Can hierarchical military schools develop systemic thinking in their cadets? Women graduates as systemic (authentic) leaders

Colleges and schools are increasingly focused on leadership development programming for their students since employers desire these traits in new job recruits (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000). Many leadership development frameworks and programs exist, but their results can be difficult to measure (Antonakis & Day, 2018; Barch, Harris, & Bonsall, 2012; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Rehm, 2014; Whitehead, 2009; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). Among the most difficult aspects to evaluate are student outcomes; however, outcomes are key in leadership program validation.

With the evolution of leadership development programming comes the need to understand women’s leadership experiences and outcomes since several societal obstacles challenge their advancement. Barriers like family-life responsibilities, implicit biases about what makes effective leaders, and less access to robust networking and mentorship, result in “women occupy[ing] less than a fifth of senior leadership positions across the public and private sectors” (Antonakis & Day, 2018; Rhode, 2016, p. 2).

Williams, Grande, Nakamura, Pyle, and Shaw (2022) noted that “feedback from others, role models and mentors, and experiential learning,” as well as “formal educational experiences” result in the biggest leadership development returns (p. 944). They found that women heavily leaned on formal educational opportunities and training programs, suggesting truth to the societal barriers noted. Alongside increased attention and examples of successful women in leadership, researchers have begun identifying constructs and leadership development programming that capitalize on women’s leadership capacity and skills (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003; Hoyt & Kennedy, 2008; McNae, 2015; Mullen & Tuten, 2004; Perdue, 2017; Rhode, 2016; Rosch, Boyd, & Duran, 2014, Rosch, Ogolsky, & Stephens, 2017; Shim, 2013; Wielkiewicz, Fischer, Stelzner, Overland, & Sinner, 2012).

In the last couple of decades, increased focus from research and organizations has moved to systemic thinking versus traditional hierarchical thinking in terms of organizational leadership, with women showing highly systemic conceptions of effective leadership and strong adherence with modern theories of leadership like authentic leadership theory (Allen, Stelzner, & Wielkiewicz, 1998; Anderson, Baur, Griffith, & Buckley, 2016; Ho & Odom, 2015; Wielkiewicz, 2000; Wielkiewicz et al., 2012). Additionally, as women have successfully entered many traditionally male environments, some seek the unique sector of leadership development programming found in military colleges and schools. If this is the case, how can traditionally hierarchical organizations like military schools foster systemic thinking that in turn develops women as authentic leaders for the working world?

American military schools first appeared in 1802, but women were not admitted until the early 1970s (Coulter, 2017). Women’s enrollment percentages remain small today, but a distinct group of women gravitates to the structure and challenge of these historic institutions, driving the need to study whether such environments effectively support women’s leadership development (Boyce & Herd, 2003; Lewis, 2020; Jacob, 2011; Perdue, 2017; Schaller, 2005).

Many types of American military schools and colleges exist, but this study examines senior military colleges (SMCs) and secondary traditional military boarding programs that “run a 24-h, co-educational, holistic military program for all its students” (McKaughan, 2023, p. 25), both serving the widest spectrum of students and providing pervasive opportunities to develop leadership skills.

Six SMCs currently operate, and are four-year colleges where students participate in a Corps of Cadets military program and take ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) courses, but military service upon graduation is optional (Coulter, 2017). Secondary military boarding schools, of which 40 remained nationwide as of 2014, serve middle and high school students (Coulter, 2017). These schools are privately funded, so not all are open to coeducation, but they typically provide a college preparatory education, and many run a contiguous JROTC (Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) program that complements the school’s individual military structure (Coulter, 2017).

Both school types utilize a cadet leadership structure under the oversight of experienced professionals that teach effective leadership skills (Coulter, 2017; Gignilliat, 1916). Although leadership development programs vary among these schools, certain elements are common to all and are best described through Jordan’s (2021a) Modern American Military Education Model. This model combines academic, military, athletic and spiritual/ethical programming elements to focus on character, discipline, leadership and respect, centered on a student’s willingness to learn and embody these ideals (Jordan, 2021a).

