Sex Roles

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Effects of Principal-Teacher Gender Similarity on Teacher’s Trust and Organizational Commitment

Original Article

Abstract

In many Western public primary school systems, the gender composition of the principals is more heterogenic than that of the teachers, but research on the effect of gender on social psychological processes related to school leadership is scarce. The present work aims to address this lacuna by exploring the effects of principal-teacher gender similarity in the Israeli public primary school system, where most teachers are women, on teachers’ trust in their principals and on organizational commitment. Data from 594 female public primary teachers working with male and female principals were analyzed. The results show that when the principal and teacher are of the same gender, both affective and cognitive trust in the principal are higher. Moderation analysis indicated that female teachers’ affective trust in male principals increases with relational duration. A second moderation effect that was found indicated that gender similarity and cognitive trust in principal have a negative interactive effect on teachers’ continued commitment to school, countering the positive effect of gender similarity on commitment. The results and their implications are discussed, and future research is recommended.

Keywords

Gender similarity Organizational commitment Trust in leader 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J. (1994). Anomaly as exemplar: The meanings of role-modeling for men elementary teachers. Dubuque: Tri-College Department of Education, Loras College.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 252–276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M. (1998). Gender relations and identity at work: A case study of masculinities and femininities in an advertising agency. Human Relations, 51(8), 969–1005. doi:10.1177/001872679805100801.Google Scholar
  5. Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14. doi:10.2307/2392596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2008). What are the odds? How demographic similarity affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 235–249. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Avery, D. R., Wang, M., Volpone, S. D., & Zhou, L. (2013). Different strokes for different folks: The impact of sex dissimilarity in the empowerment-performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 757–784. doi:10.1111/peps.12032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170. doi:10.1037/a0018806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Barkol, R. (2005). Management of a school as a second career: The case of (retired) IDF officers- from command to management in the education system. In I. Kupferberg & E. Olshtain (Eds.), Discourse in education (pp. 306–331). Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  10. Barnett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1989). Managers, values, and executive decisions: An exploration of the role of gender, career stage, organizational level, function, and the importance of ethics, relationships and results in managerial decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(10), 747–771. doi:10.1007/BF0038377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barty, K., Thomson, P., Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2005). Unpacking the issues: Researching the shortage of school principals in two states in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 1–18. doi:10.1007/BF03216824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of a leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567. doi:10.2307/257068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berkovich, I. (2014). Neo-liberal governance and the “new professionalism” of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 428–456. doi:10.1086/676403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blackmore, J. (1996). Doing “emotional labour” in the education market place: Stories from the field of women in management. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17(3), 337–349. doi:10.1080/0159630960170304.Google Scholar
  15. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277–289. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture, and gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 314–329. doi:10.1177/0013161X92028003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Carter, M. Z., Mossholder, K. W., Feild, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of racial and gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 691–719. doi:10.1177/1059601114551605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chusmir, L. H. (1990). Men who make nontraditional career choices. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(1), 11–16. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1990.tb01446.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cross, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls’ jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(2), 204–226. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242–1253. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Duck, S. W. (1977). The study of acquaintance. Farnborough: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principals: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 76–102. doi:10.1177/0013161X92028001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2006). The impact of gender similarity, racial similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision. Group & Organization Management, 31(4), 420–441. doi:10.1177/1059601106286884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forrester, G. (2005). All in a day’s work: Primary teachers “performing” and “caring.” Gender and Education, 17(3), 271–287. doi:10.1080/09540250500145114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can't improve without it. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Goldberg, C. B., Riordan, C., & Schaffer, B. S. (2010). Does social identity theory underlie relational demography? A test of the moderating effects of uncertainty reduction and status enhancement on similarity effects. Human Relations, 63(7), 903–926. doi:10.1177/0018726709347158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guillaume, C., & Pochic, S. (2009). What would you sacrifice? Access to top management and the work–life balance. Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1), 14–36. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00354.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352. doi:10.1080/0305764032000122005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 194–212. doi:10.1108/09578231311304706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. doi:10.2307/256901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(1), 39–55. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2001-06272-004.Google Scholar
  37. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools. In W. K. Hoy & M. F. DiPaola (Eds.), Essential ideas for the reform of American schools (pp. 87–114). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  38. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 565–575. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. IISL. (2012). School principals: Situation report and future trends. Jerusalem: Israel Institute for School Leadership [In Hebrew].Google Scholar
