A qualitative exploration of perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood of male school leaders

ABSTRACT

This qualitative study investigated the perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood of male school leaders and their perceptions associated with leadership practice. We used purposive sampling to recruit male Israeli school leaders for participation in the study. We collected the data by semi-structured interviews, which we then subjected to thematic analysis. The results indicate that the participants were divided between hegemonic and caring views of masculinity. By contrast, two-thirds of the leaders held an emotional view of fatherhood, and only one-third had an instrumental view. The results shed light also on the perceived connection of leaders’ masculinity and fatherhood views with their leadership practice. The findings and contributions of the study are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Fatherhood
• gender
• male
• masculinity
• principals
• school leaders

Introduction

Although in many Western countries, the teaching force is largely feminine, men are dominant in school leadership positions as principals and in mid-level managerial positions (OECD 2021). This makes gender-related school leadership issues particularly deserving of study (e.g. Fuller 2014; Grogan 2014; Shaked, Gross, and Glanz 2019; Weinstein et al. 2023). Perceptions of masculinity (i.e. ‘what it means to be a man, to be ‘manly,’ or to display such behaviour at any one time;’ Kerfoot and Knights 1996, 86) have been explored in relation to managerial and leadership styles in schools (e.g. Arar and Oplatka 2013; Coleman 2003; Gill and Arnold 2015), but male educational managers’ general perceptions of masculinity have not been studied almost at all until recently (MacKinnon 2021). Moreover, many male school leaders reach their leadership positions in their 30s and 40s, often when they are in the process of building or expanding their families and raising young children. Yet, perceptions of fatherhood (i.e. ‘the status of being a father and the activities associated with fathering,’ Gatrell, Ladge, and Powell 2022, 1199) by male school leaders have not been explored at all. As a result, male school leaders’ perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood remain largely unknown. Such knowledge is especially needed currently when perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood are changing in the West and becoming more diverse (Johansson 2011; Strier 2015; Strier and Perez-Vaisvidovsky 2021). Moreover, such knowledge is vital because school leaders’ views of masculinity and fatherhood can affect how they lead. This is particularly relevant to dominant behavior and its manifestations (interpersonal-caring vs. instrumental-controlling), which are crucial for achieving and maintaining power (Diekman 2007), and are an integral part of being in a leadership role.

This study is based on the gender self-categorization approach, which suggests that individuals chose their collective identity and whether to identify as a member of one gender category or the other (Wood and Eagly 2015). Self-classification as a woman or a man is not fixed and can change with age and experiences as gender representations become more complex. In time, gender self-definition often becomes entrenched in other category memberships (e.g. working-class men) (Wood and Eagly 2015). The content of gender categorizations, such as hegemonic masculinity, can vary with cultural changes and situational motives that individuals face (Wood and Eagly 2015). This is particularly relevant to the link between masculinity and fatherhood. Gender self-categorization is considered a basic cognitive aspect that affects how individuals view their social environment (Wood and Eagly 2015) and how gendered behaviors are valued in various social roles (e.g. a professional, a father) (Diekman 2007). In situations where men self-classify in a new social membership, such as a certain type of parenting (i.e. traditional father vs. a ‘new’ father), gender self-categorization can alter as well as certain gendered leadership behaviors (the nature of the dominant behavior, i.e. instrumental-controlling vs. interpersonal-caring) can change and become more diffused across situations and social roles.

The present study explored the rich meaning that male school leaders who are fathers of young children attach to the manly and fatherly aspects of their identity. We investigated the following research question: What types of masculinity and fatherhood perceptions do male school leaders who are fathers of young children held and how their perceptions were associated with their gendered leadership practice?