One additional element found in many of these schools is adversative education, or the use of physically and mentally challenging practices that first inculcate good followership skills before rebuilding students into the leaders the program desires (McKaughan, 2023). Although adversative elements range in difficulty, and are most arduous on the post-secondary level, many schools incorporate them through new cadet induction programming, leadership achievement processes and discipline structures (McKaughan, 2023). Critics of adversative practices cite possible hazing, abuses of power and sexual harassment (Bayard de Volo & Hall, 2015; Do & Samuels, 2021; Faludi, 2000). Proponents point out the value of these programs as seen in the long-standing use of adversative methods in military schools and their long lists of distinguished graduates (Brodie, 2000; Coulter, 2017; Gignilliat, 1916).

Although women have attended military schools for over 50 years, very little research exists about their experiences and leadership development outcomes. Present information is found in the form of autobiographical books of notable firsts, highlighting the challenges faced in integrating women, as well as the trailblazer role for future women to follow (Barkalow, 1990; Mace & Ross, 2002). Additionally, military academies have published a few research studies on women’s experiences (Boyce & Herd, 2003; Lewis, 2020; Perdue, 2017; Shepherd & Horner, 2010).

Lewis’s (2020) qualitative study of women graduates’ perceptions noted some felt at odds with the traditional hierarchical leadership framework, and while West Point and the military in general increasingly incorporate more collaborative or systemic leadership methods over time, more research is needed to understand if these efforts are improving women’s experiences. Perdue’s (2017) empirical study at the Virginia Military Institute on men’s and women’s views of effective leadership characteristics contends that traditional views among men coupled with the school’s contentious path to coeducation create a harmful environment for women’s leadership development. Boyce and Herd’s (2003) empirical survey at the United States Air Force Academy explored circumstances that promote or mitigate gender stereotypes. Hypothesizing a higher prevalence of gender stereotypes in a military environment than in the civilian sector, such findings existed only among men, even though women leaders attributed both traditionally male and female traits with effective leadership.

Research studies on the adolescent level are exceedingly rare, but Jordan’s (2021b) qualitative study of a private military high school and public high school explored adolescent conceptions of leadership. Gender differences emerged with boys gravitating to transformational leadership traits and girls evincing servant leadership traits, so Jordan (2021b) suggested authentic leadership might act as a middle-ground in underpinning the Modern American Military Education Model discussed earlier.

The current literature examined here highlights an enormous gap in research since military academies only serve an elite group of students like that of Ivy League institutions (Tate, 2021). Even so, with such a small group of women from a minor sector of colleges and schools, one might ask why leadership development outcomes in these schools matters to the larger leadership discussion. Military schools through their adversative processes, uniformity and hierarchical system of ranks and chains of command can be seen as the antithesis of the modern organizational leadership ideal. On the other hand, with a hierarchy that continues to mirror many corporate organizational structures, a holistic and experiential environment, combined with the influence of women cadets’ leadership values, these schools have much to offer the leadership development education world, particularly as it pertains to understanding the relationship between hierarchical and systemic conceptions of organizational leadership (Coulter, 2017; McKaughan, 2023).

To better understand the relationship between hierarchical leadership structures and systemic ones, Allen et al. (1998) suggested an ecological perspective. They proposed the ecological theory of leadership that focuses on the complexity and interconnectedness of people and organizations, akin to an ecosystem, claiming that leadership is systemic. According to their theory, systemic organizations account for the impact of people in and out of an organization and at all positional levels, in addition to the many environmental factors that impact organizational success. Hierarchical organizations alternatively focus leadership within the hands of key positional leaders that dictate decision-making (Allen et al., 1998).

Another way of understanding leadership ecology is through complexity leadership theory which explains leadership as a dynamic and nonlinear process impacted by the unpredictability of “behaviors, processes and outcomes” in organizations (Tourish, 2019, p. 220). Due to the ever-changing environment and people within organizations, Tourish (2019) contends that leadership is not purely a result of positional leaders and that subordinates have much more agency in facilitating organizational culture, change and success.

Wielkiewicz (2000) tested Allen’s et al. (1998) research by developing a 28-item Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (LABS-III) for assessing college students’ understanding of hierarchical and systemic thinking. Using separate 14-item hierarchical and systemic scales, Wielkiewicz (2000) found that respondent scale scores were not an either/or condition; respondents could potentially strongly align with both scales. This suggests that systemic leadership can exist in a hierarchical leadership structure when the people operating within it hold and exercise more collaborative views on the contributions of people throughout an organization.

