Running head: GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
Gender, Personality and Leadership Implications
Stephanie L. Watts
Virginia Commonwealth University
1
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
2
Two Key Questions
The Learning Connections Inventory (LCI) and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are
two instruments that identify preferences and personality indicators. Using data collected from
forty doctoral leadership students, gathered from two cohorts, this study seeks to find the
answers for two key questions regarding leadership students. To what extent is gender a factor in
the LCI scores among students seeking doctoral degrees? What leadership implications can be
drawn from the MBTI results of the two cohorts?
Question One: LCI Gender Differences
Stereotypes dominate the globe in explaining leadership choices, preferences and
practices. The question becomes, to what extent is gender a factor in the LCI scores among
doctoral students from two cohorts? The LCI scores indicate personal preferences among
sequence, precision, technical reasoning and confluence. Appendix A displays the LCI data
disaggregated by gender. It is noteworthy that scores ranging from 7-17 indicate an avoid
preference, scores from 18-24 represent a use as-needed preference, leaving those that range
from 25-35 denoting the use-first preference.
Sequence
The scores for this preference ranged from 16-31, with no significant differences noted
between the males and females. The median for the males was 26 and for the females the median
was 26.5. The mean for the males was 25.9 with the mean for the females at 25.75. The mean for
both males and females accurately represents the data which includes calculations from both the
low and high ends of the spectrum. Most importantly the mean includes all students surveyed on
the LCI.
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
3
The gender difference is small when considering sequence as a preference among
doctoral students. Seventy percent of the forty students are observed as having sequence as their
use-first preference. It is interesting to note that most doctoral students currently seeking a
degree in leadership, from the two cohorts surveyed, possess the preference that includes
thinking in goals, keeping tight schedules, thriving in a well-ordered life as well as feeling a
great sense of satisfaction when tasks have been completed (Johnston and Dainton, 2003) among
both genders.
Precision
The scores for precision are similar to those found for sequence. Ranges in this category
for females were noted from 21-34 with those of males falling from 16-33. The median was 27
for both males and females. The mean for females was 26.9 with the males at 26.75. Using either
the mean or median is appropriate as they both represent a score of 27. Only one male outlier
with a score of 16 was present among the data.
The gender difference again is small in terms of preference for precision. It appears that
75% of the male and female students from both of the cohorts surveyed in the doctoral leadership
program have a use-first preference that includes knowing facts, documenting everything,
completing research and checking sources (Johnston and Dainton, 2003). Precision is an
important preference to this particular set of students.
Technical Reasoning
Scores within the technical reasoning preference ranged from 13-31. It was the widest set
of data for both males and females. Males ranged from 14-31 while females reported 13-28. The
mean of this set of data was at a score of 20. It represents the data accurately as there were many
outliers on the low and high side of the score set.
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
4
There are no significant differences to report between males and females in the area of
technical reasoning. Of the four preferences observed, technical reasoning is only a use-first for
30% of the male and female cohort students. Even more noteworthy is the 43% of students that
avoid technical reasoning as a preference which includes: hands-on learning, using tools to make
repairs, and feeling frustrated when a task has no real world relevance (Johnston and Dainton,
2003). As a practitioner’s program, the current course of study for this group of Ed.D. students
will prove beneficial as the majority of this group prefers real world applications versus that of a
philosophical program in which a Ph.D. course of study would include.
Confluence
Again there is no significance in the data reported between the males and females.
However, the highest score was held by a female with the lowest score held by a male. Females
scored from 19-33 while males scores were from 15-30. The median and the mean were both
calculated at about 24. Using the average includes the lowest and highest scores from both
groups and is an accurate representation of the data reported.
Forty-five percent of the two cohorts report as using confluence as their use-first
preference. Forty-five percent also report using confluence only as-needed. This leaves only 10%
of both males and females avoiding the skills that include: thinking outside the box, taking risks,
pushing boundaries, reading between the lines and thinking with the big picture in mind
(Johnston and Dainton, 2003).
Summary of LCI Analysis
The differences among gender within the doctoral leadership cohorts represented in
Appendix A are insignificant. The genders are both significantly high in use-first preferences
among the sequence and precision indicators. Confluence is an area where just as many students
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
5
report a use-first as those who use only as-needed. In the area of technical reasoning the cohorts
report 50% avoiding this preference altogether. Group projects included throughout the cohort
course of study will benefit the students as they use their strengths and better understand how to
compensate for their weaknesses. Learning from each other, the groups will be able to
successfully complete the program and through teamwork, be able to create a capstone that will
benefit student learning while presenting a project that will address a real world problem.
Question Two: MBTI Leadership Implications
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) identifies four main areas in which people
have a preference that affects both their behavior and thoughts. The four main areas address how
people focus their attention, take in information, make decisions, and deal with the outer world
(Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2003). What leadership implications can be drawn from the MBTI
results of two cohorts?