Background

Masculinity and fatherhood

Kerfoot and Knights (1996) described masculinity as the sociocultural view of the meaning of being a man or ‘manly,’ or acting as such. Connell (1987, 2003) suggested that there is a sociocultural variety of masculinity but that not all masculinities are viewed as equal. Connell coined the term ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ reflecting the traditional understanding that men should exemplify abilities such as strength, success, lack of emotion, and control, which are superior to other expressions of manhood and womanhood (Connell 1987, 2003). It has been argued that the cultural ideal of hegemonic masculinity has broad roots, as even individuals with alternative expressions of manhood and womanhood acknowledge and indirectly sustain it (Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017). Thus, in Connell’s approach, all men are measured by the standard of hegemonic masculinity and endlessly negotiate with it, whereas other forms of masculinity are subordinated to it or marginalized (Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017). Hegemonic masculinity is strengthened by various social institutions. A key such institution is religion, in which hegemonic masculine behaviors are endorsed by religious doctrine, and clergy that are mostly males interpret religious texts in a way that idealizes female subordination (Molina 2015). Since the 2000s, in the West, there has been growing social and academic interest in a popular and competitive alternative to hegemonic masculinity, which has been referred to as ‘caring masculinity’ (Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017) (also called at times ‘feminine masculinity;’ see Smoliak et al. 2022). Caring masculinity reflects the attitude that men can demonstrate traditionally feminine-stereotyped aptitudes, such as affective expression, sensitivity, interdependence, care, and more, and still regard them as part of their masculinity (Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017). Men who embrace caring masculinity are often referred to as ‘new’ men (Smith 2016). Perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood are intertwined, and changes in one can impact the other (Johansson and Andreasson 2017).

According to scholars, fatherhood is increasingly seen as a social construction that is influenced by a variety of external relationships and institutions in men's lives (Brandth and Kvande 1998). This covers both cultural norms and situations concerning parenthood, as well as connections inside the family, where fatherhood is tested and molded in day-to-day life (Magaraggia 2013). According to research, men's attitudes toward fatherhood shift along with their perceptions of themselves as men and what is masculinity the more they are involved around the house and interact with the children (Magaraggia 2013; Plantin, Månsson, and Kearney 2003). This is a generational change, as research reported that the more actively men are engaged in household and childcare duties, the more they perceive themselves as distinct from their fathers (Plantin, Månsson, and Kearney 2003). Hegemonic masculinity has been associated with fathers’ identity centered on being the breadwinner and with the traditional understanding of fatherhood as relying on authority and emotional distance (Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017). As an alternative to traditional fatherhood, the academic literature and public discourse have been paying increasing attention to a new fatherhood model that stresses nurturing, greater involvement in caring for children, and emotional expression (Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017; Latshaw and Hale 2016). The new father model has been extensively criticized, with good fathers still being perceived as the primary breadwinner, and because in practice, many new fathers fall short of the expectations associated with the new model (Cosson and Graham 2012; Hunter, Riggs, and Augoustinos 2017).

Masculinity and fatherhood in school leaders

Gender has been investigated in educational administration (e.g. Fuller 2014; Grogan 2014; Shaked, Gross, and Glanz 2019; Weinstein et al. 2023) but the masculine identity of male school leaders has rarely been explored in educational administration, a notable exception being MacKinnon (2021). To the best of our knowledge, the fatherhood of male leaders was not explored at all. The few studies that addressed the masculinity of school leaders related mainly to managerial and leadership styles in schools (e.g. Arar and Oplatka 2013; Coleman 2003; Gill and Arnold 2015). The authors sought to describe a set of behaviors as (un)manly rather than obtain the school leaders’ views of their gender identity. Arar and Oplatka’s (2013) study of a gender-heterogeneous sample of Muslim teachers explored gender constructions of the ideal school principal. The researchers found that the proper style of both male and female principals was the traditional masculine style of authoritative control. Gill and Arnold’s (2015) Australian study, which included interviews with 17 male principals, indicated that a managerialist policy environment encouraged addressing emotional issues in school management, although principals still operated in manners closer to traditional gendered expectations of the authoritative, emotionally distant principal. Coleman’s (2003) UK survey found that both men and women headteachers had similar perceptions of traditional feminine and masculine qualities of their management style. Coleman's analyses counted the overall frequency of the terms ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ used by participants and not the number of individuals who used these words, therefore these findings should be used with caution.

Implications of school leaders’ perceptions of gender roles and leadership practice

The literature provides some insights into the implications of men's perceptions of gender roles in education. Schools and communities shape educators’ perceptions of gender roles, influencing their practices and relationships (Martino and Frank 2006). Men in education with progressive perceptions of gender roles adeptly navigate evolving views by distancing themselves from traditional norms, all while avoiding an excessive feminization of their identities (Jupp 2013). They also act as role models, reinforcing gender norms for students and embodying perceptions of traditional gender roles (Berg and Lahelma 2010). In feminized school environments, male educators still dominate certain professional niches (e.g. science education, management roles), upholding traditional perceptions of gender roles (Mim 2022). This reinforces gendered occupational divisions and maintains higher prestige for males (McDowell and Klattenberg 2019).

This study focused on school leaders to describe how their views of masculinity and fatherhood were associated with perceptions of gender leadership practice, particularly linked to their relationships with the teaching staff. The attention to leaders’ relationships with teaching staff is connected with the basic concept of dominance. According to literature on traditional gender norms, men are expected to exhibit agentic traits like dominance or independence, while women are expected to exhibit communal traits like warmth and friendliness (Eagly, Wood, and Diekman 2000). To succeed in historically male-dominated professions, for example, management and leadership roles, traits often associated with traditional masculinity, such as dominance, determination, and assertiveness, have traditionally been considered advantageous for success (Cejka and Eagly 1999). This reasoning is based on role congruity theory (Eagly and Diekman 2005), according to which people who exhibit traits that are consistent with their social roles are more positively perceived than those whose traits are inconsistent with their social duties. Dominant behavior can be described by an instrumental skill (e.g. production or competence related) or interpersonal skill (e.g. caring or warmth related) (Diekman 2007).

Research context

This study was conducted in Jewish society in Israel, where hegemonic masculinity is idealized and associated with the Zionist pioneers who founded the country and the strong sense of masculine pride of the Israeli army, which assumes a central place in the country given the ongoing cycles of conflict (Hirsch and Grosswirth Kachtan 2018). Reality is more diverse, however, as alternative forms of masculinity have emerged and gained popularity in Jewish Israeli society (Hirsch and Grosswirth Kachtan 2018). Gender issues are highly prevalent aspects in Israeli schools. The vast majority of the teaching force is female, and only 14.5% of primary school and 29% of high school teachers are male (OECD 2021). By contrast, 29% of principals of elementary schools and 49% of high schools are male (OECD 2021). Because of variations in work hours and promotions to leadership positions, Israeli male teachers earn 10% more than their female peers (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics 2022). Secular public education in Israel, which offers co-education, is considered more liberal and gender equality-oriented than the religious public one, which offers largely single-sex education and is considered more conservative and patriarchal (Rapoport 2013).

Method

The present study followed the qualitative research paradigm. The phenomenological study explored participants’ perceptions and aimed to capture their subjective experiences (Matua and Van Der Wal 2015). The study may be classified as descriptive phenomenology, which seeks to identify the Gestalt of phenomena that can be widely shared (Gill 2014; Giorgi 1975). Before data collection began, the research was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of our university (approval number 3436).

Participants and procedure

Participants were selected using purposeful sampling, which ‘focuses on selecting information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study’ (Patton 2014, 230). Participants were 60 Israeli male school leaders (47 principals, 2 vice-principals, and 11 coordinators) with young children aged 0–11 (i.e. infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children in middle childhood; see Fagan 2021). We chose these age groups because children of this age are highly dependent on their parents, unlike the adolescent group of 12-18-year-olds. Only secular and national-religious Jewish male school leaders participated in the study because in Jewish ultra-Orthodox and Arab societies, the traditional gender views of family and work roles are more dominant, and there is active marginalization of other perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood (Alhuzail and Segev 2021). Participants were recruited by invitations posted on teachers’ social networks. We contacted interested individuals and explained to them the purpose and procedure of the research. Participation was voluntary. Individuals signed an informed consent form and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. The participants’ demographics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of participants’ demographics (N = 60).