For schools to successfully develop adolescent and undergraduate leadership traits, researchers must identify where students are in their leadership development thinking while students. Wielkiewicz et al. (2012) attempted to assess the developmental stage of college students using the leadership identity development model’s (LID) six stages: awareness, exploration/engagement, leader identified, leader differentiated, generativity and integration/synthesis. Students in stages one through three view leadership as positional, or hierarchical, whereas stages four through six recognize the systemic qualities of leadership (Dunn, Odom, Moore, & Rotter, 2016a; Ho & Odom, 2015). Wielkiewicz et al. (2012) found first-year students typically occupied stages two and three, and Dunn et al. (2016a) and Dunn, Ho, Odom, and Perdue (2016b) shared that with more leadership development training, students move further from hierarchical frameworks of leadership to more systemic ones with women exhibiting the highest rates of systemic thinking.

Military schools have a unique opportunity to combine hierarchical and systemic thinking into a successful leadership development model that well prepare students for leadership in their future careers. “Despite the military being a traditional, top-down hierarchy, systemic-thinking is necessary to make decisions that make lasting effect on a global scale and would help the program fulfill its mission to prepare future global leaders” (Dunn et al., 2016b, p. 71). Incorporating systemic leadership also stands to better support women in these school’s ranks since research suggests women thrive under systemic systems of leadership (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003; Hoyt & Kennedy, 2008; Jordan, 2021b; McNae, 2015; Mullen & Tuten, 2004; Rhode, 2016; Shim, 2013; Wielkiewicz et al., 2012).

In aiming to foster systemic leadership within a hierarchical structure, a modern theoretical foundation for understanding what effective leadership looks like and how it is developed is needed. Leadership research and paradigms have been refined over many decades, but modern leadership paradigms purport that leaders are made, not necessarily born, and that leaders exist regardless of traditional hierarchical positions (Shim, 2013). One current leadership framework is authentic leadership which Whitehead (2009) defined as:

Authentic leadership is a systemic form of leadership attained through four cyclical internal processes focused on core values, including self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and internalized moral perspective (Anderson et al., 2016; Gardner, Karam, Alvesson, & Einola, 2021; Whitehead, 2009). An authentic leader knows who they are as a leader, presents themself genuinely to others, makes decisions through a collaborative process and exercises behavior that is true to their core values (Fusco, O’Riordan, & Palmer, 2015; Gardner et al., 2021). Despite their leader identity and ability when initiating positional leadership, these dimensions are further demonstrated by a team emphasis and mindset that is ever evolving and comfortable with personal shortcomings or lack of expertise, a key element for fledgling adolescent or undergraduate leaders (Jordan, 2021b; Kiersch & Peters, 2017; Williams et al., 2022). Students participating in leadership development programs embody traits associated with authentic leadership through self-reflection and development born through educational and experiential challenges, essential practices utilized in military schools (Coulter, 2017; Dunn et al., 2016b; Gignilliat, 1916; Jordan, 2021b).

Critics of authentic leadership theory cite its overly aspirational nature, difficult to measure concepts, lack of consideration for gender differences and focus on positional leaders (Gardner et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022). Antonakis and Day (2018) critiqued subsets of leadership theory like authentic leadership for their outcomes descriptors, claiming “the nature of what is measured should be exogenous with respect to the outcomes it is supposed to cause” (p. 68). Scholars disagree on effective measures of leadership models, with critics accusing aspirational leadership theorists of positivist empirical measures created to elicit foregone conclusions, alternatively suggesting qualitative and mixed-methods approaches would collect more nuanced and accurate assessments of leadership theory (Gardner et al., 2021).

While the researcher agrees that multi-faceted, mixed-methods approaches are needed to fully understand leadership programming’s impact, such critiques are ultimately unrealistic because businesses and educational consumers want outcomes; they want to know their investment has an expressed return value and empirical data rest at the heart of such outcomes. Gardner et al. (2021) acknowledge the challenges for their theory, such as the unavoidable reliance on self-assessment measures, but welcome critique to expand and refine its place in the leadership canon. Authentic leadership theory correlates with other theories like transformational leadership, but it more carefully defines the ideal of leaders in a modern context focused on results (Kiersch & Peters, 2017). Systemic thinking results can be applied to the experiential and cyclical learning process of authentic leadership within and without positional leadership positions, as well as help scholars quantify its elements (Gardner et al., 2021; McKaughan, 2023). Regardless of the challenges, authentic leadership theory helps show how adolescents and undergraduate students understand leadership in a systemic way despite whether a military school or other organization leans toward a hierarchical structure.

