goals, set high expectations, function as instructional leaders, are forceful and dynamic, communicate well with others, set rules and discipline, are resourceful, manage time well, and are strong evaluators (Smith and Andrews, 1989). This can be divided into 3 main brackets to describe a good Principal as a successful instructional leader; resource provider, communicator, and having a visible presence.

However, can the Principal’s leadership behavior predict job satisfaction and job stress levels among teachers? This relationship was examined by Virden Evans and Dwayne J. Johnson where it was concluded that instructional leaders’ behavior is significantly correlated with teacher’s job-related stress levels (1990). Figure 1 presents teachers at different age groups and the correlation between job satisfaction and job-related stress levels as predicted by the Principal’s leadership behavior. It was discovered that a positive correlation was present between leadership behavior and job satisfaction. However, the findings were not strong enough to be considered significant. The results for leadership behavior and job-related stress were significant. There is a positive correlation between Principal’s leadership behavior and job-related stress especially among teachers 50 and above years of age.

To further add to the research on leadership in education, the “Me, Myself, and My Boss” study conducted at the corporate level was replicated in the educational field.

The participants signed up for the study online through the Montclair University research website. The first part of the study included a consent form for the participants to read and sign. Once that was completed, the participants who wanted to proceed with the study completed a description of a potential boss. The website used assigned each teacher a number at the time of the study. Those who were assigned an even number were in the non-instructional condition while those who were assigned an odd number were in the instructional condition. The webpage was timed for the participants to read the description and evaluate the boss for a few minutes and once they were done, they were able to submit description. Once the description was entered, the participants were given 1 of 2 possible screens to access. One screen included the personality measure, feelings towards boss scale, the manipulation check, and finally the demographic. The second packet included the feelings towards boss scale, the personality measure, the manipulation check and finally the demographic. Two screens were created to avoid order effects during the study. Once all the materials were completed and submitted, the participants were debriefed, asked to submit comments or concerns in the “notes” section, and thanked for their time and participation in the study.

I conducted a chi-square analysis to determine if the manipulation check worked. The first question was answered correctly by 79% of the teachers. The second question was answered correctly by 78% of the teachers. Question number 3 on the manipulation check talked about the non-instructional boss and how he did not interfere with his teachers’ creativity. Participants were supposed to say that the statement was true. However, the wording of this question was found to be confusing and only 53% got the question correct. Questions 4 and 5 were the strongest of the manipulation check because 91% and 92% of the participants answered the questions correctly, respectively. Question 6 was answered correctly by 84% of those who participated and question 7 was answered by 86% of the participants correctly. Overall, the manipulation check worked for this study as it did for the original study.

Looking at the personal happiness scale, means and standard deviations for the four combinations (instructional/maximizer, instructional/ satisficer, non-instructional/maximizer, non-instructional/satisficer) of the independent variables appear in Table 1. The results for the two main effects were: leadership style F(1, 168) = 0.16, p = .69, partial η2 = .001 and the personality type F(1,168) = .42, p = .52, partial η2 =.002, this shows that individuals who experienced a non-instructional principal were not happier than those who experienced an instructional principal. Also, those with a satisficer personality did not experience more happiness compared to maximizers. The results show there that the interaction between the independent variables was also not significant F(1, 168) = 0.79, p = .38, partial η2 = .005. This indicates that satisficers working for non-instructional principals did not experience the highest level of personal happiness compared to satisficers working for instructional principals and maximizers working for non-instructional or instructional principals.

Looking at loyalty to the boss, means and standard deviations for the four combinations (instructional/maximizer, instructional/ satisficer, non-instructional/maximizer, non-instructional/satisficer) of the independent variables appear in Table 2. The results for the two main effects were: leadership style F(1, 168) = 6.70, p = .10, partial η2 = .04 and the personality type F(1,168) = .20, p = .66, partial η2 =.00, this shows that individuals who experienced an instructional boss were more loyal than those who experienced a non-instructional boss. Although this is significant, it is the opposite of what I predicted and differs from the original study conducted because the participants expressed more loyalty to the instructional principal. Also, those with a satisficer personality did not experience more loyalty compared to maximizers. The results show there that the interaction between the independent variables was also not significant F(1, 168) = 0.74, p = .39, partial η2 = .00. This indicates that satisficers working for non-instructional bosses did not express more loyalty towards their boss compared to satisficers working for instructional bosses and maximizers working for non-instructional or instructional principals.

For the teachers’ stress level, means and standard deviations for the four combinations (instructional/maximizer, instructional/ satisficer, non-instructional/maximizer, non-instructional/satisficer) the independent variables appear in Figure 1. The results for the two main effects were: leadership style F(1, 168) = 15.42, p = .00, partial η2 = .08 and the personality type F(1,168) = .01, p = .92, partial η2 =.00, this shows that individuals who experienced a non-instructional boss were less stressed than those who experienced an instructional boss. However, those with a satisficer personality did not experience less stress compared to maximizers. The results show there that the interaction between the independent variables was significant F(1, 168) = 4.15, p = .04, partial η2 = .02. This indicates that satisficers working for non-instructional principals experienced the least amount of stress compared to satisficers working for instructional principals and maximizers working for non-instructional and instructional principals.

The final means and standard deviations to evaluate were for the overall liking of the boss or principal for the four combinations (instructional/maximizer, instructional/ satisficer, non-instructional/maximizer, non-instructional/satisficer) of the independent variables appear in Table 3. Individuals who experienced the non-instructional principal did not like him more compared to the instructional principal. The results show that the opposite of what was predicted similar to the previous study occurred F(1, 168) = 5.04, p = .03, partial η2 = .03. Overall, the participants liked the instructional leadership style more than the non-instructional leadership style.

Participants did not believe that they will be happier working for the non-instructional boss more than the instructional leader. Satisficers were not happier than maximizers. Also, the interaction between the leadership style and personality for personal happiness was not significant. Satisfiers working for non-instructional principals did not experience more personal happiness than the other conditions. Participants believed that they would be more loyal to the instructional principal. However, satisficers were not found to be more loyal to their bosses. Also, the interaction for loyalty to the boss was not significant. Satisficers working for non-instructional principals were not more loyal than satisficers working for instructional leaders and maximizers working for instructional or non-instructional principals. Participants working for a non-instructional boss experienced less stress, however, satisficers did not experience less stress than maximizers. As predicted, satisficers working for non-instructional bosses experienced the least amount of stress compared to all the other groups. Unlike what was predicted, participants expressed liking the instructional boss more than the non-instructional leader.

This study set out to explore what past research started by looking at leadership styles and employee personality types. Multiple leadership styles were combined to create a realistic boss profile and two personality types, satisficers and maximizers, were evaluated. Once the leadership styles were introduced to the personality types, personal happiness, stress, loyalty to the boss, and overall liking of the boss were investigated. I hypothesized that satisficers working for non-instructional leaders at a school setting would experience the highest level of personal happiness and this was not supported. I also hypothesized that satisficers working for non-instructional principals would experience the least amount of stress and this was significant. I predicted that employees would be more loyal and like the non-instructional boss more than the instructional one, however, the opposite was found to be significant. Since stress increases motivation and improves overall performance (Reeves, Schmauder, & Morris, 2000), it was comprehensible why participants were more loyal and liked the boss who challenged them the most. When your boss frustrates you, it is important to give the challenging, hard to please, demanding boss a chance. Yes, he will stress you out but ultimately, he will motivate you, help you reach your goals, and because of that you will be more loyal to him and you will like him the most.