Variables
Role
78.3%	Principal
3.3%	Vice principal
18.4%	Coordinator
Level
8.3%	Primary
91.7%	Secondary
Sector
53.3%	State Jewish-secular
46.7%	State Jewish-religious
Age (years)	M = 41.78 (SD = 4.05) Min = 28, Max = 49
Managerial experience (years)	M = 5.20 (SD = 2.43) Min = 2, Max = 12
No. of children	M = 3.95 (SD = 1.55) Min = 1, Max = 7
No. of children below 12	M = 2.75 (SD = 0.85) Min = 1, Max = 5

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which allowed exploring in depth the participants’ rich insights on a list of topics prepared in advance by the researchers and which provided sufficient flexibility to investigate issues raised by the participants (Patton 2014). The interviews were transcribed by a professional service.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Bernard, Wutich, and Ryan 2016), a ‘method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 79). We analyzed the interview data both inductively and deductively. We began by reading the transcripts of all the interviews and inductively searching for patterns and themes across cases, aiming to develop initial descriptive codes (Huberman and Miles 2013). Next, we conducted an extensive review of the literature on issues that emerged in the data analysis. We then reread the transcripts from a deductive perspective, with additional relevant insights and theories from the literature in mind. Thus, the analysis was an iterative process between data and scholarship. The final thematic analysis was supplemented by a quantitative analysis of the frequency of the subthemes (Newing 2010).

We used several strategies to enhance the trustworthiness of the study. One was investigator triangulation, which relies on the independent examination of data by different researchers (Denzin 2006). The authors analyzed the data separately and compared their analyses. Discussions about the thematic analysis aimed to refine themes and resolve disagreements, until saturation was reached (Pratt, Sonenshein, and Feldman 2022). We also used reflexivity to ‘position’ ourselves explicitly and engage in self-understanding about the biases, values, and experiences that we brought to the research (Creswell 2007). In the writing of the findings, the authors aimed at a thick description that generates authenticity and produces for the readers the feeling that they experienced, or could have experienced, the situations described (Peterson 2019). These measures helped ensure the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the case study (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Findings

We present three themes that describe the accounts of the male school leaders participating in the study: perceptions of masculinity, perceptions of fatherhood, and gendered leadership practice.

Theme 1: perceptions of masculinity

To elicit school leaders’ perceptions of masculinity, we used questions like ‘Can you describe your family?’ ‘What is your involvement in the family’s daily life?’ ‘What does your spouse think about your involvement in the daily life of the family?’ ‘What do you think about the balance between your work and your family?’ ‘What do you think is a good or successful man?’ Participants’ perceptions of masculinity can be divided into two main experiences. About half of the participants (N = 34) described a self-perception of caring masculinity and the other half (N = 26) one of hegemonic masculinity. Separating the secular from religious participants revealed different trends in each group's perception of masculinity. Out of 32 secular school leaders, 24, constituting an absolute majority in this group, portrayed caring masculinity. By contrast, in the group of religious school leaders, only 10 (out of 28) portrayed caring masculinity.

Narrative of caring masculinity of male school leaders

Analysis of the data shows that a considerable part of the participants had a self-perception of caring masculinity with an egalitarian gender orientation regarding family and work commitments. To the question of what, in your opinion, is a ‘good’ man, participants provided responses like: ‘Listen, I'm a feminist, so I'll tell you that a good man is like a good woman. Both carry the burden equally’ (Participant 29); ‘A man who fulfills himself and leads his family […] he is an inspiration to his children. [He] supports and cares for them in every sense. This is the same definition for a good woman. My ideal is to fulfill myself and be significant sometimes at work and sometimes at home’ (Participant 5). The participants claimed that there was no difference between men and women in work and family roles. They compared their role with that of their partner, although they were not asked about it explicitly.

Some of the participants revealed another layer of the new masculinity, in which the man is a more sensitive person than man used to be in the past and attentive to the needs of his family: ‘Today, the man is expected to be more sensitive […] not the ‘hunter’ of old times who comes and offers security, but a different man who is infinitely sensitive to his family and the environment […] This obligates me as well’ (Participant 14). Similarly, another participant related: ‘A man who knows how to look at the environment, love it, and love himself. A man who knows how to express feelings mainly to his family members […] I aspire to be such a man’ (Participant 16). These accounts reveal both the outward and inward orientation of the new man: outwards toward his close environment and meaningful individuals in his life and inwards toward his emotional world.

