Managerial Approaches Adopted by School Directors with Diverse Personality Characteristics: A Sample of Mersin City

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

The primary aim of the leadership mission is to locate the institutions into the desired point by means of providing all the required needs. Leaders undertaking this mission look for diverse solutions in a possible chaotic situation on the way to goals. The solution that the leader will find is directly related to his psychology. The structure of personality which is reflected within psychological approaches shows different characteristics of every human being. So, the leaders bearing different personality characteristics will be representing diverse leadership approaches as well. The success of the leaders undertaking the mission of advancing the institutions may be attained by being aware of the owned personality characteristics. The leader who is aware of his or her own personality characteristics might possibly analyse the leadership approach that he or she adopts. With all these in mind, this study has been conducted with the aim of investigating the relationship between the personality characteristics of school directors and the leadership approaches they adopt. The personality characteristics and the adopted managerial approaches reflected by the directors with different personalities have been identified by means of considering different variables. The study is based on a survey design. The sample of the study is composed of 298 school directors employed in the central counties of Mersin City. The data of the study was collected through scales on personality characteristics and leadership approaches. The data transferred into the computer was analysed and interpreted by means of statistical techniques. According to the findings of the study, it was established that while the school directors represent such personality characteristics successively as easy-going, open to innovation, extrovert, self-disciplined, and emotionally stable, they represent traits of leadership in the shape of transformative, interactionist, and emancipatory. Besides, there stands a significant relationship between the personality characteristics of school directors and their leadership approaches. Lastly, it was suggested that there exists a positive relationship at medium level between the total score of personality characteristics reflected by the school directors and their multidimensional leadership approaches.

Keywords

Personality characteristics Multidimensional leadership Leader School directors 

References

  1. Akbaşlı, S., & Üredi, L. (2015). An evaluation of the classroom teachers’ attitudes towards the constructivist approach according to complexity theory: A case of Mersin. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 419–434). Germany: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Akçadağ, S. (2008). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin liderlik davranışları ve kişilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi (Ankara İli Örneği). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  3. Aytaç, S. (2001). Örgütsel davranış açısından kişiliğin önemi. İş Güç, Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 3(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  4. Bakırcıoğlu, R. (1982). İlköğretim, ortaöğretim ve yükseköğretimde rehberlik ve psikolojik danışma. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  5. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112–121.Google Scholar
  6. Benet-Martínez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997). Further evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the big seven factor model: Indigenous and imported Spanish personality constructs. Journal of Personality, 65, 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Çağlar, İ. (2004). İktisadi ve idari bilimler fakültesi öğrencileri ile mühendislik fakültesi öğrencilerinin liderlik tarzına ilişkin eğilimlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi ve Çorum örneği. Ticaret ve Turizm Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 91–107.Google Scholar
  9. Canbaş, S. (2004). Liderlik yaklaşımları ve yaklaşımlara özgü süreçler: kara harp okulu liderlik sistemine yönelik bir araştırma. Ankara, Kara Harp Okulu,Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.Google Scholar
  10. Çelik, V. (2013). Eğitimsel liderlik (7th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  11. Ercan, Ü. (2007). Liderlerin kültürel değer yönelimleri ve değerlerin liderlik sürecine etkileri: Türk ve Abd yöneticileri üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir araştırma. Ankara: Kara Harp Okulu.Google Scholar
  12. Eren, E. (1998). Örgütsel davranış ve yönetim psikolojisi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.Google Scholar
  13. İbicioğlu, H., İbrahim, Ö., & Taş, S. (2009). Liderlik davranışı ve toplumsal norm ilişkisi: Ampirik bir çalışma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  14. Kılıç, T. (2015). Kurumsal liderlik: Kurum kültürü ile uyumlu etkin liderlik davranışlarının belirlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 30–54.Google Scholar
  15. Schneider, B., & Smith, B. D. (2004). Personality and organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Şerif, M., & Şerif, C. W. (1996). Sosyal psikolojiye giriş (Çev. M. Atakay, A. Yavuz). İstanbul: Sosyal Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  17. Stewart, P., & Finch, F. (2016). İlk kademe yöneticileri için çok boyutlu liderlik. March 20, 2016 tarihinde. http://www.blanchard.com.tr/media/files/3228f3e6-b754-41ac-bf16-dbb5edceac9a.pdf. adresinden alınmıştır.
  18. Sümer, N., Lajunen, T., & Özkan, T. (2005). Big five personality traits as the distal predictors of road accident. Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application, 215, 215–227.Google Scholar
  19. Tengilimoğlu, D. (2005). Kamu ve Özel Sektör Örgütlerinde Liderlik Davranışı Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Alan Çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(14), 1–16.Google Scholar
  20. Topçu, M. K. (2015). Çalişanların kişilik özelliklerinin örgütsel özdeşleşme ve işten ayrilma niyeti üzerine etkisinde psikolojik sözleşme algisinin rolü. Ankara: Kara Harp Okulu.Google Scholar
  21. Üredi, L. (2015). Evaluating the primary school teachers’ level of forming a constructivist learning environment according to chaos theory. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 537–566). Germany: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mersin University, Education FacultyMersinTurkey
  2. 2.District Governorship of YenişehirMersinTurkey
  3. 3.Ministry of National EducationAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations