Demographic and personality factors predicting leadership style and coping strategies of working women in the public sector: A case of Vhembe District in Limpopo Province

Abstract

Considering the patriarchal nature of most African societies, the workload that most women in management have, and the pressures they are under as they enter the leadership/management field, which is not seen as traditional women’s occupations. The existing leadership research is male-dominated, with few capture snapshots of women in management, especially those in the public sector. This study, therefore, is designed to investigate the demographic and personality factors predicting leadership style and coping strategies among working women in the public sector, Vhembe District Municipalities. This study is based on several conceptual frameworks of contingency and transformational theory, focusing on behavior style based on demographic, personality, leadership styles of female leaders, and the coping strategies used by these female leaders. This study examines the influence of personality factors on leadership style and their coping strategies among women in public sector service of Vhembe District Municipalities in Limpopo Province. It also investigates the relationship between leadership style and coping mechanisms among these groups of participants. Four objectives were developed based on the study’s aims in answering the objectives of this study; the quantitative approach was adopted. A total of three hundred women leaders were surveyed using the Leadership style, coping strategies, Big five personality measures, and demographic factors, and two hundred and four were collected and analyzed. The sample was made up of all women who are in leadership in public sectors. The study measurements were self-administered questionnaires, and data was gathered systematically and analyzed through the statistical research process. This study utilizes a quantitative descriptive, correctional analysis, and stepwise multiple regression approach to gain a new perspective in testing the research hypotheses. Item analysis was conducted to check the reliability of the scales, and all the scales obtained acceptable Cronbach alphas. In exploring the factor structure of the scales, exploratory factor analysis was conducted, and poor items were removed until a clear and desirable factor solution was obtained. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to validate the data, and all the goodness of fit indexes achieved the required level. The results shows that there is a significant positive relationship between personality and leadership style, (r = 0.318, p < 0.01). There was also a significant positive relationship between personality and coping strategies (r = 0.226, p < 0.01). However, there was no relationship between personality and the demographic variables of age, work experience and marital status (r = 0.071, p > 0.05; r = 0.095, p > 0.05; r = 0.052, p > 0.05 respectively). A significant positive relationship was also found between leadership style and coping strategies (r = 0.404, p < 0.01). Another significant positive relationship was also found between leadership style and work experience (r = 0.144, p < 0.05). Nevertheless, there was no relationship between leadership style and age (r = 0.101, p > 0.05). There was also no relationship between leadership style and marital status (r = -0.026, p > 0.05). The personality factor was significant and positively related to transformational leadership style (R² = .413, F (1, 185) = 129.991, β = .177, t = 5.429, p < 0.01), extraversion is also a significant negative predictor of transformational leadership style (R² = .550, R square change - Δ R² = .137, F (2,184) = 112.419, β = -.517, t = -7.689, p < 0.01). Neuroticism was also a negative significant predictor of transformational leadership style (R² = .583, R square change - Δ R² = .033, F (3,183) = 85.155, β = -.186, t = -3.701, p < 0.01). Openness to experience was significantly correlated to transformational leadership style (R² = .599, R square change - Δ R² = .016, F (4,182) = 67.984, β = -.152, t = -2.731, p < 0.01). Agreeableness was not a significant predictor of transformational leadership (β= .107, t=1.496, p > .05). Age was not a significant predictor of transformational leadership style (β= -.064, t = -1.345, p > .05) and work experience was also not a significant predictor of transformational leadership style (β= .025, t = .531, p > .05). Conscientiousness was significant and positively related to transactional leadership style (R² = .267, F (1.179) = 65.311, β = .240, t =3.577, p < 0.01). extraversion, was also a significant negative predictor of transactional leadership style (R² = .354, R square change - Δ R² = .087, F (2, 178) = 48.868, β = -.611, t = -4.596, p < 0.01). neuroticism was also a significant negative predictor of transactional leadership style (R² = .371, R square change - Δ R² = .017, F(3,177) = 34.796, β = -.226, t = -2.156, p < 0.05). Age was a significant positive predictor of laissez-faire leadership style (R² = .052, F (1, 188) = 10.349, β = .085, t = 3.132, p < 0.01), extraversion was also a significant positive predictor of laissez-faire leadership style (R² = .099, R square change - Δ R² = .047, F (2,187) = 10.261, β = .360, t = 3.113, p < 0.01). Openness to experience was not a significant predictor of laissez-faire leadership style (β= -.114, t = -1.559, p > .05) and agreeableness was also not a significant predictor of laissez-faire leadership style (β= .146, t = 1.924, p > .05), work experience, was also not significant in predicting laissez-faire leadership style (β= .016, t = .224, p > .05). Conscientiousness was a significant positive predictor of engagement coping strategy (R² = .298, F (1.180) = 65.311, β = .692, t = 4.129, p < 0.01), agreeableness was also a significant positive predictor of engagement coping strategy (R² = .337, R square change - Δ R² = .038, F (2, 179) = 45.466, β = .626, t = 3.221, p < 0.01). Extraversion was not a significant predictor of engagement coping strategy (β= .032, t = .455, p > .05) and openness to experience was also not a significant predictor of engagement coping strategy (β= -.021, t = -.340, p > .05). Neuroticism was also not a significant predictor of engagement coping strategy (β= .067, t = .829, p > .05). Agreeableness was a significant negative predictor of disengagement coping strategy (R² = .150, F (1, 181) = 32.017, β = -.912, t = -4.578, p < 0.01), openness to experience was also a significant positive predictor of disengagement coping strategy (R² = .287, R square change - Δ R² = .136, F (2,180) = 36.178, β = 2.559, t = 7.137, p < 0.01), extraversion was also a significant positive predictor of disengagement coping strategy (R² = .349, R square change - Δ R² = .062, F (3,179) = 31.944, β = 1.706, t = 4.127, p < 0.01). Conscientiousness and neuroticism were not significant in predicting disengagement coping strategy (β= -.077, t = -.856, p > .05; β= .061, t = .779, p > .05 respectively). The results provide sufficient evidence that personality factors predict working women’s leadership styles and coping strategies in leadership. Leadership style is influenced by coping strategy and the work experience gain. Personality factors reflect people’s characteristics, patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior’s and they also xvi imply consistency and stability of people. Women in leadership are also influenced by situational forces that predict their leadership style and coping strategy. It is suggested that the management of public sector organizations understudy should develop social programs that will support all women in leadership to cope with their duties. Those organizations with younger women can establish creches inside their organizations to make it easy for women with young kids to drop them in the morning and pick them up after work. It will be easier for the women not to rush in the morning and afternoon to drop and pick up the kids. The management may also establish policies that will support the women in leadership, like maternity leave and family responsibility leave, giving them more moral support. It must include training and development policies that can also support women in leadership. More training on leadership styles and emotional intelligence training will aid the women in leadership and equip them with coping strategies to manage their respective organizations.