Some of the participants provided further elaboration on the dissonance experienced by certain ‘new’ men: ‘Every man needs to break away from the intergenerational transmission that has been passed down since the beginning of time. He should no longer be just a hunter or a patriarchal figure, but instead be both attentive and sensitive, able to express his feelings and not afraid to show vulnerability. He should be willing to admit when he is helpless and say ‘I need help’. However, I also believe that a man should be able to lead and make decisions. Personally, I wish I knew how to build a pergola, but a man should have a balance of masculine and softer traits, as well as humility’ (Participant 54).

Hegemonic masculinity of male school leaders

As noted, about half the participants expressed notions of hegemonic masculinity. According to them, the man is assigned the role of breadwinner in his family. In this view, the woman's role is mainly to raise the children and take care of the household chores. In this excerpt, Participant 39, who has a religious background, shares their perspective on what makes a good man: ‘I think a man is someone who needs to be stable and provide for his family. It is his duty to be a reliable figure in the home, ensuring that the woman feels supported and that the family is led in areas such as livelihood and care. His task is to create a sense of security in the home, making sure that there is always someone present to take care of the family's needs.’ None of the participants believed that the man's only role is to provide for his family and that the woman's function is only to raise children but these accounts reflected a highly traditional stereotypic view of gender roles. For example, one school leader said: ‘The house is a partnership in which I’m responsible for the financial situation and my wife more for the house and the children […] It cannot be a reality for me that my wife will work more than me’ (Participant 7). This participant used the term ‘partnership,’ which is often associated with equal contributions and commitments but he used it to justify an unequal gendered work distribution.

Other participants reflected on the centrality of the ‘career man’ in shaping gender roles in their home and stated that life together clarified and shaped the roles of the man and his partner. For example: ‘When I assumed the position [of a school principal] we have been talking about it long before. It was clear that I’d be less [at home]. My wife took her foot off the gas at her job […] she took a day off work here and took a day off there. I think that it couldn’t have happened the other way around’ (Participant 2).

Some of the participants revealed the gap between their traditional perception of masculinity and the constraints of modern reality in Israel. On one hand, there is a conservative ideology of a distinct difference in the roles of men and women, and on the other, the harsh economic reality and liberal societal discourse that encourages women to work more. For example, one school leader remarked: ‘With us, the African-Asian Jews, it's called ‘head of the family.’ My wife and I work for the family. I'm mostly outside and she's mostly inside […] She also works outside, there's nothing to do, the world is changing’ (Participant 6).

Theme 2: perceptions of fatherhood

To uncover school leaders’ perceptions of fatherhood, we used the question ‘What do you think is a good or successful father?’ The findings about male school leaders’ perceptions of fatherhood reflected two views: one of emotional and another of instrumental fatherhood. The majority of participants (N = 38) perceived fatherhood as mainly an emotional role. As shown in Table 2, the perception of caring masculinity was closely associated with the emotional perception of fatherhood. By contrast, hegemonic masculinity seemed to be unrelated to any concrete type of fatherhood.

Table 2. Crosstabulation between the type of masculinity and type of fatherhood (N = 60).

		Emotional fatherhood	Instrumental fatherhood
Caring masculinity	34	26 (76.5%)	8 (23.5%)
Hegemonic masculinity	26	12 (46.1%)	14 (53.9%)
Total	60	38	22

In this theme, too, a difference was found in the prevalence of perceptions between secular and religious participants. Two-thirds (22 out of 32) of the secular participants emphasized the emotional perception of fatherhood, and approximately half (16 out of 28) of the religious participants perceived fatherhood as an emotional role.

