Somech(2005)Directive Versus Participative

Educational Administration Quarterlyhttp://eaq.sagepub.com Directive Versus Participative Leadership: Two Complementary Approaches to Managing School Effectiveness Anit Somech Educational Administration Quarterly 2005; 41; 777 DOI: 10.1177/0013161X05279448 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/5/777 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: University Council for Educational Administration Additional services and information for Educational Administration Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 66 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/41/5/777 Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7, 2008 Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 5 (December 2005) 777-800 10.1177/0013161X05279448 Educational Administration Quarterly Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS P ARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP Directive Versus Participative Leadership: Two Complementary Approaches to Managing School Effectiveness Anit Somech Purpose: The educational literature reflects the widely shared belief that participative leadership has an overwhelming advantage over the contrasting style of directive leadership in organizational and team effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to examine the relative effect of a directive leadership approach as compared with a participative leadership approach on school-staff teams’ motivational mechanisms (empowerment and organizational commitment) and effectiveness (team in-role performance and team innovation). Method: Data, which were obtained through a survey, were collected from 140 teams selected from 140 different elementary schools in northern Israel. Results: The results of the Structural Equation Model indicated a positive relation between directive leadership and organizational commitment, as well as a positive relation between directive leadership and school-staff team in-role performance. In addition, organizational commitment served as a mediator in the directive leadership–performance relationship. With respect to participative leadership, the results indicated a positive relation between participative leadership and teachers’empowerment, and a positive relation between participative leadership and school-staff team innovation, and empowerment served as a mediator in the participative leadership–innovation relationship. Implications: These results suggested that managing tensions between directive and participative activities, bottom-up and top-down processes, and flexibility and discipline may provide a key to teachers’ high performance. Keywords: directive leadership; participative leadership; organizational commitment; empowerment; school effectiveness s educational reforms of school restructuring and site-based management figure as the common future of today’s schools, participative leadership has become the “educational religion” of the 21st century (e.g., Brouillette, 1997; O’Hair & Reitzug, 1997). There is substantial consensus that selecting more collaborative strategies becomes crucial for managing teams effecDOI: 10.1177/0013161X05279448 © 2005 The University Council for Educational Administration A 777 Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7, 2008 com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. 1996). 2002). University of Haifa.g. For example. Harris. & Hogan. 1993. The supposed contradiction between directing and participation notwithstanding. Conley & Bacharach. Participative leadership. Faculty of Education. Rollow. Armenakis. Scully. 1992. Bryk. 1998). & Brownlee-Conyers.. and to increase teachers’ motivation (e. Wall & Rinehart. E. although most previous research positions these two leadership styles as contrasting at the opposite ends of a single continuum and portrays them as mutually exclusive (Lewis. & Locke.il. 1998). Israel 31905. This movement reflects the widely shared belief that participative management has an overwhelming advantage over the contrasting style of directive leadership in organizational and team effectiveness (e.g. to contribute to the quality of teachers’ work lives (e. 1994). 1990. Locke & Latham. 2008 . leader direction was found to increase employee performance (Hogan. 1995). S.. Stogdill.sagepub. Kerbow. 1996. Given that each style has potential strengths and weaknesses. depending on the desired team outcome. Specifically. the purpose of the research was twofold. It is likely to increase the quality of the decisions (e.g. Directive leadership. are compatible or contradictory. Yammarino & Naughton. Team inAuthor’s Note: Please address correspondence to Anit Somech. Curphy. recent reviews and meta-analyses of the literature that covered both practices have indicated that both direction and participation help in increasing worker productivity. & Schwartz. Boyle. 1998. 2002). Lazarus. Klecker & Loadman. 1998). Sagie. Easton. Blase & Blase. Based on this research. Boyle. 1989. Similarly. was associated with defective decision making and with deterioration in performance by school-staff teams (e. Somech. Te’eni. 1990. 1999. 1994. Kirkpatrick.g. & Brown. Sagie. Dehler. it aimed to enlighten our understanding of the benefits of each leadership style by evaluating its relative effectiveness for two team outcomes: team in-role performance and team innovation. this study would like to suggest that each leadership style has some advantages over the other.ac. & Green. the participative and the directive. Reitzug.g. Murphy & Fiedler. 2002). Downloaded from http://eaq. & Sebring. 1991.g. Zaidman. 1996). 1994. Haifa. & Mossholder.. Mount Carmel. Wagner (1994) concluded that the overall effect of participation on worker attitudes and performance is positive but small.. 1993.haifa. Welsh.. e-mail: anits@construct. one may question whether the two leadership styles. Amichai-Hamburger..778 Educational Administration Quarterly tively (e. 1974). 1997. 1992) and satisfaction (Smylie. Hargreaves. which is defined as providing the members with a framework for decision making and action in alignment with the leader’s vision (Fiedler. Dunlap & Goldman. First. Gaziel. offers a variety of potential benefits. both succeeded in improving work outcomes (Sagie. However. which is defined as joint decision making or at least shared influence in decision making by a superior and his or her employees (Koopman & Wierdsma. Drawing on the models of Sagie et al. or procedures that are new to the team and that are designed to be useful (West. Second. Firestone & Pennell. Team innovation is the introduction or application by a team of ideas. The Distinct Effects of Directive Leadership and Participative Leadership on School Effectiveness Leaders play an important role in structuring the work environment and providing information and feedback to employees. A Model of Leadership Style. Teachers’ Empowerment.. In consequence. two mechanisms seemed especially relevant to this study: organizational commitment and empowerment (see Figure 1). who stated that it was not the leadership style per se that increases effectiveness. (2002).Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 779 Directive leadership Participative leadership Organizational commitment Empowerment In-role performance Innovation Figure 1. I suggest that each leadership style stimulates a distinct motivational process. Shapiro. These two dimensions of team outcomes were chosen as effectiveness variables because they tap the different dimensions of organizational effectiveness and represent the tension that schools endure when trying to engage in “out-of-the-box” thinking while managing routine in-role duties (Lovelace. & Weingart. this study sought to identify the specific motivational mechanism that is stimulated by each leadership style (directive versus participative leadership). Short. but rather through its triggering of motivational mechanisms. expected.g. products. and Organizational Commitment for Promoting School-Staff Team Effectiveness role performance is the extent to which the team accomplishes its purpose and produces the intended. Based on previous research (e. 2001). Greer. processes. 2001). Sagie et al. & Melvin. 2002. which in turn promotes school-staff teams’ in-role performance and innovation.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. 1990). or desired result (Chatman & Flynn. 1993.. leader Downloaded from http://eaq. 2008 . 