The current study examined if traditionally hierarchical military schools foster systemic thinking that develops women as authentic leaders for the professional world. The researcher sought to address the following questions:

This study utilizes a subset of data from a larger, ex post facto mixed-methods study by McKaughan (2023). McKaughan (2023) used survey methods to investigate the perceptions of leadership among women alumni from military schools to measure if and how leadership development training influenced their leadership outcomes after graduation (McKaughan, 2023). The subset of data used in this study will be described in detail below.

The population for this study comprised alumnae of two military schools: one SMC and one secondary military school. Considering the various military school types in existence, this study centered on an operationally defined group of “traditional military schools that run a 24-h, co-educational, holistic military program for all its students” (McKaughan, 2023, p. 25). The SMC is a publicly funded, liberal arts institution located on the East Coast of the United States that admitted women beginning in the mid-1990s. Additionally, women have held all major leadership positions within the school’s military rank structure. The secondary school is a military boarding school on the East Coast of the United States serving students in grades 7–12. Since admitting women in the early 1970s, women have served in all military leadership positions within the school. Both schools’ entire student body participates in the Corps of Cadets and its leadership development programming throughout enrollment (The SMC has some auxiliary programs, such as college transfer and graduate programs, but the mainstay of the college is their Corps of Cadets).

Recruitment of these women took place via social media groups or email addresses the researcher accessed. In all, the researcher generated 122 valid anonymous survey responses from a semi-random sample of women graduates from the two military schools for the previous larger study. In examining the subset of data for this study, the researcher identified 109 women that completed the LABS-III (Wielkiewicz, 2000) questions on hierarchical and systemic thinking included in the survey (see Table 1). Of those, 50 noted they attended a secondary military school, and 55 noted they attended a SMC. A further category included 41 of these women that noted they served in leadership roles “Almost Always” while a student.

In the original study, the researcher developed a 55-item online survey that included two published scales, the 12-item Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES) (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003) and the 28-item LABS-III (Wielkiewicz, 2000), as well as 15 researcher-produced demographic questions (McKaughan, 2023). The current study utilizes the subset of LABS-III scale data collected, as well as the demographic questions that determined the type of military school attended and how often a woman graduate served in leadership while a student.

Authentic leadership is often measured using multi-faceted or 360-degree surveys or review processes that incorporate self-, peer-, and leadership-evaluations, such as the authentic leadership questionnaire (Fusco, 2015; Gardner et al., 2021; Kiersch, 2017). These work well in real-time work environments or longitudinal studies administered while a student is in a leadership development program. Unfortunately, when assessing outcomes, data outside of self-assessments would be difficult to attain. Therefore, using a one-time self-assessment scale of leadership attributes associated with authentic leadership can help researchers better understand whether students leave leadership development programs thinking more systemically or hierarchically.

The LABS-III was used to test women graduates’ authentic leadership perceptions through its hierarchical thinking and systemic thinking scales (Wielkiewicz, 2000). The researcher chose the LABS-III because it reflects the strict hierarchical structure of military schools, as well as the more modern authentic leadership conceptions of collaborative, or systemic leadership, and helped the researcher investigate the impact of military schools on women’s conceptions of leadership after graduation (McKaughan, 2023). Additionally, the collegiate sample used in the Wielkiewicz (2000) study provides the basis for Research Questions 1 and 2, showing how civilian college students in general perceive leadership versus women graduates of military schools, and how women in civilian colleges perceive leadership versus military school alumnae.