Narratives of emotional perception of fatherhood of male school leaders

Analysis of the interview data shows that most leaders held a self-perception of affect-based fatherhood. According to this outlook, the role of the father is to emotionally support his children and give them warmth and love. This view considers the emotional concern for children as the ultimate goal of fatherhood, above material concerns but without reducing the importance of the latter. For example, one principal said: ‘A father who really sees his children […] first of all to love them […] and see their emotional world. A father who doesn’t forget their needs. Not [one who is] stuck in his world’ (Participant 10). This excerpt also emphasizes the value of one's commitment to his children's needs and emotions as a path for deep interpersonal connection. Some of the participants expanded on the physical expression of this commitment: ‘A good father full of hugs, full of kisses. A bond of strong love. To see that the children are as happy as possible’ (Participant 1). At the same time, the excerpt also reflects many males’ difficulty to express emotion verbally because of their socialization and the expectations of self and society. A significant number of participants noted the importance of the fathers’ emotional intelligence and emotional skills. For example, one principal commented: ‘One who knows how to listen to his children. One who has emotion […] and has [abilities] to manage the emotional world for his children’ (Participant 9). Although the emotional intelligence literature acknowledges the ability to control self-emotions and other emotions as key social abilities, one can see in this quote another conflict that surfaced and which is particularly relevant to males in leadership positions: the duality between emotion (which is unpredictable, has a natural flow, and is at times chaotic) and the need for order and control of emotion. In this line, Participant 46 stated that a good father is someone who is present for their child all the time, even if they are not physically visible: ‘You just know that your father is there for you, and that he will be there for you whenever you need him, even if he doesn't answer your phone call right away. Even if you're not sure what you need to talk about or just need to vent, he will listen to you, even if he's busy. When you're going through a difficult time and you finally feel comfortable enough to share your feelings, he will be there to listen. You can feel his support like an anchor in your life, and it's always there for you.’ Many interviewees perceived this as a change compared with the past model of fatherhood. For example, one participant said: ‘There are changes compared to the previous generation. We are a completely different generation. The father at the time was the breadwinner. The man was the disciplinarian at home. He was the scary one. Yes, that's the story. This is a generation that was emotionally handicapped […] My father was not a good father in many respects’ (Participant 29).

Narratives of instrumental perception of fatherhood of male school leaders

About a quarter of the participants perceive fatherhood as an instrumental responsibility. According to this outlook, the emphasis is on the concern for the children's non-emotional needs, especially their material ones, stressing the father's role as a breadwinner and as the economic supporter of the family. Some of the respondents have simplified this idea; for example, one participant remarked: ‘Don't let them tell you stories, a good father is first of all responsible for his children having financial support. Let them have something to eat. He needs to see that they are clean, well dressed, and have everything they need from electricity and water to books. Then you can take care of everything else’ (Participant 8). Others conveyed the framing of instrumental support as the ultimate goal of fatherhood: ‘A good father is someone who takes responsibility for his children and understands that the most important thing he does first is for his family. You don't live only from warmth and love, you also need money’ (Participant 2). Participant 39 provided a practical illustration of this concept: ‘I believe a good father is one who remembers his children's requests. For instance, when you receive a message during the day from your child asking, ‘Dad, can you print this for me? or bring it to me?’ and you promptly attend to it, without needing a reminder. This shows your child that you are available and attentive to their needs. It's also important to occasionally bring something from school, like a candy or game, to show that school experience is not something to dread, but rather, something enjoyable. Of course, not school property, but something like, ‘Dad brought you a present from work.'’

Theme 3: gendered leadership practice

We asked participants the following question: ‘Did your experience of fatherhood change your leadership practice in school?’ Some interviewees expressed a clear distinction between the views of fatherhood and work (e.g. ‘I’m trying not to bring fatherhood elements into my work because it's not right in my opinion,’ Participant 49). Many others who expressed emotional perceptions of fatherhood and added comments about the importance of exhibiting attitudes and skills that are part of their worldview of fatherhood at work: ‘I think part of parenting is applying [parenting] behaviors in school as well’ (Participant 60). Many school leaders remarked that they saw a clear link between their view of fatherhood and their style of work with students as well as staff. For example, one participant said: ‘I'm more sensitive […] when I respond to a child […], I always look at it with this attitude: how would I like my son's teacher to react? Yes, I think I behaved differently when I didn't have children. Much more curt, and much more impatient, when I had no children. Yes, I think that being a father greatly affects my work’ (Participant 50).