1994).sagepub. this does not mean that the supervisor’s leadership style has no effect on team effectiveness. James. formal reviews foster critical assessments..g.. which convert school objectives into interim goals. Leadership is consistently recognized as important for initiation and ongoing development of teams (Bass. monitoring. and directive control allows leaders to adjust school project resources and objectives as necessary (Rosenau & Moran. 1992.. 1996.g. proponents of a participative style (e. In comparison. Murphy & Beck.. Furthermore. S... 2008 . Patterson. 2001. interwoven within a systematic cycle. However. Advocates of a directive style (e.. J. 2001). and to learn and to cope through sharing knowledge (Druskut & Weeler. All these activities might contribute to increasing teachers’ in-role performance. 1995) and is often included as an important determinant in models of team outcomes (e. Sagie. Cruz. 1988). resource allocation). 1991).. Smylie et al. & West. and control activities seem closely connected. more directive leaders are expected to lead by monitoring and managing those teams. from this perspective. 1995. 1999. 1996. 1993. 1992). 2003. which inform major decisions (e. Jelinek & Schoonhoven. 1994. evaluation. E. Druskat & Weeler. 1993). & Locke. Murphy & Fiedler. However. Parker and Wall (1998) identify a number of options for leading roles in teams. 1995. Still. Manz & Sims. Lovelace et al. Tjosvold. 1993. 2002) have argued that high directiveness can help encourage school-staff teams to rise to challenging goals and achieve high rates of performance (Cropanzano. & Smith. Such predetermined standards may aid teachers to resolve unnecessary ambiguity and uncertainty. highly directive leaders enhance goal attainment by serving as a source of feedback for teachers (McDonough & Barczak.g. & Citera. 2003).sagepub. These options range from the complete elimination of supervisory positions to the retention of supervisory positions but with redefined role requirements. 2001). Therefore. which helps teachers methodically to fulfill their roles. 1997). West. 1997.g. These leaders promote monitoring explicit milestones. Henningsen. Knight. Wheelwright & Clark. Griffin et al.. continue/terminate pedagogical project. the introduction of teams can result in a significant change to the role of leaders within organizations (Griffin. Sagie et al. whereas participative leaders are expected to lead by encouraging team members to discover new opportunities and challenges. and serve as guides for teachers (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi. Hogan et al. Team leaders are responsible for their teams’ performance. which in turn might enhance teachers’ in-role performance. 1990. 1987. Johnson & Ledbetter.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Fiedler & House. 2002) see participative leaders as seeking to encourage teachers to discover new Downloaded from http://eaq. although leadership may have less influence on team outcomes for members working in teams.780 Educational Administration Quarterly behaviors have an effect on the effective reactions of team members (Durham. Peterson. group problem solving among teachers encourages experimentation in innovative practices in curriculum decision making and pedagogy (Firestone & Pennell. and the precedence of participative leadership for team attitudes. the results indicated that a more participative style produced more creative and more worthwhile projects than a directive style.g. Overall. 1999. and the open communication processes that are common in this leadership style. and combining knowledge (cf. and meeting these expectations is valuable (Kahai. Based on the above discussion. Kahai et al. and attention to details. sharing. In another study. At the same Downloaded from http://eaq. O’Hara. Moreover..com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. 2008 . Peterson. 1993). West & Wallace. 1974). This in turn may create an atmosphere where innovative ideas are proposed. 2001.. Sosik. The results indicated the superiority of directive leadership for team performance. Sagie (1996) examined how leadership styles affect team outcomes. 1997). Performance (percentage of correct solutions. A review of the team literature shows that teams with highly directive leaders achieved the highest rates of in-role performance (e. Sixtyfour teams were instructed to perform some type of school/community service project. Sagie. 1997. materials.. The participation process helps ensure that unanticipated problems that arise during the work can be tackled directly and immediately by those affected by the problem (Durham et al. critiqued. & Avolio. West & Wallace. 1991) suggests that participation is critical for a team’s ability to turn new ideas and individually held knowledge into innovative procedures.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 781 opportunities and challenges and to learn through acquiring. and length of time) and attitudes (goal commitment and satisfaction) were measured in a group problem-solving experiment with 324 college students. De Dreu & West. Teachers in participative environments can increase the pool of ideas. and products. and methods. 1991). 2002). 2001. number of questions.. services.sagepub. I suggest that emphasizing the directive approach reinforces behaviors of adherence to rules and procedure. 2001. De Dreu & West. which increase teachers’ in-role performance. Participative decision making. Edmonson. whereas participative leadership led to improved team innovation and team attitudes (e. members under participative leadership are likely to strive to express opinions and propose solutions because they may well reckon that the leader and their team members expect them to contribute to the task. which will lead to a higher quality of instruction. 1997.. 1997. can help lower barriers between individuals. For example.g. 1999).. According to the path-goal theory (House & Mitchell. Cruz et al. and refined with a minimum of social risk (West. 1997). and independent judges rated these projects on two dimensions: how creative and how worthwhile. The research literature (e. 1996).g. O’Hara (2001) examined the effects of leadership style on team innovation. 1994. 1994). directive leaders envision the achievement of the desired future by presenting value-laden goals that add greater meaning to actions oriented to their accomplishment (Jung & Avolio. Empowerment as a motivational construct is manifested in four cognitive dimensions (meaningfulness. Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of the individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday. I suggest that directive leaders enhance teachers’ performance through the motivational mechanism of organizational commitment. Recent research has provided initial support for the claim that leadership does not affect employees’ productivity directly. 1979). Durham et al. Short et al. by linking behaviors and goals to a mission and a vision. and impact) (Spreitzer. It has three basic components: a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values (identification)... and a strong intent or desire to remain with the organization (loyalty). p. Leaders are expected to influence their employees to be energetic and skillful in the pursuit of organizational objectives.” which is central for a sense of commitment (Barrett. but through motivational mechanisms (e. Furthermore. 1990) and corresponds to an intrinsic need for self-determination (e. Hypothesis 1b: Participative leadership rather than directive leadership will be positively associated with school-staff team innovation. Steers. 1990). Hypothesis 1a: Directive leadership rather than participative leadership will be positively associated with school-staff team in-role performance. 1998). 1997. With respect to directive leadership. & Porter.g. Such leaders are expected to exercise a strong positive influence on followers’levels of identification (a strong belief Downloaded from http://eaq. Thomas & Velthouse. 38). This sense of commitment may be developed through two main processes. 2008 .. 1999). self-efficacy. First.782 Educational Administration Quarterly time. participative leadership may be a means of facilitating open discussion by encouraging exchange of creative ideas and an analytical and critical perspective.g.. Locke & Latham. Wilson & Coolican... 1996) or a belief in individual efficacy (e. These leaders increase the commitment to these goals by showing how they are consistent with school objectives and thus create a sense of “evolving.sagepub. a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization (involvement). autonomy. they help teachers to see the importance of transcending their own self-interest for the sake of the mission and vision of the school. thereby fostering teachers’ innovation. Teachers’ empowerment is defined as “a process whereby school participants develop the competence to take charge of their own growth and resolve their own problems” (Short et al.