Wielkiewicz’s (2000) LABS-III includes a 14-item systemic thinking scale and a 14-item hierarchical thinking scale, each utilizing a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly Agree to (5) Strongly Disagree and totaling 70 points, created to measure alternative leadership styles in college students. Those scoring lower on the hierarchical thinking scale believe organizational leadership should be hierarchical, or positional, with power focused within top leadership levels, while lower scores on the systemic thinking scale suggest a flatter and more cooperative conception of organizational leadership that places responsibility in everyone’s hands (Dunn et al., 2016a; Wielkiewicz, 2000). As noted earlier, respondents can exhibit high or low agreement on both scales (Wielkiewicz, 2000).

Wielkiewicz (2000) tested scale validity finding the coefficient alpha (α) for the hierarchical scale to be 0.84 and for the systemic scale to be 0.87, showing high internal consistency. The average inter-item correlation (M_r) was 0.27 for hierarchical thinking and 0.35 for systemic thinking, both within the ideal range (Wielkiewicz, 2000). Wielkiewicz (2000) therefore found their scale to be reliable and valid.

Texas A&M University, one of the six SMCs, utilized the LABS-III in their leadership programs, including within their Corps of Cadets, to assess leadership attitudes before and after students completed the program (Dunn et al., 2016a, b). They found students developed more systemic thinking and less hierarchical thinking, and that significant differences did not exist between those in military or non-military leadership development training, although systemic thinking scores for their Corps of Cadets were more significant overall (Dunn et al., 2016a, b). Ho and Odom (2015) delineated a difference between first-year leadership students and those that received additional training and noted gender differences diminish over time. Such research emerging from another SMC provided insight into Research Question 3 by showing how leadership development training within a military context can impact leadership perspectives over time while in the program.

Research Question 3 explored whether differences existed in the overall averages of hierarchical versus systematic thinking in military school alumnae that served in leadership “Almost Always” as a cadet from students or women in other collegiate contexts. The researcher chose to only include the leadership grouping of “Almost Always” that came from a researcher-produced survey question asking if a graduate held leadership as a cadet because the literature asserts that the more leadership experience women have, the better their leadership outcomes (McNae, 2015; Shapiro et al., 2015; Van Linden & Fertman, 1998). Answer options included Once, Sometimes, Often or Almost Always. Of the question’s responses, 41 women noted serving in leadership “Almost Always,” comprising the highest percentage of women respondents at 40.2% (McKaughan, 2023).

Research Question 4, which compares the hierarchical and systemic leadership perceptions of the SMC women graduates versus those of the secondary school women graduates was born out of the research noting that the earlier leadership development training and exposure begins, the more impact it has on later leadership (Dunn et al., 2016a, b; McNae, 2015; Shapiro et al., 2015; Van Linden & Fertman, 1998).

The 55-item survey was administered using Qualtrics. The researcher did not collect names and ensured location data were not collected to preserve respondent anonymity. The researcher used SPSS (Version 28) to conduct some statistical procedures on the resulting data, while hand-calculating others since the researcher did not have access to the Wielkiewicz (2000) data sets. After running descriptive statistics and testing survey data for outliers, the researcher chose not to remove any due to the relatively small sample size and minimal overall impact on results (Coladarci & Cobb, 2014).

To test Research Questions 1–4, the researcher conducted a one-sample t-test, disaggregating for (1) all women in the study, (2) SMC alumnae only, (3) the secondary school’s alumnae only and (4) women that held leadership “Almost Always,” against the Scale Means and Female Means as determined in the Wielkiewicz (2000) study that validated the LABS-III. The researcher tested statistical significance and effect sizes using t-values, p-values and Cohen’s d (Coladarci & Cobb, 2014).

Wielkiewicz’s (2000) study of collegiate students included Scale Means of LABS-III surveys collected from 676 students, representing two single-sex private colleges and one state-supported university. On the hierarchical scale, men and women scored a M of 42.33 (SD = 7.33), and on the systemic scale the M was 27.41 (SD = 6.55). Wielkiewicz (2000) then disaggregated for gender with 243 men scoring a M of 40.57 (SD = 6.12) on the hierarchical scale and a M of 28.35 (SD = 6.77) on the systemic scale. Surveys from 309 women resulted in a hierarchical scale M of 43.64 (SD = 7.37) and systemic scale M of 26.57 (SD = 6.12). The researcher used the Wielkiewicz (2000) Scale Means and Female Means as control groupings for the one sample t-tests conducted in this study to see how military school women graduates’ leadership perceptions compared to other college students in general, and specifically women college graduates. Wielkiewicz’s (2000) study refers to women as females, but the researcher generally utilizes the term women consistent with the modern classification in literature.