Narratives of masculinity and fatherhood of male school leaders associated with their gendered leadership practice

In a sub-sample of 30 participants, we also asked the question: ‘What do you think is a good or successful manager.’ The answers offered insights into gendered leadership practice, specifically the type of dominant behavior participants regarded as part of their relationship with the teaching staff. A third (N = 10) of the sub-sample mentioned leadership behaviors carried out as part of interpersonal-caring relationships. For example, one leader said: ‘You have to invest the energy, the time in connection, in love, in learning, in progress but from a place of tranquility […] The world [post-COVID] suddenly realized how we are racing. There’s room for tranquility, for balance, for working on social and emotional connections’ (Participant 35). Another school leader described good management as ‘ mainly about being there for the team. I mean our job is simply to be with our team members and guide them and let them feel that they’re not alone’ (Participant 45). The rest of the participants in the sub-sample (n = 20) narrated dominant leadership behaviors that were part of instrumental-controlling relationships. For example, one leader said: ‘A manager is an educator of educators. Do you understand? They help the staff members figure things out and then those teachers use that knowledge in the field. And this is accomplished by goals and objectives. You define some kind of goal that you want and then you’re building the whole setup for it’ (Participant 46). An excerpt from Participant 48 is representative of this group: ‘You need to know how to manage a team, it's very, very important to lead people. You must have a way to stand firm for your way. I mean, it's not being inattentive […] But lots of pressure is exerted on you all the time. And you must be very strong not to become confused.’ Table 3 reveals several insights. First, school leaders embracing caring masculinity and emotional fatherhood were equally divided between instrumental and interpersonal behaviors, suggesting no clear effect of these views on leadership attributes. Yet, those who embraced both caring masculinity and emotional fatherhood represent the vast majority of all leaders with an interpersonal leadership approach (70%). Second, leaders with hegemonic masculinity and emotional fatherhood (77.8%) and hegemonic masculinity and instrumental fatherhood (85.7%) exhibited predominantly instrumental leadership behaviors, suggesting a connection between instrumental leadership and views of hegemonic masculinity.

Table 3. Breakdown of school leaders’ gendered leadership behaviors by combining perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood (N = 30).

	Instrumental dominant leadership behaviors			Interpersonal dominant leadership behaviors
	n	Col%	Row%	n	Col%	Row%	Total
Hold caring masculinity and emotional fatherhood	6	30%	46.1%	7	70%	53.9%	13
Hold hegemonic masculinity and emotional fatherhood	7	35%	77.8%	2	20%	22.2%	9
Hold caring masculinity and instrumental fatherhood	1	5%	100%	–	–	–	1
Hold hegemonic masculinity and instrumental fatherhood	6	30%	85.7%	1	10%	14.3%	7
Total	20			10

Note. This information is from a sub-sample of 30 participants (of the total sample of 60 participants in this study) who were asked the question: ‘What do you think is a good or successful manager.’

Discussion

Despite its significance in education management (Berkovich 2018), gender has been underexplored, most attention being focused on females (Arar and Oplatka 2013; Emsile and Hunt 2009) and males being largely neglected. This innovative study extends the understanding of male school leaders’ perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood, and their associations with leadership practice.

The first contribution of the study lies in its portrayal of male school leaders’ changing notions of masculinity and the tensions these changes create. Masculinity has not been studied extensively in the field of education management (Arar and Oplatka 2013). Our findings indicate that about half of the participants held a perception of caring masculinity. They supported gender equality and emphasized their desire to be equal partners in raising children and performing household chores. These findings are consistent with the literature (Emsile and Hunt 2009) indicating that in the Western world, new forms of masculinity are gaining traction. Yet, the participants expressed a functionalist approach and not a social critique. Feminist ideas have undergone several transformations since the nineteenth century. The first wave aimed at gender equality and rectifying gender discrimination, whereas the second focused on female liberation from male oppression (Rowbotham 2013). Ideas of caring masculinity, as expressed by participants in the present study, align with the functionalist ideas of the first wave of feminism. It is possible to argue that this approach is less alienating to males than the second-wave approach, which conceptualizes and treats males as sources of oppression. At the same time, about half the participants expressed a traditional view of hegemonic masculinity. Participants who displayed hegemonic masculinity believed that gender equality ideas harm the unique social roles of men and women. This finding is consistent with existing evidence that men working in education invest effort in negotiating tensions and maintaining their hegemonic masculine gender identity in feminine-dominated settings (Francis and Skelton 2001). Some works suggested that male working in a feminine environment are expected by both their standards and those of other people to act as hegemonic masculine role models (Cushman 2008). Skelton (2007) argued that neglecting men's perspectives on masculinity and their influence on attraction to educational work results in policy inadequacies in teacher training and recruitment.