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7.g. 1995. 1993). directive leaders articulate how the vision can be reached by monitoring explicit milestones. Unlike the traditional situation. For example. 1996). and dictate school improvements. Second. these make up the foremost component of empowerment. Such predetermined standards may help the team to settle unnecessary ambiguity and uncertainty and to create a clear link between effort and productivity (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi. participative leadership. Rinehart & Short. and serve as guides for team members. 1975. 1995. where it is the administration’s exclusive responsibility to plan. active participation enhances involvement and commitment. as opposed to responding to the proposals of others..com at University of Haifa Library on October 7.sagepub. Wheelwright & Clark. Spreitzer.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 783 in and acceptance of the school’s goals and values). 1987. With respect to participative leadership. Their participation is believed to promote commitment to the decisions that are made and to increase willingness to carry them out in their work with students. Fishbein & Azjen. 1990. Second. 1993). I suggest that participative leaders enhance teachers’ performance through two motivational mechanisms: organizational commitment and teachers’ empowerment. because individuals tend to place greater trust in and rise to a higher level of acceptance of information discovered by them (Armenakis et al. which provides consistent evidence (e. 1993. and to readiness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization. which represents another component of commitment. 1996). 1992). when teachers are actively called to Downloaded from http://eaq. it is well established that perceptions of empowerment are potent motivational forces (Marks & Louis. 1997. Moreover. This link was well established by the goal-setting theory of Locke and Latham (1990). Therefore. Jelinek & Schoonhoven. the motivational factor of commitment on the participation–performance relationship corroborates motivational theories emphasizing identification and selfcontrol as central motivational factors (Erez. which gives teachers more input into the decision-making process. which is a major component of commitment (Godard. Evers (1990) suggested that the success of teachers’ participation might lie in the sense of ownership they enjoy through the initiation of ideas. This leads the individual to believe that trying for or attaining the goal is important.g. Participative leaders provide teachers the opportunity to be involved in and to exert influence on decision-making processes. 2001). control. which convert school objectives into interim goals. 1994. in the participative process teachers initiate the improvements to be undertaken and share responsibility for planning and controlling the activities that follow (Terry. 1997). Accordingly. enhances teachers’ sense of control (autonomy) on the job (Wood & Bandura. 1989) and validates their professionalism (Firestone & Pennell. First. 2002) that clear and specific goals orient the individual to goal-relevant activities and materials and away from goal-irrelevant ones. 2008 .. Drach-Zahavy & Erez. Beckhard & Harris. Fullan. g. increase motivation and performance. participation will satisfy human growth needs of self-determination and self-actualization and.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7.784 Educational Administration Quarterly participate in decision making. Edmonson. Schools were randomly chosen from a list provided by the Ministry of Education. 1999). in that they had responsibilities and resources and depended on one another for knowledge and effort. their participation ensures that better information will be available for making decisions that facilitate successful teaching. had worked together for at least 1 year. all teams were formed by administrative assignment. In addition. Overall. as previous authors suggest (e. 2008 . through these mechanisms. whereas participative leadership functions to enhance innovation through the mechanisms of organizational commitment and empowerment.g. Therefore. this study postulates an integrated model: directive leadership functions to enhance in-role performance through the mechanism of organizational commitment. Preassessment interviews were conducted with the school principal..sagepub. 1993). I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2a: Directive leadership will be positively associated with schoolstaff team organizational commitment and not with school-staff team empowerment. and had an appointed/identified superior. Hypothesis 3a: School-staff team organizational commitment will mediate the directive leadership–in-role performance relationship. Hypothesis 2b: Participative leadership will be positively associated with both school-staff team organizational commitment and with school-staff team empowerment. who was asked to identify interactive disciplinary work teams. Hypothesis 3b: School-staff team organizational commitment and empowerment will mediate the participative leadership–innovation relationship. 1990. mathematics or science teams) and were identified as intact work teams. Finally. based on the above discussion. Firestone & Pennell. all teams in this study were disciplinary (e.. Accordingly. and this might strengthen their sense of self-efficacy and self-determination (Conley & Bacharach. METHOD Sample and Procedure The research sample included 140 teams selected from 140 different elementary schools in northern Israel. Downloaded from http://eaq. 22. Theoretically. 1998.3 years. Rousseau advocated the use of composition theories.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 785 Data were collected from 712 teachers.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. or education. all the study variables (leadership styles. organizational commitment. in-role performance. and a sense of commitment and empowerment. and empowerment. These measures were aggregated to the team level of analysis. and 21% a master’s degree. which specify the functional similarities of constructs at different levels. The average number of team members was 6. These demographic characteristics were similar to those found in comparable studies on teachers and superiors in Israel (Rosenblatt & Somech. The questionnaires were distributed to participants on site by a research assistant as follows: team members’ questionnaires covered measures of participative leadership. 1985). The average age of the participants was 37. most teachers (67%) held a bachelor’s degree in education.1 years (SD = 6. members of 140 teams.6) for team members and 100% for leaders. The data of the team leader included measures of the team’s in-role performance and innovation. That is. these demographic variables were not included in subsequent analyses to test the hypotheses. commitment. the particular discipline did not predict a significant portion of the variance in team empowerment. Response rates within teams ranged from 56% to 95% with a mean rate of 69% (SD = 15. There were 619 female and 93 male members of the teams altogether. age. Seventy-nine percent held a bachelor’s degree. Level of Analysis The hypotheses identified the team as the unit of analysis.8).9 years (SD = 9. 2008 . with average seniority of 12. With regard to their education.8) and the average school tenure was 9. such as the team leadership style. There are many reasons to expect team members to share perceptions concerning their work environment. In addition. organizational commitment. Somech & Bogler. or innovation.65 and SD was 6. Hence. and their corresponding 140 immediate leaders (the heads of the teams). These teams were supervised by 86% female leaders. and 10. In addition. all participants were asked to provide demographic information. job tenure. and empowerment) were aggregates of individual responses to the team level of analysis. Members’ Downloaded from http://eaq. Analyses of variance of the demographic variables confirmed no statistically significant differences across teams in gender.8 years.6% had a professional degree (equivalent to a junior college diploma. Data were obtained through a survey. 