The researcher used the LABS-III (Wielkiewicz, 2000) to test Research Questions 1–4. LABS-III data in this study were compared to the Wielkiewicz (2000) LABS-III Scale Means and Female Means across four groupings: (1) all survey participants, (2) secondary military school graduates, (3) undergraduate military school graduates and (4) women graduates that held leadership positions “Almost Always” as students. Descriptive statistics for this study’s groupings for the hierarchical thinking and systemic thinking scales are included in Table 2 and show lower mean scores on both scales for military school alumnae across nearly every grouping from the Wielkiewicz (2000) Scale and Female Means.

To compare each group’s means for statistical significance, the researcher conducted a one-sample t-test by testing the present study’s groupings against the LABS-III scale means of college students in general and women college students. In testing Research Question 1 to see if statistically significant differences existed between military school graduates and the Wielkiewicz (2000) Scale Means of college students in general, the researcher found this to be partially true (see Table 3). While no statistically significant difference existed on the hierarchical thinking scale, women military school graduates had statistically significant higher agreement with systemic thinking across every grouping with moderate Cohen’s d effect sizes.

For Research Question 2, testing women military school graduates against the Wielkiewicz (2000) Female Means, military school alumnae had statistically significant higher agreement on both scales in nearly every grouping except for undergraduate women only and women who served as leaders “Almost Always” on the hierarchical scale. Cohen’s d effect sizes remained small on the hierarchical scale and were moderate on the systemic shinking scale, again highlighting the significance of the women military school graduates’ results.

Consistent with Research Questions 1 and 2, Research Question 3 delved deeper into the results of women that held leadership positions “Almost Always” as cadets in military school. Women in this category represent the closest experience with a military school’s hierarchical structure but showed the least hierarchical thinking agreement across the groupings with results that were not statistically significant. However, these women produced the most statistically significant results for systemic thinking when p < 0.001 with the highest Cohen’s d effect sizes of -0.76 when compared with the Wielkiewicz (2000) Scale Means and –0.65 when compared with the Wielkiewicz (2000) Female Means.

Research Question 4 compared averages on both scales between just the secondary and SMC women in the study to see if significant differences existed that would affirm that earlier leadership development opportunities make a difference. While means were lower for secondary women graduates than for undergraduate women graduates on both scales, signifying higher agreement on each scale, no statistically significant differences were found between these groups on either scale (see Table 4).

This study investigated whether traditionally hierarchical organizations like military schools can foster systemic thinking that in turn develops women into authentic leaders for the professional world. The researcher examined modern conceptions of leadership, defined types of military schools and their history, and sought to identify how women graduates of military schools potentially utilize modern tenets of authentic leadership to foster systemic thinking in traditionally hierarchical environments. Through a larger ex post facto, quasi-experimental, mixed-methods survey of women alumni from one undergraduate SMC and one secondary military school, the researcher employed the LABS-III (Wielkiewicz, 2000) to understand women graduates’ leadership perceptions. The subset of LABS-III results was then used in this study to answer four research questions through conducting one-sample t-tests, determining whether statistically significant differences existed between military school women graduates and civilian college students or civilian women college students in other contexts (Wielkiewicz, 2000). Military school alumnae exhibited statistically significant agreement with systemic thinking across all groupings and non-statistically significant agreement with hierarchical thinking when compared with college students and women college students in other collegiate contexts (Wielkiewicz, 2000), and such results are consistent with modern leadership frameworks like authentic leadership.

In the last few decades, postindustrial leadership theories argue that leaders are made in and out of hierarchical leadership positions (Antonakis & Day, 2018; Shim, 2013). More recent research on authentic leadership supports this tenet through intentionally including subordinates in decision-making (Gardner et al., 2021). Whether adolescents or adults, and regardless of previous leadership experience, authentic leadership principles teach individuals to be mission- and people-focused leaders as they identify and develop core values and authentic leadership skills (Gardner et al., 2021; Jordan, 2021b).