  41. Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2008). Concepts and directions in critical industrial/organizational psychology. In D. Fox, I. Prilleltensky, & S. Austin (Eds.), Critical Psychology: An Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 110–135). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2010). “Who I am depends on how fairly I’m treated”: Effects of justice on self-identity and regulatory focus: Justice and motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(12), 3020–3058. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00691.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelan, E. K. (2010). Gender logic and (un)doing gender at work. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(2), 174–194. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00459.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klein, U. (1999). “Our best boys”: The gendered nature of civil-military relations in Israel. Men and Masculinities, 2(1), 47–65. doi:10.1177/1097184X99002001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319–333. doi:10.1002/job.4030160404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Cioci, M. (1993). Teachers and principals: Gender-related perceptions of leadership and power in secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 153–180. doi:10.3102/01623737015002153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199. doi:10.1080/15700760500244769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lowenthal, M. F., & Haven, C. (1968). Interaction and adaptation: Intimacy as a critical variable. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 20–30. doi:10.2307/2092237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Martin, P. Y. (2003). “Said and done” versus “saying and doing”: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17(3), 342–366. doi:10.1177/0891243203017003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. doi:10.2307/256727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  54. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 185–201. doi:10.1177/1368430202005003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moye, M. J., Henkin, A. B., & Egley, R. J. (2005). Teacher-principal relationships: Exploring linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(3), 260–277. doi:10.1108/09578230510594796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. NCES. (2013a). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.Google Scholar
  59. NCES. (2013b). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school principals in the United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.Google Scholar
  60. O'Conor, L. (2015, February 11). Where are all the female headteachers? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com.
  61. Oplatka, I. (2001). ‘I changed my management style’: The cross-gender transition of women headteachers in mid-career. School Leadership & Management, 21(2), 219–233. doi:10.1080/13632430120054781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Papa Jr., F., & Baxter, I. A. (2005). Dispelling the myths and confirming the truths of the imminent shortage of principals: The case of New York State. Planning and Changing, 36(3/4), 217–234. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ737684.Google Scholar
  63. Paton, G. (2013, February 5). Teaching in primary schools ‘still seen as a woman’s job.’ The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk.
  64. Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249. doi:10.1080/001318800440579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603–609. doi:10.1037/h0037335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Price, H. E. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39–85. doi:10.1177/0013161X11417126 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rogers, W. S. (2003). Social psychology: Experimental and critical approaches. Maiddenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sacco, J. M., Scheu, C. R., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2003). An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 852–865. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.852.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65(3), 171–181. doi:10.1037/a0017459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Schneider, A. (2004). Transforming retired military officers into school principals in Israel (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leicester, Leicester, England.Google Scholar
  71. Shakeshaft, C. (1989). The gender gap in research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 324–337. doi:10.1177/0013161X89025004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sheldon, M. E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 143–150. doi:10.2307/2391824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Simpson, R. (2004). Masculinity at work: The experiences of men in female dominated occupations. Work, Employment and Society, 18(2), 349–368. doi:10.1177/09500172004042773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of work-life balance: Negotiating “genderblind” terms in organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(2), 147–168. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00267.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46–56. doi:10.2307/2391745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Stokes, J. P., & Wilson, D. G. (1984). The inventory of socially supportive behaviors: Dimensionality, prediction, and gender differences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12(1), 53–69. doi:10.1007/BF00896928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (1988). The context of trust: Teachers and the principal. The High School Journal, 72(1), 17–24. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364817?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.Google Scholar
  78. Tarter, C. J., Bliss, J. R., & Hoy, W. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 294–308. doi:10.1177/0013161X89025003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tetrick, L. E., & Farkas, A. J. (1988). A longitudinal examination of the dimensionality and stability of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(3), 723–735. doi:10.1177/0013164488483021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. The World Bank. (2017, July 12). Primary education, teachers (% female), 2014: Israel. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS?locations=IL.
  81. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matter: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  82. Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity effects in developmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 240–262. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Hoboken: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  84. Valmer, T. (2012, July 25). 15 minutes and you got the job: This is how school principals are choose. YNET. (Hebrew). Retrieved from http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4259494,00.html.
  85. Vaux, A. (1985). Variations in social support associated with gender, ethnicity, and age. Journal of Social Issues, 41(1), 89–110. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01118.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vecchio, R. P., & Bullis, R. C. (2001). Moderators of the influence of supervisor–subordinate similarity on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 884–896. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.884.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Vinkenburg, C. J., van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458–495. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams, T. R. (2001). Unrecognized exodus, unaccepted accountability: The looming shortage of principals and vice principals in Ontario public school boards. Toronto: Ontario Principals' Council.Google Scholar
  90. Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 143–154. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yonah, Y. (2005). Israel as a multicultural democracy: Challenges and obstacles. Israel Affairs, 11(1), 95–116. doi:10.1080/1353712042000324472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zeinabadi, H. (2014). Principal-teacher high-quality exchange indicators and student achievement: Testing a model. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 404–420. doi:10.1108/JEA-05-2012-0056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zeinabadi, H., & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers: Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1472–1481. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and PsychologyThe Open University of IsraelRaananaIsrael

Personalised recommendations