2002).2. directive leadership. with teaching credentials).sagepub. with whom they had worked for at least 6 months. Justification for aggregation is provided by theoretical as well as empirical arguments (Rousseau.4% had a master’s degree in education. Their average age was 39. Values are given in Table 1. Demaree. two separate scales developed by Sagie et al.93). The reliability level of alpha was . the clear delineation of team boundaries. “Your team leader provides inspiring strategic and team goals. To assess the frequency at which a leader displayed a participative/directive leadership style.sagepub. So it was critical to demonstrate high within-team agreement to justify using the team average as an indicator of a team-level variable (rwg. often brings up ideas about possibilities for the future”) (α = .’s (1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) specifically to the school setting.g. in the column rwg. Team members used a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). It includes six dimensions: involvement in decision making (10 items). The SPES measures teachers’ overall perception of personal empowerment. To measure teachers’ organizational commitment. Participative leadership (3 items) measures the extent of involvement in various decisions (e. Example items are. Teachers’ empowerment.. A value of . 1993). thereby creating shared norms and perceptions (George. the School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) of Short and Rinehart (1992) was used. for example. Organizational commitment. Jehn. To measure teachers’ personal empowerment. This instrument includes 15 items and refers to the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization. “I make decisions about the implementation Downloaded from http://eaq. Directive leadership (6 items) measures the extent to which the leader provides team members with a framework for decision making and action in line with the leader’s vision (e. 1993). & Wolf. All scales exceeded this criterion.786 Educational Administration Quarterly frequent interaction. “To what extent are you involved in solving problems in your team?” “To what extent are you involved in determining the goals and tasks of your team?”) (α = . Chadwick.” “Your team leader has vision.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7.. & Sherry. (2002) were used. I adapted Mowday et al.70 or above is suggested as a “good” amount of within-group interrater agreement (James et al. shared tasks. 1990. The scale was measured by the mean response to the 15 items. 2008 . The participants used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). and the long tenure of most of the teams should allow team members to adopt the views of the collective. Measures Participative/directive leadership..88).” and “I feel very little loyalty to this school” (reverse coded). 1997).88. James.g. “I talk about this school to my friends as a great school to work for. Second.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 787 of new programs in the school”. for example. working methods. Example items are. teaching methods. and intercorrelation matrix for the study variables. for example. A seven-item scale adopted from Settoon. role fulfillment. To tap into the multifaceted nature of team effectiveness.” The overall scale had reliability of .05). and professional competence. autonomy (4 items).” and “The team neglects aspects of the job whose fulfillment is obligatory” (reverse coded). and impact (6 items).com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. opportunities for professional growth (6 items).92. measures team in-role performance. RESULTS Table 1 shows the means. “The team adequately fulfills assigned duties. p < . The reliability level was . team in-role performance and innovation were studied. Team effectiveness. 2008 .83. “I am treated like a professional”. The team leader used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items reflect the extent to which in the previous 6 months the team had initiated changes in each of four job areas: work objectives. a positive and significant correlation was found between the two motivational mechanisms. “I believe that I have earned respect”. standard deviations. for example.” and “The team initiated improved teaching strategies and methods. “I have the freedom to make decisions on what is taught”. namely organizational commitment and empowerment (r = .88. and Liden (1996). no significant correlation was found between directive leadership and participative leadership (p > . Example items are.05).” The alpha reliability level was .21. “The team developed innovative ways of accomplishing work targets/objectives.” “The team meets formal performance requirements of the job. worded at the team level.sagepub. indicating that these two leadership approaches were not polar extremes of the same continuum but distinct independent constructs. for example. Team innovation was measured by a four-item scale adapted from West and Wallace (1991). “I believe that I make an impact. self-efficacy (6 items). status (6 items). and development of skills. “I believe that I am empowering students”. for both subscales. indicating relatively Downloaded from http://eaq. An examination of the intercorrelation patterns shown in Table 1 revealed several insights. First. for example. Bennett. The items refer to an overall evaluation of the team’s job performance. Personal empowerment score was obtained by the mean response to the 38 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 93.00 NOTE: N = 140.89 for empowerment.70 to .00 3 4 5 6 . df = 5.06 .70 to .35** 1.63 . p = .67 rwg .09 .39** .05.77 . By means of SEM. & Wolf.34 .71 to .33** . Finally. 2008 . The ranges of the reliability scores were .49 3. All variables range from 1 to 5. .69 SD .27.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. except for organizational commitment.36** 1.00.72 . albeit correlated.001. The overall model describes relationships between leadership styles (independent variables) and motivational mechanisms (mediating variables) and between motivational mechanisms and school-staff team’s effectiveness (dependent variables). 1993).001). motivational constructs. independent.71 to . Downloaded from http://eaq.001.11 .21). The results of the model with completely standardized path coefficients for the model are presented in Figure 2. . Organizational commitment 4.82 3. which ranges from 1 to 7. I examined the level of overall prediction of each of the measured variables suggested in the model and the exclusive. p < .05.91 5. the correlation between in-role performance and innovation was positive and significant (r = . The model showed a very strong fit with the data.32.00 .03 1.00 2 . GFI = 1. R2 = . The results of the analysis (see Figure 2) revealed that directive leadership was positively and significantly related to school-staff team’s in-role performance (β = .00 . each contained a unique aspect of school effectiveness. In-role performance 6. SRMR = .16 .79 .26.03. RMSEA = .81 . Hypotheses 1a and 1b were related to the relationships between leadership styles (participative/directive leadership) and school-staff team’s effectiveness (in-role performance/innovation). Innovation 3. the statistic rwg represents the reliability within groups averaged across all teams (James. *p < . Directive leadership 2. **p < .sagepub. and . Demaree.75 1 1. This model makes possible examination of a series of simultaneous dependent relationships and of simultaneous relationships between independent and dependent variables.27** 1.35 . Participative leadership 3. p < .90 for directive leadership. Reliabilities. separate contribution of each variable to each dimension of school-staff team’s effectiveness. This relation indicated that although the two dimensions had common variance. I conducted a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using the LISREL 8 computer program.07 .40** .90 for organizational commitment.21* 1.54 .38** .00.00 .788 Educational Administration Quarterly TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics. concerning the two dimensions of school effectiveness.91 for participative leadership. To test the study hypotheses.78 3.31 3. CFI = 1.014 . and Intercorrelation Matrix for the Study’s Variables M 1. Empowerment 5. χ2 = 1. 27. as expected. p < . A positive and significant relationship was found between directive leadership and organizational commitment (β = .22 Organizational commitment Empowerment .19) .44. Structural Equation Model of School-Staff Team Effectiveness NOTE: Dotted lines indicate nonsignificant paths. no significant relationship was found between participative leadership and organizational commitment. R2 = . Whereas organizational commitment would serve as a mediator in the directive leadership–in-role performance relationship (Hypothesis 3a).Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 789 Directive leadership .24) . not as predicted. These results supported the first two hypotheses concerning the distinct links of each leadership style with a specific effectiveness variable.21) .05.02 .24.001.001.24 (R2 = . p < . p < . 2008 .12 .21) Innovation Figure 2.39.26 (R2 = . R2 = .17) Participative leadership .48 In-role performance . However. Concerning the results of the link between motivational mechanism and school-staff team’s effectiveness.sagepub. whereas participative leadership was positively and significantly related to school-staff team’s innovation (β = . the third hypothesis suggested that the motivational mechanisms (organizational commitment and empowerment) would serve as a mediator in the relationship between leadership style and school-staff team’s effectiveness (Hypotheses 3a and 3b).24).27(R2 = .com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Finally.19).39 (R2 = .20) . Downloaded from http://eaq.17).44 (R2 = . and a positive and significant relationship was found between participative leadership and empowerment (β = . Hypotheses 2a and 2b concerned the relationships between leadership style and school-staff team’s motivational mechanism. R2 = .29 (R2 = . empowerment would serve as a mediator in the participative leadership–innovation relationship (Hypothesis 3b). a positive and significant relationship was found between organizational commitment and in-role performance (β = . These results emphasized the distinct effects of each leadership style on a specific motivational mechanism. teachers who operate in an Downloaded from http://eaq. the overall results of the analysis indicated that in both cases. & Ruekert. these results suggest that its advantage over the directive approach is not conclusive. Consequently. and a positive and significant relationship was found between empowerment and innovation (β = . by helping researchers and practitioners to move from “either/or” toward “both/and” approaches to thinking and working (Lewis et al. the leader faces difficulties in setting specific quantitative goals for teachers. participative leadership aims to facilitate innovation by promoting the motivational mechanism of teachers’ empowerment. the results indicated that motivational mechanism partly mediated the relationship between leadership style and school-staff team’s effectiveness. 1996. The results of this study suggest that examining participative and directive leadership as contrasting styles at the opposite ends of a single continuum falls short of fully capturing the leadership phenomenon. DISCUSSION The study reported here juxtaposed the directive leadership and the participative leadership approaches in an integrated model of school effectiveness. the direct (leadership style– school-staff team’s effectiveness) and indirect (leadership style–motivational mechanism–school-staff team’s effectiveness) effects were significant. recent educational reform movements often conclude that participative leadership is the preferred strategy for attaining school improvement. In this case. Walker. Specifically. which are typified as organizations with a loosely coupled structure. Consequently. in an attempt to improve our understating of the benefits and costs of each approach. Sirotnik & Kimball. Weick.. and the effectiveness of either leadership approach depends critically on the criteria for effectiveness that are determined (Olson.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Directive leadership aims to augment school-staff teams’ inrole performance via the arousal of the motivational mechanism of organizational commitment. However. overall. depending on the desired school outcome. and vice versa (Greenfield.05). Accordingly.29.sagepub. 2002). 1976). These results proved the effects of participative and directive leadership on school effectiveness to be a more complex matter.05).790 Educational Administration Quarterly p < . It thus makes several additions to our knowledge in the realm of school effectiveness. namely that each leadership style promotes a distinct but potentially complementary approach to managing school-staff teams. First. 2008 . namely the activities of worker A have little effect on B’s performance. These results seem especially important for schools. p < . 1995). this study offers a basis for ongoing conceptual development. 1995. com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Zirger & Maidique. assimilate. 1987). 1995). These results join others (e. At the same time. by its creation of a strong situation. scholars and practitioners (e. whereas weak situations do not provide clear incentive. when environments are ambiguously structured in terms of appropriate behavior. Andrews & Rothman. Therefore. individual predispositions are relied on to direct actions. 1999) have stressed that the educational system.” such as explicit milestones. participation among individuals.. However. 2001). the directive leadership approach. will augment the organization’s capacity for making novel linkages and associations beyond what any individual can achieve. This provides them with extensive planning and calculated step-by-step implementation (e.. reduces resistance to Downloaded from http://eaq. which convert school objectives into interim goals (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi. Maes. strong situations constrain the expression of personality.. innovation needs the absorptive capacity to recognize. Agrell & Gustafson. or normative expectations of what behaviors are desired. and the dissemination of “best practices. each of whom possesses diverse and different knowledge. Carter & West. and apply the creative ideas. As Cohen and Levinthal (1990) noted. 2008 . 2002. But in weak situations. 1990). 1996. 1998b) in pointing out that participation is critical for a team’s ability to turn new ideas and individually held knowledge into innovative procedures. Support for this finding might be gained from application of Mischel’s (1977) theory of strong/ weak situations. 1998a. and products.. As mentioned. this benefit of using a directive leadership approach may incur a cost: These findings illustrated the limitation of using a directive approach in promoting innovation in school-staff teams. Participation stimulates the exchange and integration of information (Stasser & Titus.g. services. This is important because.sagepub.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 791 ambiguous work environment might benefit from a directive approach. recently.g. strong situations convey strong cues for the desired behaviors. Vandenberghe. support. Thus. so behavior is more a function of the situation than of personality. these findings indicated that strong emphasis on the participative leadership approach rather than on the directive approach was found to encourage teachers to engage more in innovative practices in curriculum decision making and pedagogy. The results of this study may suggest that the use of such directive style settles unnecessary ambiguity and uncertainty and provides guidelines for teachers’ in-role performance. According to Mischel. has to be innovative to maintain and or enhance effectiveness within rapidly changing and challenging environments (De Dreu & West. The absorptive capacity will be higher when team members participate in decision making. & Ghesquiere. facilitates performance by increasing the salience of situational cues for expected behaviors and neutralizing the effect of individual differences.g. 2002). like other organizations. disciplined problem solving (Lewis et al. 1995).792 Educational Administration Quarterly change. These results are consistent with the repeated claim in the literature (e. inconsistent with previous research (e. these results. White. 2001). These results reinforce recent work (e. and articulate how the vision can be reached through monitoring explicit milestones. As leaders link teachers’ behaviors and goals to a mission and vision. 2008 . 1994) that teachers’ empowerment aims to promote school Downloaded from http://eaq. and products (De Dreu & West. Firestone & Pennell. and facilitates team members’ commitment to team decisions (Louis & Smith. 2002) suggesting that many of the performance benefits of directive leadership are motivational in nature. Sagie et al. 1997. which served as a motivational mechanism that mediated the participative approach–innovation relationship. These results suggest that inviting teachers to join in the decision-making process enhances teachers’ opportunities to develop a sense of self-efficacy and selfdetermination (Conley & Bacharach.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. 