Introvert or Extrovert
There is a higher representation of students who prefer extraversion to introversion from
the cohort data. Of the forty students surveyed, 58% prefer extraversion leaving 42% that prefer
introversion.
Intuitive or Sensing
Intuitive students were identified at 48% with 52% preferring sensing respectively. There
is a fairly balanced result among the cohorts’ preferences.
Feeling or Thinking
There are fewer students who prefer feeling to thinking. Those that prefer feeling were
among 42%, while those that are more partial to thinking scored 58%.
Judging or Perceiving
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
6
The most significant difference in the data was noted among the 70% identified as
judging who prefer to plan and 30% identified as perceiving that would rather be spontaneous.
Most of the students among the cohorts would be more partial to being well organized, meeting
deadlines, like planning and will structure their time to complete assignments promptly (Myers
& Briggs Foundation, 2003) which will benefit them throughout the doctoral program.
Summary of MBTI Analysis
The cohort data reveals a slight preference for sensing over intuition. An even greater
preference for extroversion and thinking is present more so than the preferences of introversion
and feeling. The most distinct preference as indicated by Figure 1 is in favor of the judging
indicator which finds seventy percent of the doctoral students among these two cohorts prefer
MBTI Preferences
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Introvert Extrovert Intuition Sensing
Feeling Thinking Judging Perceiving
Figure 1.
order and control in their world (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2003). Consequently, only 30% of
those students are likely to be spontaneous and flexible.
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
7
Keeping in mind the cohort scores are from doctoral students in a leadership program
which focuses on education, the data reveals somewhat expected results. The popular opinion of
those who choose to work in the field of education is that most would tend to relate easily to
people, be interested in the five senses in taking in information, prefer thinking by using analysis
and logic, and like to be planned and orderly (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2003). These
preferences appear to be requirements in the field of education. There are many kinds of leaders
with varying personality preferences. Schools and organizations require different types of leaders
at optimum times to achieve growth. There are times when an extrovert would benefit and
consequently, there are times when an introvert may be just what is needed. The most important
leadership implication that can be drawn from this study is the importance of identifying the
different types of leaders. Knowledge of the preferences could help school divisions match the
right leader to the right position at the right time.
Conclusion
From this experience, I have learned that data can be used to support the writer’s opinions
and ideas. In studying trends in data, implications can be made that will predict future outcomes.
It is an enjoyable process to create surveys, collect data, and discover trends. Creating graphs and
tables is a challenge, but once learned and applied it is a skill that will not easily be forgotten.
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
References
Johnson, C. and Dainton, G, (2003). LCI: Learning connections inventory. Turnersville, NJ:
Learning Connections Resources.
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2003). Retrieved from: http://myersbriggs.org
8
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
Appendix A
Learning Connections Inventory Results by Gender
Cohort
Learning Connections Inventory
Student Gender Sequence Precision Technical Confluence
Reasoning
2015 2
f
26
29
21
21
2015 3
f
24
22
28
26
2015 7
f
23
22
16
24
2015 9
f
28
27
22
26
2015 10
f
29
29
25
28
2015 12
f
18
21
19
23
2015 14
f
29
24
13
23
2015 16
f
18
29
18
22
2
f
28
26
21
25
4
f
25
25
13
20
6
f
30
31
17
23
7
f
20
31
15
25
11
f
28
27
28
25
13
f
26
23
27
27
15
f
23
30
26
19
16
f
27
30
18
27
17
f
23
25
18
33
20
f
29
34
24
24
21
f
30
26
22
23
23
f
31
27
14
19
2015 1
m
30
27
19
25
2015 4
m
30
30
25
28
2015 5
m
25
22
26
25
2015 6
m
16
26
16
24
2015 8
m
22
26
19
30
2015 11
m
31
28
22
15
2015 13
m
28
26
15
16
2015 15
m
30
30
19
24
1
m
22
16
25
20
3
m
18
30
30
23
5
m
31
27
21
23
8
m
30
23
17
26
9
m
29
30
18
21
10
m
26
24
17
26
12
m
26
33
16
28
14
m
22
29
29
24
18
m
19
29
31
26
19
m
26
25
17
22
9
10
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
22
24
m
m
26
31
23
31
14
28
Technical
Females Sequence Precision Reasoning Confluence
mean
25.75
26.9
20.25
24.15
median
26.5
27
20
24
Males
mean
median
Technical
Sequence Precision Reasoning Confluence
25.9
26.75
21.2
23.6
26
27
19
24
19
27
GENDER, PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP
Appendix B
Frequency Tables for MBTI Results
MBTI World
Extrovert
23 (58%)
Introvert
17 (42%
MBTI Information
Intuition
19 (48%)
Sensing
21 (52%)
MBTI Decisions
Thinking
23 (58%)
Feeling
17 (42%)
MBTI Structure
Judging
28 (70%)
Perceiving
12 (30%)
11