A second contribution of the study is to our knowledge about the perceptions of fatherhood held by male school leaders. Research has paid little attention to leaders’ fatherhood perceptions. The findings show that two-thirds of the participants held an emotional perception of fatherhood, and the rest an instrumental one. These findings are inconsistent with traditional writing on social roles (Eagly 1987), which argues that individuals adopt gender stereotypes that distinguish between male characteristics, such as mission and rationality, and female ones, such as commonality and emotionality (Ruble 1983), as well as between fathers, as more demanding, setting boundaries, and punishing, and mothers, as warmer and more caring (Cassano, Perry-Parrish, and Zeman 2007). The present study showed that a version of ‘feminine’ fatherhood that used to be marginalized in the past has become mainstream in schools even in countries like Israel, where the emotional discourse of men is underdeveloped, and men are afraid to express emotions (Goldner and Ruderman 2020). Researchers have argued that men who display behaviors that are stereotypically associated with women may experience a reduction in their social status (Ellemers 2018) but many of the participants in the present study did not hesitate to speak positively about being sensitive fathers who express love and affection toward their children. This shift in attitudes may be part of a broader change in Western society, where gender constructions and role perceptions have become less rigid (Wahl 2014).

Third, the findings offer insights into how perceptions of masculinity and fatherhood of male school leaders are connected to work practices. Only half of male school leaders characterized by caring masculinity and emotional fatherhood tended to prioritize interpersonal caring with staff. This suggests a reluctance to embrace a nurturing leadership style, possibly because of societal expectations and traditional gender norms. The analysis also underscores the connection between hegemonic masculinity and instrumental leadership behaviors of school leaders, irrespective of their fatherhood orientation. This aligns with existing research linking hegemonic masculinity with traits like dominance, control, and assertiveness (Arar and Oplatka 2013), similarly to instrumental leadership behaviors. In educational settings, understanding these nuances is crucial for balancing task-oriented and people-oriented leadership to meet academic community needs. The study is also consistent with literature suggesting that masculinity in schools is shaped by school and community regulations (Martino and Frank 2006). Religious male school leaders tended to align with hegemonic masculinity dictated by their religious schools and communities but they varied in their views of fatherhood, indicating openness to alternative ideas of masculinity while still maintaining some conservative distance to avoid feminization. This complexity is consistent with studies showing development in men workers’ narratives of masculinity in schools (Jupp 2013).

Limitations and further research

This study has several shortcomings that should be taken into account when interpreting its findings. First, it was based on a qualitative-phenomenological design, therefore the ability to generalize the findings to a larger population is limited and must be based on logical deduction from the descriptions provided here (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Second, although the non-traditional view of fatherhood has become widespread, it is unclear whether it has practical manifestations, and if so, to what extent. Future research can explore school leaders’ practical involvement in childcare activities. Third, the literature suggests that parenthood views are infused with class-based values and behaviors (Vincent 2009); because the male school leaders in this study belonged mainly to the middle class, emotional fatherhood may have represented a middle-class-situated discourse. Additional research on the topic in other social classes is advised. Last, the study conducted in modern Israel may not represent all cultures. Future research should include diverse populations from traditional societies worldwide.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Israel Science Foundation: [Grant number 1609/22].

Notes on contributors

Roy Kabesa

Roy Kabesa, MA, completed his graduate studies in the Department of Education and Psychology at the Open University of Israel. His research interests include educational leadership, gender, identity, and emotions.

Izhak Berkovich

Izhak Berkovich, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Education and Psychology at the Open University of Israel. His research interests include educational leadership, ethics and social justice in school management, emotions in schools, politics and policy making in education, and educational reforms.