1992).. organizational commitment was not associated with the participative approach and therefore did not function as mediator in the participative leadership– innovation relationship.sagepub. However. With regard to the participative leadership approach. which in turn fosters teachers’ willingness to exert extra efforts to accomplish school goals (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi. Wu & Short. 1996). as professionals they need to be recognized as experts in their fields. services. That is. or are motivated to turn new ideas and individually held knowledge into innovative procedures.g. and feel that they are engaged in meaningful work and are respected by others. these findings showed that. 1990. have a sense of authority about what they do and how they do it. Short & Greer.. indicated that directive leadership was associated with school-staff team in-role performance directly. Our results support previous research that advocated that to improve teachers’ innovativeness.g. 1993. as expected. such leaders have a strong positive influence on teachers’levels of identification. 1996. With regard to the directive leadership approach. participative leadership was associated with school-staff team innovation directly. Short et al. but also indirectly through organizational commitment..g. This in turn strengthens their belief in their own effectiveness. but also indirectly through teachers’ empowerment. which might affect whether they engage in “out-of-the-box” thinking. try to discover new opportunities and challenges. one important role for a directive leader is to help the team to approach the task more effectively by ensuring that there is a high level of commitment among teachers to their school’s objectives.. Second.. 1992). as expected. Blase & Blase. they help teachers to see the importance of transcending their own self-interest for the sake of the school’s mission. the value of this study is in improving the understanding of the motivational mechanisms that might explain how each leadership approach is related to school effectiveness. Therefore. the study did not examine competing models but tested a single model. Recent research suggests that self-reported data are not as limited as was previously believed and that people often accurately perceive their social environment (Alper. for example. 1986). the study was no different from previous investigations (Ancona & Caldwell. experimentally examined in previous studies. & Law. the study of subordinates’ perceptions of the leader’s behavior may be most useful in examining linkages between organizational variables and leadership styles.sagepub. as our starting point was a theoretical framework. For example. the relationships were likely to be reciprocally causal over time. Moreover. 2008 . Tjosvold. this leader- Downloaded from http://eaq. but we can’t conclude that the relationships were causal. with regard to leadership style. In this. Finally. the relationship between team’s innovation and teachers’ empowerment.. it might be possible to formulate other models that would fit as well as or better than the proposed model. both organizational commitment and empowerment were treated as global constructs. our causal inferences do seem the most logical. 2001). Yukl (1994) suggested that in contrast to most research. However. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research Although these findings are encouraging for school effectiveness research. in this study. Nevertheless. 1998). Moreover. in this study. Further research should use other sources for evaluating team performance (Lovelace et al. 2001). Lovelace et al.. I do not have data to show that these perceptual measures of team performance are predictors of objective measures of performance..Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 793 effectiveness by promoting fulfillment of human growth needs of selfactualization. the data were largely self-reported and hence subject to bias. the likelihood of common method variance was low because the criterion variables (in-role performance and innovation) were obtained from different sources (heads of the teams) (Podsakoff & Organ. Because the data were cross-sectional. although no relationship was found between directive leadership and the global construct of empowerment. one might suggest that each leadership is distinctively more related to certain dimensions of these constructs than to others.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. In many cases. this study was limited by its mode of operation. 1992. At the same time. Moreover. we know that there were associations between the variables in the study. which concerned leaders’ perceptions in their description of the behaviors that they themselves used. A second limitation of the study involves its ability to predict causal relationships. Therefore. Further research in more controlled settings is needed before causal inference concerning the relationships that were observed in this study can be made with more certainty (Lovelace et al. 2001). First. . Managing tensions between directive and participative activities.. Maeroff. 2002. This “both/and” approach joins the recent call (e. 1988).sagepub.. 1993).g. It is suggested that principals might combine directive and participative behaviors concurrently to enhance school effectiveness..794 Educational Administration Quarterly ship style is perhaps not related to the dimension’s involvement in decision making or autonomy but is positively related to professional growth.g. The results provide important evidence that the distinct demands for in-role performance and innovation require a more flexible and elaborate repertoire of activities (Lewis et al... The findings also call leaders to invest in enhancing teachers’ motivational mechanisms rather than focusing only on the bottom line of the outcomes. Lewis et al. Sagie et al. as well as by promoting teachers’ organizational commitment. Moreover. Further studies should examine if specific dimensions of each construct have distinctive relationships with leadership styles. Yet. 2002.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Short & Greer. although teachers’ organizational commitment and empowerment proved significant motivational mechanisms among school-staff teams. such as internal and external communication. Durham et al. Quinn. approach to enhance school effectiveness. whereas a sense of self-determination and self-efficacy may be translated into high levels of Downloaded from http://eaq. the results of this study suggest that each promotes a distinct. The results suggest that school effectiveness could be managed by fostering intrinsic task motivation among teachers. Leaders need to recognize that the feeling that teachers have about their schools may be manifested through their in-role performance (Firestone & Pennell. 1997) to prefer participation to the directive leadership style. bottom-up and top-down processes. 2002) to reconsider authors’ sweeping recommendation (e.. 2008 . and flexibility and discipline may provide a key to teachers’ high performance. 1988. This conceptual framework juxtaposed the directive and participative leadership approaches to accentuate their differences. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As the educational system environment becomes more dynamic and competitive. rather than depicting these styles as mutually exclusive.g. Further studies should examine the effect of leadership style on cognitive processes. leaders face new challenges such as meeting persistent demands for school innovation and better in-role performance. but potentially complementary. in an attempt to extend our understanding of how to manage schoolstaff teams to use their benefits. 1997). recent work has suggested that both the participation and the direction approaches can have cognitive effects (e. MA: Addison-Wesley. D.. 52. A. W. (1993). West (Ed. (1997). 37. Handbook of work group psychology (pp. S.. Armenakis. In M. Phi Delta Kappan. Organizational Science. F. London: Wiley. 506-512.. C. K. T. Cohen. Cultivating innovation: How a charter/district network is turning professional development into professional practice. B. & Blase. 29. A.. 128-152. & Law. Boyle. (1990). A. (1992).. S. S. Alper. Reading. Blase.). R. & Mossholder. (1996). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. REFERENCES Agrell. & Levinthal. R.. Chatman. J. Montreal. Stress in health professionals: Psychological and organizational causes and interventions (pp. 956-974. Brouillette. 35. (1997).com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. & Gustafson.).. J. & Flynn. J.. M.