This study’s LABS-III results support the scale’s earlier findings that women gravitate toward the systemic, or authentic, conception of leadership because women graduates of military schools exhibited statistically significant, higher than average systemic thinking even when compared with only women college students in other contexts (Hoyt & Kennedy, 2008; Lewis, 2020; Shim, 2013; Wielkiewicz, 2000). Of the larger study conducted, these results represented the most surprising findings since military schools are historically hierarchical organizations, operating through strictly defined chains of command (McKaughan, 2023). Training in such environments would suggest a strong adherence to hierarchical forms of leadership, but these results were not significantly higher when $α$ was set to equal 0.05 in almost all groupings. Agreement with systemic styles of leadership, by contrast, was statistically significant across all groupings when $α$ was set to equal 0.001.

Systemic leadership “reflect[s] an ability to relate a variety of ideas and concepts to organizational success, such as ethics, the need for cooperation of all individuals to help the organization accomplish goals, the need for long-term thinking, and the need for organizational learning” (Wielkiewicz, 2000, p. 341). Such styles may seem contrarian to how hierarchical military schools operate but results indicate that regardless of an organization’s degree of hierarchy, women’s agreement with hierarchical thinking fails to be considerably affected and systemic thinking predominates.

While the causes for these results remain unclear, a possible reason for stronger alignment with systemic thinking among military school women graduates includes rejection of the hierarchical thinking taught to them while in the ranks of a military college. Since the survey respondents included alumnae from nearly 50 years of graduates, it is possible that women learned systemic modes of leadership in the years after graduation. Conversely, women military school graduates may have learned how to effectively integrate systemic thinking within hierarchical systems while attending a military school. Jordan’s (2021a) argument that military schools embody his proposed Modern American Military Education Model that focuses on the “dynamic process of willing integration” (p. 124) of leadership development skills, made possible through the holistic programming of military schools, suggests the latter.

The implications of this research apply not only to military school practitioners, but to school leaders in all coeducational contexts for both adolescents and adults. The LABS-III results clearly show that even in the most rigidly hierarchical environments, women graduates associate themselves with systemic, or authentic, forms of leadership and are no more likely to support hierarchical forms of leadership than their peers in other environments.

Such outcomes are significant for validating the programming initiatives of military schools, but the LABS-III results in this study have limitations. The small sample size and the limited number of military schools included have an impact on the findings’ overall impact. The widespread range of graduation years represents a possible limitation because hindsight may skew leadership perceptions. The study did not include men to see if significant differences existed or if conclusions were consistent across genders. Additionally, all participants were alumnae, so no pretest data could be tested to determine the full effect of each school’s leadership development programming versus the potential influence from leadership experiences beyond graduation.

Mitigating factors for these limitations include comparing two nonequivalent, fully independent military schools, one SMC and one secondary school, to gain a broader perspective of women’s perceptions in military schools. Finally, the researcher’s positionality as a military school alumnae presents a possibility of research bias, so the use of published scales like the LABS-III in the survey compared with collegiate data from other institutions in the Wielkiewicz (2000) study helped limit bias in findings.

The present study’s LABS-III results addressed a major gap in leadership development assessment outcomes for women in military schools. This is the first study of its kind on the adolescent secondary school level. On the postsecondary level, most studies were conducted within the military academies, although the LABS-III has been used with women cadets at Texas A&M University, another SMC, while they were students (Dunn et al., 2016b). The present study’s results should spur further research on women’s leadership development and the aptness of authentic leadership theory for adolescents and college students in general, as well as help military school leaders determine women’s needs while students in their schools. Additionally, just as Graff and Murray (2021) advocated for the experiential and holistic approach in military schools, contending this is one of the reasons why a military school education is effective, these results support the need for holistic approaches to leadership development training in non-military colleges and schools. School leaders should therefore utilize these findings to create holistic, authentic leadership development programs for their students that best support the needs of women and reflect the makeup of society in general.

Further, to pinpoint women’s alignment with systemic and hierarchical thinking specifically resulting from leadership development programming, the researcher recommends conducting a similar study in a longitudinal fashion, beginning when a woman enters the leadership program, continuing throughout her time in the program, and periodically seeking outcomes after graduation. Similar studies should be performed in other secondary and postsecondary contexts to reveal whether the type of leadership development programming and school environment plays a role in women’s systemic thinking and perceptions of authentic leadership.