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 795 innovation (West.. W. 71. 117-145. F.. Journal of School Leadership. Consortium for Chicago School Research. & Harris. A. M. J.sagepub. Academy of Management Journal. J. 2002). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Beckhard. (1996). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. & West. Small Group Research.. J. In J. (1993). Tjosvold. G. Facilitative school leadership and teacher empowerment: Teacher’s perspective. Creating readiness for organizational change. Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. 9. 33-52. F. 569-591. J. A view from the elementary schools: The state of Chicago school reform. A.. Chichester. 74. 605-622. S. 83. A. & Rothman. Firth-Cozens & R. S. 46. (2001). D. 1. D. M.. From school-site management to participatory schoolsite management. Ancona. Q. Bryk.. our findings emphasize the importance of shaping organizational conditions under which teachers work to enhance teachers’ motivation. Andrews. Downloaded from http://eaq. effectiveness and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. L. R. Payne (Eds. (1998). Bass. 44. Conley. Human Relations. 191-202). J. Easton. Phi Delta Kappan. Rollow. UK: Wiley. 130-139. Who defines “democratic leadership”? Three high school principals respond to site-based reforms. Commonalities between perceptions and practice in models of school decision-making systems in secondary schools in England and Wales. 681-703. & Brown. Therefore. which in turn will affect school effectiveness. M. D. (1998). A. K. & Bacharach. Boyle. R. Innovation and creativity in work groups. Reflexivity. Carter. Harris. Kerbow... A. 634-665. 2008 . Administrative Science Quarterly. (1990). 583-601. & Caldwell. S. 7. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. 539-544. Administrative Science Quarterly.. Barrett. Chicago: University of Chicago. & West. (1998b).. A. A.. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. (2002). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. D. K. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. G. (1987). 525-579). A. P. Social Psychology of Education. B. S. & Sebring. (1999). A. Sharing the burden: Teamwork in health care settings. M. Carter. G. Canada. (1998a).. A. The effective utilization of intellectual abilities and job-relevant knowledge in group performance: Cognitive resource theory and an agenda for the future. Fullan. and differential incentive policies. A. E. Staw & L. & West. P. 75. D. (2002). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Review of Educational Research.. and perceptions of the leader. Knight. New York: Wiley. In C. 489-525. U. decisions. George. 88. J. R. Teacher commitment. 68. 54. Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership. B. Participation in goal-setting: A motivational approach. Greenfield.. (1989). Lafferty & E. L. 1191-1201. (1997). & House. F. M.. (1991). Fiedler. W. 5-29. International handbook of participation in organizations (Vol. (1999).). (2003). Gaziel. A. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Effects of leader role. J. organizational learning and efficiency in the growth of knowledge. Druskat. Godard. G. F. C. 61-85. Oxford. (1990). 2008 . Rosenstein (Eds. Belief. (1993). MA: Addison-Wesley. affect and behavior in groups. De Dreu. M.796 Educational Administration Quarterly Cropanzano. & Erez. K.). 27. 38. J. A goal hierarchy model of personality. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. UK: Oxford University Press. J. (1995). D. & Pennell. (1975). (1988). Academy of Management Journal. In W. 46.. (1993). W. V. & Tabrizi. Edmonson. motivation.. (1997)... E. (1990). M.. Educational Administration Quarterly. (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Eisenhardt. Administrative Science.. 3). C. International Review of Education. Fiedler. & Locke.. B. Fishbein. Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making. working conditions.. C. Reading.). A. G. Drach-Zahavy. M. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. L. R. and leadership. Robertson (Eds. 203-231. and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 84-110. 44. D. Communication Research. (1995). I. Journal of Applied Psychology. Cruz. 289-304. (1993). M. Administrative Science Quarterly. Cummings (Eds. J. Durham. 667682. 44.). Personality. & Smith. Leadership theory and research: A report of progress. C. M.. Change forces. M. E. A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. 776-805. efficacy.. 40. 350-383. 349-369. Erez. Schooling. N. H. High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. & Goldman. (1999). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. R.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. James. Educational Administration Quarterly. In B. Henningsen. C. J. pp. School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness.. intention. (2001). 26. CT: JAI. Firestone. & Weeler. (2001). 31. 63. team-set goal difficulty. Evers. K. Rethinking power in schools. 73-92). & Citera. & Azjen. Dunlap. 462-474. 435-457. Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Cooper & I. Chapman (Ed. Applied Psychology: An International Review. W. School-based decision-making and management (pp. 132-149). C. A. K. Greenwich. 13. London: Falmer Press. M. and tactics on team effectiveness. attitude. M. Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. R. 267-322). International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. In J. 319-333. V. M. M. London: Falmer Press. The impact of directive leadership on group information sampling. D. 72. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 3. S. B. R. D. Lovelace. Vandenberghe. B. The innovation marathon: Lessons from high technology firms. L. B. & Smith. Restructuring: Post modernity and the prospects for educational change. 78. Academy of Management Journal. R.. To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence. Maes. I. M. Atlanta. L. J. & West. Academy of Management Journal. M. G. NASSP Bulletin. & Sherry. 537-550. pp. Chadwick. 2008 . T. Englewood Cliffs. G. 3. Journal of Education Policy. Welsh.sagepub. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managed working teams. Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. & Hogan. & Wolf.. Maximizing cross-functional new product team’s innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Klecker. & Weingart. 45. 81-89. G. & C.. F. L. 944-954. (1993). 42. 49. D. 119-152).. 779-793. A.. S. 106-128. Path-goal theory of leadership. 72. & Sims.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Louis. & Wierdsma.). (1994). Contemporary Business. G. A. (2001). H. Kahai. 50. 44. P.. A... Shapiro. K. P. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp.. E. Sosik. Patterson. A “bulletin” special. 8. J. (1998). G. Drenth. (1997). (1997). UK: Psychology Press. James.. A. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. K. Another look at the dimensionality of the school participant empowerment scale. (1974). A theory of goal setting and task performance. (2001). C.. J. 546-564. R. J. (1990). 287-305. G. & Green. H. Jehn. (1987). L. 208-218.. (1999). P. Hogan. Dehler. & Ledbetter. Journal of Curriculum Studies.. Personnel psychology. M. M. 121-146. and conflict on workgroup outcomes. 22. T. What do we know about leadership? American Psychologist. & Schoonhoven. The imperative of complementarity between the school level and the classroom level in educational innovation. J. (2002).. W. M.M.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 797 Griffin. Locke. 297-324). Lewis. R... 52-54. R. New York: Teachers College Press. & Avolio. 9. G. 661-677. C. 56-60. B. J. & Latham. K. M. (1994). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Teacher empowerment: A step toward professionalization. B. Personnel Psychology. & Avolio. 493-504. I. W. J. The role of the principal in a shared decision-making school: A critical perspective. Curphy. individual demographic dissimilarity. Downloaded from http://eaq. R. Job satisfaction and team work: The role of supervisor support. Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Participative management. Hove. Johnson. Administrative Science Quarterly. S.). A. M. de Wolff (Eds. Educational and Psychological Measurement.. B.. C. Maeroff. M. J. House.F. (1999). A. E. (1992).. Koopman. Newmann (Ed. (1988). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. R. & Ghesquiere. Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of product management. GA.. NJ: Prentice Hall. Jung. Jelinek. E. G. (1998). International Journal of Conflict Management.. P.. D. M.. Journal of Applied Psychology. A. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. In P. 32. In F. 47-65. Manz. & Loadman. & Mitchell. C. 306-309. Hargreaves. Academy of Management Journal. (1990). Thierry. (1993).. Demaree.. 58.. Cultivating teacher engagement: Breaking the iron law of social class. 31. L. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 224-247. 7. D. Olson.798 Educational Administration Quarterly Marks. (1998).. (1988). & Organ. 23. Steers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mischel. Journal of Organizational Behavior. McDonough. 333352). U. Journal of Vocational Behavior. W. D. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Science and Engineering. Z. Managing the development of new products. (1994). O’Hair. 1646. 303-320. D. A case study of empowering principal behavior. CA: Corwin Press. Mowday. R. Education. (2001). H. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. S. D. T. M. M. Downloaded from http://eaq. M. F.sagepub. 48-62.. W. (1985). J. 8.. M. Sagie. (1995). J. & Barczak. D. S. R. & Fiedler. 1-37. O. R. 2008 . Leadership style and group creativity. 3.). W. N. A. (1996). (1995). S. 19. A. Journal of School Leadership. K.. E. Human Performance. Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Contradictory or compatible practices? Applied Psychology: An International Review. 12... Walker. Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. J. (1986). E. Murphy. M. Te’eni. Rinehart. Research in Organizational Behavior. F. 59. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 14. 505-532. & Porter. 51-64. G. C. Endler (Eds. S.. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Podsakoff. Amichai-Hamburger. M. L. Hillsdale. 62. Thousand Oaks. An empirical assessment of the loose-tight leadership model: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. (1997).. 9.. Speeding up new product development: The effects of leadership style and source of technology. E. 31. C. The effects of leader’s communication style and participative goal setting on performance and attitudes. S. L. reading recovery teachers. (1993). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. and regular classroom teachers. 203-211. Rousseau. P. A. Cognitive resource theory and utilization of the leader’s and group members’ technical competence. 46.. reality. & Reitzug. R. 387-452. 237-255. & Beck. E. C. 7. Parker. & Short. S. In D. Y. Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in international psychology (pp. Rosenblatt. Self-report in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management.. (1979). Quinn. Sagie. Restructuring schools for democracy: Principals’ perspective. A. (1997). American Educational Research Journal. (1998). M. Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. (1997). R. & Somech. R. & Ruekert. 245-275. III. P. 266-286. 72. (1991). Work behavior of Israeli elementary-school principals: Expectations vs. 34. J. 531-544.. E.. M..com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. Organizing for effective new product development: The moderating role of product innovativeness. (1992). 114. (1997). J. I. 570-580. W. 1107-1121. Educational Administration Quarterly.. O’Hara. Zaidman. (1994).. A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Murphy. & Wall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Louis.. Rosenau. U. D. Job satisfaction and empowerment among teacher leaders. G. The measurement of organizational commitment. K. & Schwartz. & Moran. (1977). Magnusson & N. (2002). The interaction of person and situation. Leadership Quarterly. Journal of Marketing. Sagie.. A. Reitzug. London: Sage. Peterson. 283-307. and perceptions. M.. (1990). 341-371. 38. K. (1996). R. 61. (1996). M. W. A. Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.. (2002). 219-227. Kirkpatrick. M. & Melvin. G. III.. Greer. Handbook of leadership. J. Short. P. N. (2002). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. (1996). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Wagner. Innovation and creativity in work: Psychological and organizational strategies. 1442-1465. West. Preparing educators for leadership: In praise of experience. & Brownlee-Conyers. 312-330. 951-960. D.. P. K. Wall. M. S. & Bogler. Thomas. 53. Journal of School Leadership.. Applied Psychology. 6. (1998). Lazarus. Stasser. R. & Velthouse. J. (1992). (1995). K. 81-93. (1994). Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. M. London: Wiley. Creating empowered schools: Lessons in change. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1990). Locus of knowledge as a determinant of the effect of participation on performance. Terry. (1994). & Kimball. 1995-1996. 38. 51. 8. W. 483-504. 81. 49-64. Sirotnik. (1995). & Liden. & Titus. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal. (1996). A. A. (1996).com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. T. K. M. (1995). A. E. R. Spreitzer. G. (1997). A. In M. P. 38. (2002). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (1974). Somech.. T. C. Empowerment.. & Rinehart. and effectiveness. School-based decision making and the empowerment of secondary school teachers. Short. and validation. J. 666-681. 21. R.. Short. Columbus: Merrill Publishing.. J. M. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. A.. 15. 39. Weick. Journal of School Leadership.). Somech. B. M. A. Journal of Educational Research. In R. Salas (Eds. affect. Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions. Tjosvold... J. Cognitive elements of empowerment. J. Guzzo & E. Educational Administration Quarterly. 38-52. M. A. Educational Administration Quarterly. 52. Explicating the complexity of participative management: An investigation of multiple dimensions. 355-424. Instrumental outcomes of schoolbased participative decision making. (1987). L. P. Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Downloaded from http://eaq. 32(4). A. P.. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Smylie. 1-19. 12. School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. A. & Locke. Settoon.. Academy of Management Journal. 181-191. M.sagepub. G. S. An International Review. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. West. A. 18. New York: Free Press. Spreitzer. W. 180-201. leader-member exchange. R. V. A. The social psychology of innovation in groups. 2008 . measurement. Academy of Management Review. & Rinehart. S. Bennett.. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support. 276-288. and employee reciprocity. & Greer. Cooperation theory. (1976). Stogdill. Academy of Management Review. 555-577. West & J.Somech / DIRECTIVE VERSUS PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP 799 Scully. 19.. Farr (Eds. J.). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts. constructive controversy. Administrative Science Quarterly. M. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. A. Academy of Management Journal. M. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development. How high and low self-empowered teachers work with colleagues and school principals. Academy of Management Review. P. 30. 69-82. A. 14. Yammarino. Wu. (1992). & Maidique. White. She is the head of the Educational Administration Department at the University of Haifa.. V. & Bandura. (1994). and organizational citizenship behavior at the individual.. Wood. 85-89. Social cognitive theory of organizational management..sagepub. team.. F. 21(4). Wilson. Individualized and group-based views of participation in decision making. (1996). 25. 398-413. The relationship of empowerment to teacher job commitment and job satisfaction. S.). Zirger. 17. Journal of Instructional Psychology. J. Innovation in healthcare teams. Downloaded from http://eaq. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. T.. 303-315. R.com at University of Haifa Library on October 7. P.. (1992). the Israel Institute for Technology. and organizational levels. & Short. S. Group & Organization Management. M. M. 361-384. Journal of Educational Thought. 2008 . C. (1991). Management Science. team work. Yukl. A.800 Educational Administration Quarterly West. 36. in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management at the Technion. G. Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. J. Leadership in organizations (3rd ed. Wheelwright. Englewood Cliffs. 99-118. K. M. (1989). & Clark. A model of new product development: An empirical test. A. (1990). Anit Somech earned her Ph. J. (1996). New York: Free Press. 867-888. Her current research interests include participative leadership. & Naughton. J.D. B. & Coolican. British Journal of Social Psychology.. 14. A. Israel. NJ: Prentice Hall. M. & Wallace.